A drug dealer can be in the moral wrong by using lack of regulation to mix soft drugs with hard drugs to keep customers hooked. They may also not check for I.D., foster other kinds of crime and violence, and encourage corruption among departments of justice, politicians and corporations (e.g. banks).
Likewise, a pirate can offer deals no one can compete with as his own little "gateway". They don't have to put BBFC/PEGI ratings on films to protect kids from adult content, encourage money laundering, fraud, and have some pirates armed with sawn-off shotguns, and encourage corruption among courts who will not stop them, tech-utopian politicians and corporations (e.g. Google. And banks.)
So the answer to your question can be "yes". But you're still going to have do a lot better than that.
Whenever I try to communicate and socialise in a night club, the music is so damned loud that I need to type a message on my phone and show the fucking phone to whoever I try to talk to.
If any technology is supposedly to blame for anti-social behaviour, it's massive stereo speakers.
Because sanctions on the bank accounts of drug-cartels works so well, doesn't it? The banks wouldn't DREAM of circumventing such sanctions, would they?
The situation is even more "I Am Spartacus" than it seems. People can and do openly reveal their identities and say in public that they pirate copyrighted content in full view of law enforcement and artists/artists' publishers.
But they can't be chased down. Because there's too many of them.
Secrecy in courts must be reserved for exceptional circumstances.
For one thing, the NSA may be determined to keep certain court evidence secret from the public precisely BECAUSE they will have violated the 4th amendment to get that evidence. I know GCHQ has been caught doing this, for example. That is one of the knock-on effects everybody forgets about when it comes to debates over that amendment.
And as for "embarrassment" here, in my view there is nothing to be embarrassed about. If there was an unjust search carried out in the name of an unjust war (the war on drugs) based on something that was nobody else's business but those students', the only thing that must be felt when trying to carry forward some justice is pride, not shame.
Boss: "Employee, please spend the next week constructing this billboard next to the motorway."
*A week later, the billboard is done and pay day arrives*
Boss: "That'll be £2000, please."
It seems like those who are so reactionary towards Google are those who also want people to work for free. No doubt they will be praised by copyright believers as a result.
In fact, they seem to want small news-indexing businesses to work for free in the name of protecting the little guy.
Ah yes. Pissing into the swimming pool beside a pirate who is likewise pissing into the swimming pool, and demanding to the cleaner that they remove only the pirate's piss.
I am sure this tried and tested demand will work as it always does.
"@SaikyoChamp Oh that? It means you should probably buy the game instead of pirate it. o:)"
See, this tweet isn't meant to be a "fuck you" kind of tweet, which it could have been. And this is ultimately a good thing.
Here's why.
What most of us often forget is that people who end up with pirated/cracked copies of a game have not necessarily obtained said pirated copies through BitTorrent, or another file-sharing service. Sometimes, they have been scammed.
It is quite possible for a dodgy street vender to sell genuine looking copies to an unsuspecting laymen who is genuinely trying to be moral by buying the game and helping the developers. The scammer (and that is indeed the word to describe such a person because he is fraudulently claiming the authenticity of his copies) walks away with stolen profits while the gamer goes home to play happily, unaware that anything bad has happened.
So when the gamer plays the cracked copy only to find abnormalities such as shooting chickens, deleting saves, what have you, he is bound to call tech support to find out what is wrong.
This is how tech support should not react in a situation like this, or any situation at all:
If tech support instantly and prejudicially assumes that the player asking for help is a thieving pirate with no morals, when said tech support has no possibility of an idea of what background this gamer had that led to the situation in question, and that "this particular "fan" is the scum of the Earth and deserves to be named and shamed harr harr", the player can give only one well deserved response:
"FUCK YOU. How DARE you assume without any proof that I was out to rip you off! I just LOST $50 for a game I tried to support you with and you are treating me like a dickhead for it? FUCK YOU. Any help you thought you deserved in catching the real scammer is now not going to be provided for you. To hell with you if you think I will even breathe the same air as your games again." And then proceeds to throw all games by said developer away.
I can still remember to this day old VHS tapes of Disney movies I watched when I was a kid: 101 Dalmatians would not have so much an anti-piracy "warning", but rather a piracy "awareness" notice. It would spell out the differences between genuine copies and pirated copies. Genuine were colourful, clear, crisp, professional. Pirated were grainly, black and white, unclear, etc. And then it would proceed to say something like the following: "If you have bought a pirated copy under the pretense that it was genuine, please call this number and report where you bought it from to etc etc.." It was not by any means "you fucking thief fuck you because that's what you MUST be", which is what we seem to see all the time now.
Now forgetting the slightly funny issue of pirates who would have most likely removed that 101 Dalmations warning from their copies, and whatever you think of Disney's copyright maximalism, you have to give them credit here for this rare occasion where they assumed the consumer was innocent first and foremost.
This is the old tradition that @SaikyoChamp seems to be keeping alive. Even although he did assume piracy had happened, innocently enough, he did not react in a destructive way.
But anyone who proceeds with a culture of blaming (ridiculing?) potential victims deserves the condemnation that is coming to them.
Excellent. Now when activists from authoritarian countries try to access democratic VPNs to hide their activity, they will be restricted even further, because VPNs may be pressured out of business.
And people say that copyright supports the oppressed. Give me a break. Anyone who allies with, say, the Iranian mullahs when they go after the circulation of pirated literature (e.g. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's books) and then have the nerve to say piracy is allied with dictatorship/terrorists is deluded at best.
Dictators are the first kind of people to go after VPNs.
There are most likely hidden dissenters in North Korea who could use some creative material that shows them and others what life is like outside of their monstrous regime.
Anyone who denies creativity be expressed in another language is fucking contemptible. A hugely underrated reason to be hostile to copyright.
Copyright balancing only leads pro-copyright advocates to the slippery slope of "but if you say this must be protected then THAT must be protected too" ad infinitum, that all starts from the assumption that an exception can be made to the 1st amendment to accommodate the theory. Hence why you end up with so much prior restraint when the theory is put into practice.
After all, copyright's theory is in sacrificing some freedom of expression in order to preserve others. In other words, prior restraint.
"Ownership of expression" is another way of saying "copyright", and it cannot be compatible with freedom of expression. Inherently, it is the claim that objective judgement can be cast over subjective matter, and that derivative works can be declared and foreseen in advance to be not worthy of existing. Nobody can possibly be in a position to make such a call.
The great thing about being a copyright abolitionist is that Occam's Razor is on my side, and I can say that all constants involved with futilely watching over subjective expression to get it "just right" are not necessary to multiply.
The monetisation is in the action of expressing oneself, not the "tangible" end-result expression.
On the post: James Madison, Father Of The Constitution, 4th US President... And Fan Fiction Writer
Re:
On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6
Re:
Likewise, a pirate can offer deals no one can compete with as his own little "gateway". They don't have to put BBFC/PEGI ratings on films to protect kids from adult content, encourage money laundering, fraud, and have some pirates armed with sawn-off shotguns, and encourage corruption among courts who will not stop them, tech-utopian politicians and corporations (e.g. Google. And banks.)
So the answer to your question can be "yes". But you're still going to have do a lot better than that.
On the post: Technology Doesn't Make Us Less Social; It Just Changes The Way We Socialize
If any technology is supposedly to blame for anti-social behaviour, it's massive stereo speakers.
On the post: Senators Goad DOJ Into More Pointless Online Gambling Takedowns
..isn't that like... Wall Street MMO?
:/
On the post: City Of London Police Inserting 'This Website Has Been Reported To Police' Banner Ads On Websites With No Legal Review
Re: Looks like a spam ad
On the post: City Of London Police Inserting 'This Website Has Been Reported To Police' Banner Ads On Websites With No Legal Review
On the post: UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity
But they can't be chased down. Because there's too many of them.
On the post: Court To Frat Boys: Openness Of Courts More Compelling Than Your Potential Embarrassment
For one thing, the NSA may be determined to keep certain court evidence secret from the public precisely BECAUSE they will have violated the 4th amendment to get that evidence. I know GCHQ has been caught doing this, for example. That is one of the knock-on effects everybody forgets about when it comes to debates over that amendment.
And as for "embarrassment" here, in my view there is nothing to be embarrassed about. If there was an unjust search carried out in the name of an unjust war (the war on drugs) based on something that was nobody else's business but those students', the only thing that must be felt when trying to carry forward some justice is pride, not shame.
On the post: Spain Likely To Pass 'Google Tax'; Makes Paying For News Snippets An 'Inalienable Right' And A New Bureaucracy To Collect It
*A week later, the billboard is done and pay day arrives*
Boss: "That'll be £2000, please."
It seems like those who are so reactionary towards Google are those who also want people to work for free. No doubt they will be praised by copyright believers as a result.
In fact, they seem to want small news-indexing businesses to work for free in the name of protecting the little guy.
On the post: Musician Whose Works Are At Center Of Copyright Lawsuit Against YouTube Star Slams Lawsuit And Copyright
On the post: As Feared, UK Data Retention Act Passed In Record Time; Fight Back Has Already Begun
On the post: Once Again, Millions Of Rickrolls Go Silent As The Original Rickroll Is 'Blocked' On YouTube
I am sure this tried and tested demand will work as it always does.
On the post: The Duct-Tape Approach To Fixing Broken Copyright Law Happens Again With Phone Unlocking
On the post: Skullgirls Creator Combats Piracy With Humor And By Being Awesome
See, this tweet isn't meant to be a "fuck you" kind of tweet, which it could have been. And this is ultimately a good thing.
Here's why.
What most of us often forget is that people who end up with pirated/cracked copies of a game have not necessarily obtained said pirated copies through BitTorrent, or another file-sharing service. Sometimes, they have been scammed.
It is quite possible for a dodgy street vender to sell genuine looking copies to an unsuspecting laymen who is genuinely trying to be moral by buying the game and helping the developers. The scammer (and that is indeed the word to describe such a person because he is fraudulently claiming the authenticity of his copies) walks away with stolen profits while the gamer goes home to play happily, unaware that anything bad has happened.
So when the gamer plays the cracked copy only to find abnormalities such as shooting chickens, deleting saves, what have you, he is bound to call tech support to find out what is wrong.
This is how tech support should not react in a situation like this, or any situation at all:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=95030
If tech support instantly and prejudicially assumes that the player asking for help is a thieving pirate with no morals, when said tech support has no possibility of an idea of what background this gamer had that led to the situation in question, and that "this particular "fan" is the scum of the Earth and deserves to be named and shamed harr harr", the player can give only one well deserved response:
"FUCK YOU. How DARE you assume without any proof that I was out to rip you off! I just LOST $50 for a game I tried to support you with and you are treating me like a dickhead for it? FUCK YOU. Any help you thought you deserved in catching the real scammer is now not going to be provided for you. To hell with you if you think I will even breathe the same air as your games again." And then proceeds to throw all games by said developer away.
I can still remember to this day old VHS tapes of Disney movies I watched when I was a kid: 101 Dalmatians would not have so much an anti-piracy "warning", but rather a piracy "awareness" notice. It would spell out the differences between genuine copies and pirated copies. Genuine were colourful, clear, crisp, professional. Pirated were grainly, black and white, unclear, etc. And then it would proceed to say something like the following: "If you have bought a pirated copy under the pretense that it was genuine, please call this number and report where you bought it from to etc etc.." It was not by any means "you fucking thief fuck you because that's what you MUST be", which is what we seem to see all the time now.
Now forgetting the slightly funny issue of pirates who would have most likely removed that 101 Dalmations warning from their copies, and whatever you think of Disney's copyright maximalism, you have to give them credit here for this rare occasion where they assumed the consumer was innocent first and foremost.
This is the old tradition that @SaikyoChamp seems to be keeping alive. Even although he did assume piracy had happened, innocently enough, he did not react in a destructive way.
But anyone who proceeds with a culture of blaming (ridiculing?) potential victims deserves the condemnation that is coming to them.
On the post: Kiwi ISP Offers Service To Get Around Geoblocking As A Standard Feature
Re:
On the post: Kiwi ISP Offers Service To Get Around Geoblocking As A Standard Feature
And people say that copyright supports the oppressed. Give me a break. Anyone who allies with, say, the Iranian mullahs when they go after the circulation of pirated literature (e.g. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's books) and then have the nerve to say piracy is allied with dictatorship/terrorists is deluded at best.
Dictators are the first kind of people to go after VPNs.
On the post: The Trials Of Being A Techdirt Writer Volume 1: Stupid Copyright Popups When Pressing CTRL-C
On the post: Hollywood Goes After Korean Fans Subtitling Soap Operas, Pressing Criminal Charges
Anyone who denies creativity be expressed in another language is fucking contemptible. A hugely underrated reason to be hostile to copyright.
On the post: VP Of EU Commission On Copyright Reform: 'I'd Sing You Happy Birthday, But I Don't Want To Have To Pay The Royalties'
Copyright balancing only leads pro-copyright advocates to the slippery slope of "but if you say this must be protected then THAT must be protected too" ad infinitum, that all starts from the assumption that an exception can be made to the 1st amendment to accommodate the theory. Hence why you end up with so much prior restraint when the theory is put into practice.
After all, copyright's theory is in sacrificing some freedom of expression in order to preserve others. In other words, prior restraint.
"Ownership of expression" is another way of saying "copyright", and it cannot be compatible with freedom of expression. Inherently, it is the claim that objective judgement can be cast over subjective matter, and that derivative works can be declared and foreseen in advance to be not worthy of existing. Nobody can possibly be in a position to make such a call.
The great thing about being a copyright abolitionist is that Occam's Razor is on my side, and I can say that all constants involved with futilely watching over subjective expression to get it "just right" are not necessary to multiply.
The monetisation is in the action of expressing oneself, not the "tangible" end-result expression.
On the post: EU Publishers Present Their 'Vision' For Copyright: A Permission-Based Internet Where Licensing Is Required For Everything
Next >>