Making an assumption without backing it up with evidence merely destroys your own argument. As you have just done to yourself. There are more reasons for privacy than just to do acts that have only been declared illegal at the behest of corrupt corporations. And as I have said before, the usage of the word "pirate" is incorrect and inaccurate. "File sharer" is more accurate, because it describes the actual behavior itself, independently of the unethical laws which have been passed to make it illegal.
The fact that you are incapable of providing a more coherent, evidence-based argument undermines your position, AC #11, as do your actions. Personal attacks will never convince anyone, so do not use them. Nor will unsupported arguments.
Also, has has been pointed out above, merely pointing to where something is does not make you accountable for it. If I were to tell you where you could find a piece of software, that does not make me liable for any infractions that software may or may not be accused of. Merely giving factual information is neither illegal nor is it wrong. Liability must only be applied at the source, and nowhere else. If it needs to be applied at all. Discretion would be a skill you and others like you should learn, AC #39.
Your logic is flawed, AC #39. You have no way of knowing what procedures he used to construct the site, given that you were not there when he built it. And again, nowhere is the advertising or the existence of legitimate alternative products illegal. Why are you so in favor of oppressive and overbearing measures for trivial actions?
Unfortunately, AC #7, you deliberately misstate the facts. Logically, it is no different than a listing in the phone book showing where things may be found. And you cannot point to any law which says alternative products may not be advertised. You overvalue content and have chosen to see only what you want to see, not what actually is. Most illogical.
Also, this is one example for why the forced dissolution of corporations and companies should be allowed.
I refer you, JMT, to my earlier response on this issue:
It could only be called infringement because of the laws that have been bought to make it so. But because those laws were not ethically passed, the terminology they assign is irrelevant. Logically, then, the act can still be described merely as file sharing.
Also, in response to AC#34, it could only be called infringement because of the laws that have been bought to make it so. But because those laws were not ethically passed, the terminology they assign is irrelevant. Logically, then, the act can still be described merely as file sharing.
If you cannot provide evidence for your point of view, then your arguments cannot be accepted. Logically, if one believes in what they say, they would back it up with detailed, independently-verifiable facts.
I would submit that the terms "piracy" and "pirates" no longer be used in reference to file sharing. They are inaccurate, for they refer only to pillaging ships at sea and to those who perform that act. It would be more accurate to simply use the words "file sharing" and "file sharers" instead. In those more accurate terms, it is more difficult for those who wish to impede technological progress at any cost to make their arguments.
It does not good, Transbot, when the record label (in this case, EMI) does not honor the terms of the contract at all. In that case, it does not matter what the contract says or how it is phrased. If the label refuses to act according to it, as EMI did here, then they are at fault, and they alone. It is not about contract wording but rather unscrupulous companies who have no interest in abiding by any agreements that do not excessively favor them in every way.
Again, AC #35, you fail to grasp that there is no new culture that can be made without old culture. There is no content of any kind that has never been built without using inspiration and remixing of old content. You cannot name a single work that was created in a vacuum without any influence of any kind from any other works.
Creativity does not care about laws or copyrights. It will do what it must to express itself, even if it means ignoring the desires and restrictions of those who would seek to exploit it rather than embrace it. Such as yourself, for example.
You fail to understand, AC #11, that new culture comes from old culture. Everything is reused. There is nothing unique. All content is derived from previously existing content. Therefore, restricting culture as the current form of copyright does only hampers the creation of new content. It does not help it in any way.
Live performance is but one scarcity, AC #7. There are plenty of others that can be monetized in leiu of digital copies which by their very nature cannot be contained. Nor can they be monetized in the old way, because as basic economics clearly states, when supply is infinite and the cost of reproduction is at or near zero, price is naturally and unavoidably driven to zero.
Thusly, you cannot rely on selling digital copies. At least, not for very much. But as self-published authors of ebooks have found, pricing a digital copy extremely low can bring in some sales. Even so, if your content is not of sufficient quality as perceived by those who consume it, you will not profit by it as well as you could. To be effective in the new digital marketplace, you must have good quality, reasonable price, no DRM or other artificial limitations, transparency, and authenticity.
The actions of these gatekeepers are born largely out of fear. Fear of obsolescence, fear of losing control, fear of losing money, and fear of change. Other factors in their actions are greed, stubbornness, and self-imposed ignorance. All highly illogical responses to the inevitable advancement of technology. Illogical, but understandable, given their motives. They will not relent of their own will, not until all other choices are stripped from them. And perhaps not even then.
I must agree with Cowherd. Technology always outpaces large organizations such as governments and media conglomerates. The internet is designed in such a way that any attempts to restrict the flow of information are inevitably routed around. PROTECT IP will not be effective in any form because of this, therefore, the logical course of action would be to abandon it. Unfortunately, however, elected officials often act in highly illogical ways.
On the post: Paul Vixie Explains How PROTECT IP Will Break The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Breach of Trust
On the post: Former Top Government Secrets Keeper Blasts Administration For Abusing Espionage Act To Punish Whistleblowers
Re: Corruption
On the post: Brazil Looks To Criminalize Ripping A CD?
Re:
On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative
Re: Re: Re:
Also, this is one example for why the forced dissolution of corporations and companies should be allowed.
On the post: Washington Post Editorial Claims Piracy 'Costs' Companies Millions; Believes PROTECT IP Won't Be 'More Sweeping Than Necessary'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It could only be called infringement because of the laws that have been bought to make it so. But because those laws were not ethically passed, the terminology they assign is irrelevant. Logically, then, the act can still be described merely as file sharing.
On the post: Washington Post Editorial Claims Piracy 'Costs' Companies Millions; Believes PROTECT IP Won't Be 'More Sweeping Than Necessary'
On the post: Washington Post Editorial Claims Piracy 'Costs' Companies Millions; Believes PROTECT IP Won't Be 'More Sweeping Than Necessary'
On the post: Washington Post Editorial Claims Piracy 'Costs' Companies Millions; Believes PROTECT IP Won't Be 'More Sweeping Than Necessary'
On the post: Washington Post Editorial Claims Piracy 'Costs' Companies Millions; Believes PROTECT IP Won't Be 'More Sweeping Than Necessary'
Re: Re:
1: an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2: robbery on the high seas
Your logic, therefore, is flawed. File sharing is file sharing, and should be referred to as such.
On the post: Washington Post Editorial Claims Piracy 'Costs' Companies Millions; Believes PROTECT IP Won't Be 'More Sweeping Than Necessary'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: More Misplaced Hatred For The Used Games Market
On the post: Washington Post Editorial Claims Piracy 'Costs' Companies Millions; Believes PROTECT IP Won't Be 'More Sweeping Than Necessary'
On the post: EMI Doesn't Pay Royalties, Or It Does, But To The Wrong People, Or It Doesn't, Or Maybe It Does...
Re: Re: Re: Really?
On the post: Why Are We Letting An Obsolete Gatekeeper Drive The Debate On Anything?
Re: Re: Re:
Creativity does not care about laws or copyrights. It will do what it must to express itself, even if it means ignoring the desires and restrictions of those who would seek to exploit it rather than embrace it. Such as yourself, for example.
On the post: Why Are We Letting An Obsolete Gatekeeper Drive The Debate On Anything?
Re:
On the post: Why Are We Letting An Obsolete Gatekeeper Drive The Debate On Anything?
Re:
Thusly, you cannot rely on selling digital copies. At least, not for very much. But as self-published authors of ebooks have found, pricing a digital copy extremely low can bring in some sales. Even so, if your content is not of sufficient quality as perceived by those who consume it, you will not profit by it as well as you could. To be effective in the new digital marketplace, you must have good quality, reasonable price, no DRM or other artificial limitations, transparency, and authenticity.
On the post: Why Are We Letting An Obsolete Gatekeeper Drive The Debate On Anything?
On the post: Can PROTECT IP Be Fixed?
Next >>