LOL - I wrote my thoughts in the middle of the night, in the midst of my being quite ill with a nasty virus. So when I awoke today I was concerned there would be a torrent of hate comments :-)
As good as I am at ranting uncontrollably on Twitter in the most vile ways at those I think are asshats, I utterly LOVE TechDirt and the TechDirt community for the intelligence and the passion that most here provide.
Copy-restriction is an excellent description of how I see it as well. As I've stated in other comments, there are many cases where, even when the author is alive, others should have access and opportunity.
I do not, however, believe that, as you state, "the right to copy specific works and use them without permission is instead taken away from everyone else". It's not taken away unless an already public-domain work is usurped by unethical profit-mongers.
Until it's in the public domain, the public has not yet held possession to enough extent to have the right to profit from it without substantial derivation or enhancement (the fair percentage of which itself could require ten thousand hours debate).
So until it DOES pass into the public domain, non-copy-restriction holders (original or heir), to at least a certain degree, are the only rights holders commercially. And thus nothing is "restored" upon entry into public domain.
The work is "owned" in that it took the author what? a year, five years out of their life? Probably caused untold emotional, psychological, physical and financial toll on the author, their family... Hypothetically then - 5 hours a day of writing, 300 days a year, for five years - seven thousand five hundred hours of life. Gone. Given to the work.
Non copy-restriction holders benefit greatly from that effort, in exchange for pennies. As much as I believe in societal and global justice, I do not believe it should extend to the point of constraining the value received for that sacrifice. (again, as limited to certain aspects of copy-restriction)
If someone consumes the work that my father wrote in Random Country with Lax/No Copyright Laws, I have not been harmed or lost anything at all. I do not notice it or perceive the use at all.
Now THAT I can agree on for the most part. "Piracy" to me, is a non-issue. No - let me retract that. "Piracy", to me, is just a facet of market value perception. I charge a fee I think the market will bear. If part of the market "pirates" a copy and shares it and I am unaware of that, so be it. If nobody buys it, so be it.
Either I am capable of producing a work so great, so valued, I have the maturity and conscious faith that enough people will WILLINGLY compensate me reasonably for that.
Where my own thinking goes hazy though is what if I don't make any money from it, and that happens BECAUSE a "pirated" copy becomes so accessible that nobody bothers to consider paying me.
Even then though, I lean on Mike's overall take that this is how the world should be and that it's up to me to find those creative opportunities to offer value beyond the base work itself, so that I can monetize.
Either way, purely from my own perspective, all of the above comprise, at least partly, my extrapolation that heirs deserve the opportunity of benefiting from my five thousand hours of sacrifice. Especially since I quite likely was not around to parent them, and thus they too sacrificed, without a choice in the matter.
"You see I'm not against the notion of copyright. I'm against the current implementation." Oh in many ways we are in total agreement. Abuse of copyright to prevent fair use cases, IP trolls, threats and takedowns prior to due process of law... Many issues with copyright are severely abused every day.
It's the core principle of profiting from a parent or grandparent's work specifically that I'm focused in on. And we both have reasonable personal views that differ, that's the biggest issue of all.
What gives one person the right to decide the length of financial benefit? Why is $500,000 a valid number to draw the line at? It's arbitrary and only fair in the eyes of those who agree to that number.
I agree with the concept that it's different in many ways. Quantum physics teaches that it's all of the same originating substance anyhow though. For example, quantum non-localized consciousness (a scientific theory) makes the case that even thoughts are part of the connectedness that makes up physical substance as well.
I'm merely coming from that which I believe are commonalities, not the differences.
Speaking in regard to differences, I'll offer this.
Copyright need not have ALL of the same rights as physical property. The right to create derivative works, perhaps. Or already existing opportunities such as "fair use".
"which do the heirs value more? The silver, or that the city should thrive and be a pleasant place in which to live?"
By that logic, heirs should have the right to inherit nothing. It should all be turned over to the city. Except even then, only the city benefits. What about the next town over? or a poor village half-way around the world? Even then it's not a true distribution to "all".
you can enjoy the house. My position is that you shouldn't have the right to profit from it without compensation under some circumstances.
My family paid $100,000, or $1 million (or Euros or whatever). Individual copies of a book cost pennies relatively speaking. The original work of the book probably took years of the author's life to produce.
wow. I love this one just as much. I agree that nobody can own property in that sense. Heck, nobody is even a real native of a particular country. Except the first people born in Africa where everyone on earth eventually migrated from.
Yet we live in a world where civilized society dictates that property "ownership" is a concept that serves a valid purpose related to the ability that people have to live in a space that others should not have the right to trespass on.
If you think that's not a valid reason to at least establish some sort of boundary lines, then I would have to assume that you live on the streets or in the parks, and not in an apartment or home. And you don't believe in compensating someone for building a shelter for you to live in. Or a government to provide you running water or electricity or heat.
But let's go that path - everyone consents that buying a property at the very least allows you the society approved right to not have that space trespassed just because someone else wants to.
Let's say I "own" that property. What you're implying is when I die, my family should move out, even if it means they have to live on the streets.
At least that's what I take from reading your diatribe.
"revert back to the public where all art ultimately belongs".
I love hearing this argument. "It's art, and art belongs to the masses."
Why? You and most who take this position claim "how much poorer would education and culture be today".
Not everyone agrees with you on that. Some don't agree because they believe that if they create the art, they deserve compensation for others to have access to it. And in the case of information that benefits readers and enriches their lives, it's not just because it's "art". It's often "lessons I've learned the hard way, and if you read this, you won't have to learn it the hard way".
That value deserves compensation while the writer is alive. Why should their family stop benefiting from the profit when the writer dies? It's information that's still just as valid afterward. People still benefit. Your view is "at some point, people who benefit shouldn't have to pay to get access."
As a writer I find that insulting. If I wanted to make it freely available from the beginning, I would have. If I want to charge for it until I die, I should have the right. If I want my children to continue to benefit when I die, because they become my living representatives after I die, they should have the right to do so. Regardless of whether they do anything further.
Once I've written a book, if it's that good, I don't have to do any marketing or promotion after a certain point, even while I'm alive. It's gone viral. So my heirs shouldn't have to then do something either.
So in that narrow context of copyright, as far as I personally am concerned, I should have the right to pass that copyright on down through the generations of my family. It should, in that circumstance, only pass into the public domain when that chain ceases.
Because in your thinking, I shouldn't have the right to even profit from it the moment I've stopped working. You claim there should be a "reasonable" length for copyright. You didn't write it. You didn't create it. You just want to benefit from it without having to pay for it or earn the right to access it.
Of course there are other copyright situations that are stupid. Taking already public domain content and then trying to force people to buy it for example. But if its not already in the public domain, people should have the right to reasonable compensation if they're the ones who created it.
We can argue all day long about how to go about allowing others to build on the work. And I agree that there has got to be a better way legally for others to have the right to do so. But pure consumption? Or pure sharing? No - those are not the same.
Then there's the reality that "most art is crap" anyhow.
that's an argument made based on the premise that someone can earn millions playing a game while the next guy can only earn $10 an hour scrubbing dishes. Except the person earning millions playing a game is a very rare breed in the world, while it takes almost no skill, offers infinitely less risk to health to scrub dishes.
Are there outrageous problems in wages in the world? absolutely. Yet the overall argument is not sound except from people outraged that someone else can make a fortune while most cannot.
Going even further though, if a single copyrighted work generates millions in revenue, whether during the writer's lifetime or after building up steam many decades later, it's still generated from the work the writer put in.
I am by no means a copyright maximalist (people should have the right to sing the happy birthday song at a 2 year olds birthday party without having to pay a royalty), however I think its outrageous that an author, songwriter or creator of a work that is so popular as to have the capacity to even generate that much money is so rare a human on this earth that they, and their heirs should absolutely have the right to reap the reward.
Okay - I contemplated this. See my reply two slots up to Seegras - house, copyright. Both are property. What justifies one being designated needing to be taken from the generational heir chain because "it benefits society, and that is more valid than the family" compared to the other, and who gets to decide that under what circumstance?
it's purely subjective. Because as I said initially, personally, I think Gatsby isn't all that important to society. Nor is the overwhelming majority of content that has been copyrighted.
And I'll even go further in my outrageous "what if". I would also argue that copyright could be seen as a family treasure given the sentimental value more than the financial value. In that regard, copyrighted content is no different than the silver jewelry.
Do we take the silver jewelry away from the heirs because "our city could use the money to help balance the budget"?
setting aside the fact that it was quite painful to translate the speech by Macaulay, I don't disagree with the core tenets, except when I step back into a detached perspective.
The house. My parents paid for it in full. It was theirs. We inherited it. Why should we not have the right to then pass that down endlessly through the generations?
The claim that copyright is different under the premise that it is in the public's interest to break the inheritance chain doesn't wash when the copyright is acknowledged as having been created (or bought), then passed along to heirs. It's property. It was rightfully and lawfully and morally created or purchased.
Should the house be taken from the children or grandchildren "because we have a bunch of homeless people so letting them live in it is in the public's interest"?
Purely a hypothetical. At what point does the "public interest" outweigh the passing along of property from generation to generation?
ah- VPN as law circumvention... now that would make for a great trial. Well not great, except in the mind of the prosecuting attorney and the corporate attorneys. But the thread on TechDirt would be great for the rest of humanity...
I can't believe you referenced public domain in this discussion. You know that's going to draw a troll to this thread who is now going to be obligated to label us all fascists or anarchists again, right? < sigh >
The sadness of Aaron's loss has just gone to a whole new level. And here we thought her husbands tweets were both outrageous and badly timed.
That Ortiz has now confirmed, on the record, that she has no regard to even acknowledge the ramifications, and in fact stands by her choices is beyond deplorable.
I've been praying for a long time that we find a way, in this country, to fix what is a completely broken system, given how many over-the-line problems exist. Now, I pray that Aaron's death will help propel us as a nation to get to the fixing sooner rather than later.
How much more loss does there need to be? How much more tragedy?
everyone so far has talked from 3rd person perspective. So let me set you straight form a 1st person account.
As a young adult, I was diagnosed with clinical depression. For many years, I routinely got into trouble, and faced "consequences" for my actions. Fired from jobs. Lost relationships. Lost friendships.
Nothing I did to help my own situation, and nothing others did to encourage me to get help mattered. Sure, sometimes it would get better. For a while. But inevitably, depression would set in again.
For me, it led to drug use. Rampant. Insane. Completely self destructive. And no matter the law, the ramifications, the harm it caused me or those around me, I did it anyway.
Most of the time, I did NOT seek help from others, let alone treatment.
When I finally reached the point of wanting to commit suicide, I told nobody. Those who had concern for my well being didn't know what to do. And nothing that was tried when I was offered help, ever came close to "fixing" me.
In my particular situation, that all changed when I was invited to 12 step recovery. The first time I attended a meeting, I was zoned out. Heard NOTHING that was said. And I went right back out and continued my life, thinking all the while, "I can deal with this". And "this is too embarrassing to talk about with others". And "that might work for them, but I'm different."
Six months later, I was invited to a meeting and went. Didn't even consciously understand why I was going, only that I "had to go".
Over the course of the next several years, I learned that others who really were like me, had found hope, a way to heal and become healthy, and that I too could possibly live that way.
It required completely relearning how to process thoughts. Completely relearning how to process emotion. I had to completely change my entire life.
Eventually I relapsed (after many years), and the depression, and destructive ways came back with a vengeance.
It took me NINE YEARS of living hell, again, to remember that I didn't have to live that way. Even though I had already experienced a better life. I'm blessed because that realization was 8 and a half years ago. And now, all these years later, I'm a productive member of society.
Yet even still, occassionally, I suffer from depression. From very wrong first thoughts. From very intense, unhealthy emotions. And I know now, from direct experience, that triggers are real.
And I've attended enough funerals of dear and close friends over the years that I know, for a fact, that the overwhelming majority of people who suffer similarly in any regard, do not seek help. And even those who do, mostly fail to "get it". And even those who "get it" mostly relapse. And most of those die. From suicide. Or from suicide by drugs, whether they be liquid or solid or gas.
And no matter how much family, friends, co-workers think they can help or can prevent it, more often than not, they are helpless to really make enough of a difference to save someone.
THAT is mental illness. No friend, no family, no doctor, no treatment, no pill can help all of the time, or for long enough in most cases. Because mental illness is too complex for humans to so far understand. And mental illness is still too much of a stigmatizing disability that society has yet to be able to resolve it in most situations.
So please. Having never lived in my shoes, I ask you. Stop making such assumptions.
wait. you can decompile windows? If you have the skill to do that, you should have the freedom from prosecution to do it. because holy crap that's a pretty amazing thing.
Then again, I'm not very skilled at programming, never hacked anything in my life, and actually like daylight. And talking with women. So I guess "amazing" is a relative concept. :-)
ha! even if none of it came from the U.S., but it merely passed through a U.S. pipe on its way to it's destination, some corporate hack would demand prosecution and some overzealous bully U.S. attorney would likely agree with them.
You know. because that corporation might then want to hire that U.S. attorney down the road.
Or download it. Or link to a copy of it that gives you free access in case you WANT to download it without paying. Or view it without paying for it. Or make it available for access without their permission. Or...
this is where the issue of resale comes into play. There's been articles here on TechDirt recently about the subject even - the goal US copyright holders have is that if something is exported, that export cannot be resold to someone IN the U.S. While this is not the same, it's likely they'd want to try and get a similar law in place. I don't think it IS though, so you could definitely BRING it into the U.S. and not be prosecuted, but they may want to try and find you guilty of infringing on resale aspects.
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As good as I am at ranting uncontrollably on Twitter in the most vile ways at those I think are asshats, I utterly LOVE TechDirt and the TechDirt community for the intelligence and the passion that most here provide.
Copy-restriction is an excellent description of how I see it as well. As I've stated in other comments, there are many cases where, even when the author is alive, others should have access and opportunity.
I do not, however, believe that, as you state, "the right to copy specific works and use them without permission is instead taken away from everyone else". It's not taken away unless an already public-domain work is usurped by unethical profit-mongers.
Until it's in the public domain, the public has not yet held possession to enough extent to have the right to profit from it without substantial derivation or enhancement (the fair percentage of which itself could require ten thousand hours debate).
So until it DOES pass into the public domain, non-copy-restriction holders (original or heir), to at least a certain degree, are the only rights holders commercially. And thus nothing is "restored" upon entry into public domain.
The work is "owned" in that it took the author what? a year, five years out of their life? Probably caused untold emotional, psychological, physical and financial toll on the author, their family... Hypothetically then - 5 hours a day of writing, 300 days a year, for five years - seven thousand five hundred hours of life. Gone. Given to the work.
Non copy-restriction holders benefit greatly from that effort, in exchange for pennies. As much as I believe in societal and global justice, I do not believe it should extend to the point of constraining the value received for that sacrifice. (again, as limited to certain aspects of copy-restriction)
If someone consumes the work that my father wrote in Random Country with Lax/No Copyright Laws, I have not been harmed or lost anything at all. I do not notice it or perceive the use at all.
Now THAT I can agree on for the most part. "Piracy" to me, is a non-issue. No - let me retract that. "Piracy", to me, is just a facet of market value perception. I charge a fee I think the market will bear. If part of the market "pirates" a copy and shares it and I am unaware of that, so be it. If nobody buys it, so be it.
Either I am capable of producing a work so great, so valued, I have the maturity and conscious faith that enough people will WILLINGLY compensate me reasonably for that.
Where my own thinking goes hazy though is what if I don't make any money from it, and that happens BECAUSE a "pirated" copy becomes so accessible that nobody bothers to consider paying me.
Even then though, I lean on Mike's overall take that this is how the world should be and that it's up to me to find those creative opportunities to offer value beyond the base work itself, so that I can monetize.
Either way, purely from my own perspective, all of the above comprise, at least partly, my extrapolation that heirs deserve the opportunity of benefiting from my five thousand hours of sacrifice. Especially since I quite likely was not around to parent them, and thus they too sacrificed, without a choice in the matter.
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's the core principle of profiting from a parent or grandparent's work specifically that I'm focused in on. And we both have reasonable personal views that differ, that's the biggest issue of all.
What gives one person the right to decide the length of financial benefit? Why is $500,000 a valid number to draw the line at? It's arbitrary and only fair in the eyes of those who agree to that number.
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm merely coming from that which I believe are commonalities, not the differences.
Speaking in regard to differences, I'll offer this.
Copyright need not have ALL of the same rights as physical property. The right to create derivative works, perhaps. Or already existing opportunities such as "fair use".
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By that logic, heirs should have the right to inherit nothing. It should all be turned over to the city. Except even then, only the city benefits. What about the next town over? or a poor village half-way around the world? Even then it's not a true distribution to "all".
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My family paid $100,000, or $1 million (or Euros or whatever). Individual copies of a book cost pennies relatively speaking. The original work of the book probably took years of the author's life to produce.
Just my take on it.
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yet we live in a world where civilized society dictates that property "ownership" is a concept that serves a valid purpose related to the ability that people have to live in a space that others should not have the right to trespass on.
If you think that's not a valid reason to at least establish some sort of boundary lines, then I would have to assume that you live on the streets or in the parks, and not in an apartment or home. And you don't believe in compensating someone for building a shelter for you to live in. Or a government to provide you running water or electricity or heat.
But let's go that path - everyone consents that buying a property at the very least allows you the society approved right to not have that space trespassed just because someone else wants to.
Let's say I "own" that property. What you're implying is when I die, my family should move out, even if it means they have to live on the streets.
At least that's what I take from reading your diatribe.
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I love hearing this argument. "It's art, and art belongs to the masses."
Why? You and most who take this position claim "how much poorer would education and culture be today".
Not everyone agrees with you on that. Some don't agree because they believe that if they create the art, they deserve compensation for others to have access to it. And in the case of information that benefits readers and enriches their lives, it's not just because it's "art". It's often "lessons I've learned the hard way, and if you read this, you won't have to learn it the hard way".
That value deserves compensation while the writer is alive. Why should their family stop benefiting from the profit when the writer dies? It's information that's still just as valid afterward. People still benefit. Your view is "at some point, people who benefit shouldn't have to pay to get access."
As a writer I find that insulting. If I wanted to make it freely available from the beginning, I would have. If I want to charge for it until I die, I should have the right. If I want my children to continue to benefit when I die, because they become my living representatives after I die, they should have the right to do so. Regardless of whether they do anything further.
Once I've written a book, if it's that good, I don't have to do any marketing or promotion after a certain point, even while I'm alive. It's gone viral. So my heirs shouldn't have to then do something either.
So in that narrow context of copyright, as far as I personally am concerned, I should have the right to pass that copyright on down through the generations of my family. It should, in that circumstance, only pass into the public domain when that chain ceases.
Because in your thinking, I shouldn't have the right to even profit from it the moment I've stopped working. You claim there should be a "reasonable" length for copyright. You didn't write it. You didn't create it. You just want to benefit from it without having to pay for it or earn the right to access it.
Of course there are other copyright situations that are stupid. Taking already public domain content and then trying to force people to buy it for example. But if its not already in the public domain, people should have the right to reasonable compensation if they're the ones who created it.
We can argue all day long about how to go about allowing others to build on the work. And I agree that there has got to be a better way legally for others to have the right to do so. But pure consumption? Or pure sharing? No - those are not the same.
Then there's the reality that "most art is crap" anyhow.
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are there outrageous problems in wages in the world? absolutely. Yet the overall argument is not sound except from people outraged that someone else can make a fortune while most cannot.
Going even further though, if a single copyrighted work generates millions in revenue, whether during the writer's lifetime or after building up steam many decades later, it's still generated from the work the writer put in.
I am by no means a copyright maximalist (people should have the right to sing the happy birthday song at a 2 year olds birthday party without having to pay a royalty), however I think its outrageous that an author, songwriter or creator of a work that is so popular as to have the capacity to even generate that much money is so rare a human on this earth that they, and their heirs should absolutely have the right to reap the reward.
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
it's purely subjective. Because as I said initially, personally, I think Gatsby isn't all that important to society. Nor is the overwhelming majority of content that has been copyrighted.
And I'll even go further in my outrageous "what if". I would also argue that copyright could be seen as a family treasure given the sentimental value more than the financial value. In that regard, copyrighted content is no different than the silver jewelry.
Do we take the silver jewelry away from the heirs because "our city could use the money to help balance the budget"?
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The house. My parents paid for it in full. It was theirs. We inherited it. Why should we not have the right to then pass that down endlessly through the generations?
The claim that copyright is different under the premise that it is in the public's interest to break the inheritance chain doesn't wash when the copyright is acknowledged as having been created (or bought), then passed along to heirs. It's property. It was rightfully and lawfully and morally created or purchased.
Should the house be taken from the children or grandchildren "because we have a bunch of homeless people so letting them live in it is in the public's interest"?
Purely a hypothetical. At what point does the "public interest" outweigh the passing along of property from generation to generation?
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution
That Ortiz has now confirmed, on the record, that she has no regard to even acknowledge the ramifications, and in fact stands by her choices is beyond deplorable.
I've been praying for a long time that we find a way, in this country, to fix what is a completely broken system, given how many over-the-line problems exist. Now, I pray that Aaron's death will help propel us as a nation to get to the fixing sooner rather than later.
How much more loss does there need to be? How much more tragedy?
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's called a trigger
As a young adult, I was diagnosed with clinical depression. For many years, I routinely got into trouble, and faced "consequences" for my actions. Fired from jobs. Lost relationships. Lost friendships.
Nothing I did to help my own situation, and nothing others did to encourage me to get help mattered. Sure, sometimes it would get better. For a while. But inevitably, depression would set in again.
For me, it led to drug use. Rampant. Insane. Completely self destructive. And no matter the law, the ramifications, the harm it caused me or those around me, I did it anyway.
Most of the time, I did NOT seek help from others, let alone treatment.
When I finally reached the point of wanting to commit suicide, I told nobody. Those who had concern for my well being didn't know what to do. And nothing that was tried when I was offered help, ever came close to "fixing" me.
In my particular situation, that all changed when I was invited to 12 step recovery. The first time I attended a meeting, I was zoned out. Heard NOTHING that was said. And I went right back out and continued my life, thinking all the while, "I can deal with this". And "this is too embarrassing to talk about with others". And "that might work for them, but I'm different."
Six months later, I was invited to a meeting and went. Didn't even consciously understand why I was going, only that I "had to go".
Over the course of the next several years, I learned that others who really were like me, had found hope, a way to heal and become healthy, and that I too could possibly live that way.
It required completely relearning how to process thoughts. Completely relearning how to process emotion. I had to completely change my entire life.
Eventually I relapsed (after many years), and the depression, and destructive ways came back with a vengeance.
It took me NINE YEARS of living hell, again, to remember that I didn't have to live that way. Even though I had already experienced a better life. I'm blessed because that realization was 8 and a half years ago. And now, all these years later, I'm a productive member of society.
Yet even still, occassionally, I suffer from depression. From very wrong first thoughts. From very intense, unhealthy emotions. And I know now, from direct experience, that triggers are real.
And I've attended enough funerals of dear and close friends over the years that I know, for a fact, that the overwhelming majority of people who suffer similarly in any regard, do not seek help. And even those who do, mostly fail to "get it". And even those who "get it" mostly relapse. And most of those die. From suicide. Or from suicide by drugs, whether they be liquid or solid or gas.
And no matter how much family, friends, co-workers think they can help or can prevent it, more often than not, they are helpless to really make enough of a difference to save someone.
THAT is mental illness. No friend, no family, no doctor, no treatment, no pill can help all of the time, or for long enough in most cases. Because mental illness is too complex for humans to so far understand. And mental illness is still too much of a stigmatizing disability that society has yet to be able to resolve it in most situations.
So please. Having never lived in my shoes, I ask you. Stop making such assumptions.
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re:
Then again, I'm not very skilled at programming, never hacked anything in my life, and actually like daylight. And talking with women. So I guess "amazing" is a relative concept. :-)
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re:
And submit completely bogus "data" on the "severity" of the harm. Because they sure do like to be creative in that way as well.
And do so "for the artists".
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know. because that corporation might then want to hire that U.S. attorney down the road.
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: In reality?
Or download it. Or link to a copy of it that gives you free access in case you WANT to download it without paying. Or view it without paying for it. Or make it available for access without their permission. Or...
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re:
Next >>