Re: NEITHER of the sides are going to serve the public interest.
OOTB is making straw men, ad hominem, and false arguments again, what a surprise!
I'm so sick and tired of hearing your endless tirade on how the law supports the idea that the content industry is owed a government-secured way to make a profit. I have news for you: YOU ARE COMPLETELY AND CATEGORICALLY WRONG! The only reason copyright is supposed to exist is to offer a carrot to get the authors, artists, and the like to provide a continuous stream of new works that can be added to the public domain so that such a library of culture and knowledge will expand, enhance, and progress humanity; to wit, the internet has lowered the barrier to access of knowledge and culture.
The internet actually accomplishes exactly what the copyright clause set out to do, grant ubiquitous access to information that uplifts society as a whole rather than a few privileged elites that have the ways and means to afford it. The unfettered sharing, remixing, and publishing of new works of amateurs and professionals alike is what we've been trying to accomplish for over two centuries. Now that we have it, you want to whine and complain that these laws are about upholding property rights and protecting the businesses that create such property.
Copyright does not exists for the purpose of ensuring that an artist has a job to go to. Get that misconception out of your head right now. There is no reason to create laws to support a favored business model, none. If you can't make a business without copyright, then you didn't deserve to have that job/business in the first place. It is the height of arrogance to claim that out of all other industries, this one must be secured and protected by government granted rights that infringe and retard the liberties that are self-evident and natural to every living person on Earth. You demand laws that steal our rights away from us and then complain that pirates are stealing your property. Nobody is stealing a thing from you.
If you publish it, you're giving it away. Period. There isn't a word you can utter nor an idea you can express that doesn't become part of the library of human culture without limit. Every idea spreads itself until it has taken space inside every living mind out there. You can't own that. You can't keep it from anyone. It will get out and it will force itself into the mind of every person. It's not your property, it never was. So don't get indignant about people copying files and sharing them online. They aren't stealing from anyone. In fact, it the artist who is a fool to think they can do all that creative work and expect to make it back selling something that is in no way their property.
All of our content is built on the creative effort of thousands of human generations. It belongs to our ancestors as much as all of us. You have no right to claim property rights over it and complain that people are "stealing" it. Quite the contrary, they're taking back what you stole (I'm looking at you Disney) from us.
Digital as in files capable of being transmitted over the internet, not digital radio. Radio is a one-way street. The internet is much more than that. You can't share on the radio. They transmit and you passively observe. The internet is an active medium. Others publish, you observe and you publish while others observe.
Re: Re: (Sigh.) You've NEVER "owned" someone else's intellectual property.
I just think of this when I hear the mention of IP:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson
Re: (Sigh.) You've NEVER "owned" someone else's intellectual property.
I'll say this once and for all: You don't own what you create.
You never have and you never will. Copyright grants the right to determine how a work is distributed and by what terms, but it does not make the works yours. Those works were made from the raw materials of your host culture. It belongs to everyone and can never be the exclusive property of any person. So, it makes no sense whatsoever that you act so indignant against people that supposedly are violating the "property" of the creators. Not getting paid for copies? Well, why don't you just get people to pay for the time invested in creating directly? Nobody can "steal" your time and will to create.
It is of the utmost arrogance to demand tribute from the public for the remixed content. No, you have no logical (emphasis on logical) right to demand people pay you for access to their own culture. As an artist, one exchanges the service of creating new content for pay, but not for the subsequent copies.
As I have said many times, selling content is like building a house on a state park that is built with materials derived from the local area and renting the place for private profit. As with culture, you have taken something that belongs to everyone and claimed it for your own use to leverage for personal gain.
"...you DON'T have any right to enjoy content without paying for the privilege."
I sure do have the right! It's my culture and I have every right to it. If you wanted to be paid, you should have solicited us before you published it. You should have sold the labor you put into it so that you get paid for something you made since you certainly should not be able to sell our own culture to us simply because you unjustly claim it is yours by right of remixing.
It's you people that are the parasites. You are the ones that take that which is not yours, claim it as your property, and coerce us to pay you for what is our own common wealth.
Someone will always find a way to circumvent it. You can't deny the very behavior that allowed modern civilization to exist. Sharing knowledge and culture is imperative to progress.
You damn loyalists brand all of us colonists as a bunch of criminals and that King George's excessive taxes shouldn't be opposed nor disobeyed. You just go on blaming us for dumping tea into the harbor because "we decided to and it's our fault." You never acknowledge that we are being exploited and cheated by these taxes so that England can keep going at our expense. Why should we colonists be shorted because some starched wigs in parliament can't find a way to stay alive without being a parasite on colonist economies?
So if you keep insisting on bleeding us with these outrageous taxes, we're going to keep dumping the tea into the harbor.
Copyright is stealing our culture from us and selling it back in an excrement soaked package.
First off, it's a granted right and as such, it can be revoked. So that means that even though it is a right, that doesn't make it correct or ethical. For a time, people had the right to own slaves. In the case of copyright, this right doesn't deserve to be respected because it:
1. Is unnecessary, since there are other viable and sustainable ways to form a business model.
2. Is antithetical to the intended goal of "promote the progress".
3. Is not an natural right.
4. Infringes on free speech.
5. Forms monopolies, which are harmful in their own right.
Laws should not be blindly obeyed and respected just because they are laws. Laws are created by fallible, imperfect beings and they often get it wrong. So we, as citizens, must keep vigilant against the propagation of unethical, illogical, and illegal laws. People who violate the law are not automatically wrong or bad. If that were true, the founders of the United States should be remembered as criminal scumbags that violated the infallible laws of King George III.
The problem is that far too many people are stupid enough to believe that cultural symbols (i.e. content, art, knowledge, etc.) are items of discreet property that belong to the person that authors them, which is completely batty if you realize that all creative works are made from the collective culture and experience of the society the author was a member of. It's like building a house on a state park with state park derived lumber and renting it out for private profit.
I don't respect copyright one iota because it doesn't deserve any respect. It's an extremely flawed and unethical law that should be vehemently opposed.
Nobody owes the artist anything. The fact that they created something does not mandate that they be paid. It's absolutely disgusting that some people think since they did a thing, the world owes them something for it because they want something for it. You can piss and whine all you like, but the cultural shift is not in your favor. So why don't you quit being a whiner and build business case around the way things are instead of around how you'd like it to be?
People that download music are not selfish, they are aware of how things work in reality. They are not to blame for acting in accordance with the way technology works. If you can't make a living with the way things are, that's your fault, not theirs. Quit blaming other people for your own miserable failings. Copyright welfare is over. No more business model hand-holding.
When we have "free speech zones" protestors and the actions taken against the Occupy Wall Street, you can be certain that the 1st amendment died quite a long time ago. Welcome to America Inc.
Education would only serve to teach people who stupidly unnecessary and unproductive copyright really is. Not to mention how it has legalized the wholesale exploitation of our culture which is now the exclusive private property the media corporations.
"So, you want your culture back? We'll give it to you at $20 a pop. It will be soaked in excrement and barely work. It will be scanning for eyeballs and if it encounters more than two, it will subsequently ignite your device in a ball of blazing inferno."
Or how about, "Our game is rated 'E' for everyone, but it's not our job to be the morality filter for the internet. Take personal and active responsibility for what your kids see. Parenting isn't something you leave to the content creators. It's your job to act as a filter, not us."
Anybody that takes that "E" as an excuse to allow their kids to play those games unsupervised is an unfit parent. You wouldn't let your kids wander the city streets on their own, so why would you let them wander online on their own?
More like mandatory corporate ads posted in your home and a requirement to watch a minimum number of TV ads every day. If you fail these, your citizenship will be revoked and you will be deported, waiting for another nation to adopt you.
It's impossible for any president to serve more than two terms; two is the maximum allowed, consecutive or otherwise. It's been that way since Roosevelt's term.
Compuserve, Prodigy, and AOL were on the internet. You are confusing the world wide web with the internet. The internet is the network that all of the above protocols used to transmit information.
On the post: Next Two Congressional Hearings On Copyright Reform Show The Exact Wrong Approach
Re: NEITHER of the sides are going to serve the public interest.
I'm so sick and tired of hearing your endless tirade on how the law supports the idea that the content industry is owed a government-secured way to make a profit. I have news for you: YOU ARE COMPLETELY AND CATEGORICALLY WRONG! The only reason copyright is supposed to exist is to offer a carrot to get the authors, artists, and the like to provide a continuous stream of new works that can be added to the public domain so that such a library of culture and knowledge will expand, enhance, and progress humanity; to wit, the internet has lowered the barrier to access of knowledge and culture.
The internet actually accomplishes exactly what the copyright clause set out to do, grant ubiquitous access to information that uplifts society as a whole rather than a few privileged elites that have the ways and means to afford it. The unfettered sharing, remixing, and publishing of new works of amateurs and professionals alike is what we've been trying to accomplish for over two centuries. Now that we have it, you want to whine and complain that these laws are about upholding property rights and protecting the businesses that create such property.
Copyright does not exists for the purpose of ensuring that an artist has a job to go to. Get that misconception out of your head right now. There is no reason to create laws to support a favored business model, none. If you can't make a business without copyright, then you didn't deserve to have that job/business in the first place. It is the height of arrogance to claim that out of all other industries, this one must be secured and protected by government granted rights that infringe and retard the liberties that are self-evident and natural to every living person on Earth. You demand laws that steal our rights away from us and then complain that pirates are stealing your property. Nobody is stealing a thing from you.
If you publish it, you're giving it away. Period. There isn't a word you can utter nor an idea you can express that doesn't become part of the library of human culture without limit. Every idea spreads itself until it has taken space inside every living mind out there. You can't own that. You can't keep it from anyone. It will get out and it will force itself into the mind of every person. It's not your property, it never was. So don't get indignant about people copying files and sharing them online. They aren't stealing from anyone. In fact, it the artist who is a fool to think they can do all that creative work and expect to make it back selling something that is in no way their property.
All of our content is built on the creative effort of thousands of human generations. It belongs to our ancestors as much as all of us. You have no right to claim property rights over it and complain that people are "stealing" it. Quite the contrary, they're taking back what you stole (I'm looking at you Disney) from us.
On the post: Copyright And The End Of Property Rights
Re: free legal digital music....all you want!!!!
On the post: Copyright And The End Of Property Rights
Re: Re: (Sigh.) You've NEVER "owned" someone else's intellectual property.
On the post: Copyright And The End Of Property Rights
Re: (Sigh.) You've NEVER "owned" someone else's intellectual property.
You never have and you never will. Copyright grants the right to determine how a work is distributed and by what terms, but it does not make the works yours. Those works were made from the raw materials of your host culture. It belongs to everyone and can never be the exclusive property of any person. So, it makes no sense whatsoever that you act so indignant against people that supposedly are violating the "property" of the creators. Not getting paid for copies? Well, why don't you just get people to pay for the time invested in creating directly? Nobody can "steal" your time and will to create.
It is of the utmost arrogance to demand tribute from the public for the remixed content. No, you have no logical (emphasis on logical) right to demand people pay you for access to their own culture. As an artist, one exchanges the service of creating new content for pay, but not for the subsequent copies.
As I have said many times, selling content is like building a house on a state park that is built with materials derived from the local area and renting the place for private profit. As with culture, you have taken something that belongs to everyone and claimed it for your own use to leverage for personal gain.
"...you DON'T have any right to enjoy content without paying for the privilege."
I sure do have the right! It's my culture and I have every right to it. If you wanted to be paid, you should have solicited us before you published it. You should have sold the labor you put into it so that you get paid for something you made since you certainly should not be able to sell our own culture to us simply because you unjustly claim it is yours by right of remixing.
It's you people that are the parasites. You are the ones that take that which is not yours, claim it as your property, and coerce us to pay you for what is our own common wealth.
On the post: Copyright And The End Of Property Rights
Re: Re: Re: Cutural Impact
On the post: Pulling Music Off Spotify Sends Exactly The Wrong Message
Re: Re: Re:
So if you keep insisting on bleeding us with these outrageous taxes, we're going to keep dumping the tea into the harbor.
Copyright is stealing our culture from us and selling it back in an excrement soaked package.
On the post: Pulling Music Off Spotify Sends Exactly The Wrong Message
Get some sense.
1. Is unnecessary, since there are other viable and sustainable ways to form a business model.
2. Is antithetical to the intended goal of "promote the progress".
3. Is not an natural right.
4. Infringes on free speech.
5. Forms monopolies, which are harmful in their own right.
Laws should not be blindly obeyed and respected just because they are laws. Laws are created by fallible, imperfect beings and they often get it wrong. So we, as citizens, must keep vigilant against the propagation of unethical, illogical, and illegal laws. People who violate the law are not automatically wrong or bad. If that were true, the founders of the United States should be remembered as criminal scumbags that violated the infallible laws of King George III.
The problem is that far too many people are stupid enough to believe that cultural symbols (i.e. content, art, knowledge, etc.) are items of discreet property that belong to the person that authors them, which is completely batty if you realize that all creative works are made from the collective culture and experience of the society the author was a member of. It's like building a house on a state park with state park derived lumber and renting it out for private profit.
I don't respect copyright one iota because it doesn't deserve any respect. It's an extremely flawed and unethical law that should be vehemently opposed.
On the post: Pulling Music Off Spotify Sends Exactly The Wrong Message
Re:
People that download music are not selfish, they are aware of how things work in reality. They are not to blame for acting in accordance with the way technology works. If you can't make a living with the way things are, that's your fault, not theirs. Quit blaming other people for your own miserable failings. Copyright welfare is over. No more business model hand-holding.
On the post: White House Believes Ed Snowden Shouldn't Have Any Free Speech Rights, Attacks Russia For Letting Him Speak
Re: Re: We shouldn't be surprised by this
On the post: White House Believes Ed Snowden Shouldn't Have Any Free Speech Rights, Attacks Russia For Letting Him Speak
Re: We shouldn't be surprised by this
On the post: Jammie Thomas Refuses To Make RIAA Propaganda In Exchange For Reduced Payment
Re:
"So, you want your culture back? We'll give it to you at $20 a pop. It will be soaked in excrement and barely work. It will be scanning for eyeballs and if it encounters more than two, it will subsequently ignite your device in a ball of blazing inferno."
On the post: Swedish Rights Holders Order Police Raid To Shut Down Fan Translation Site
Re: Re: Re: So, Sweeden = crime free country?
On the post: Reporter: E-Rated Kids' Game Unsafe For Kids Because The Internet Is Scary
Re: Are ratings still useful?
Anybody that takes that "E" as an excuse to allow their kids to play those games unsupervised is an unfit parent. You wouldn't let your kids wander the city streets on their own, so why would you let them wander online on their own?
On the post: Reporter: E-Rated Kids' Game Unsafe For Kids Because The Internet Is Scary
We have to protect the children!!!
On the post: The Most Popular Posts Of 2013 So Far
Re:
On the post: Today Is July 4th; And It's Time To Restore The 4th Amendment
Re:
On the post: Today Is July 4th; And It's Time To Restore The 4th Amendment
Re: Please
On the post: Today Is July 4th; And It's Time To Restore The 4th Amendment
Re:
On the post: W3C Chief: To Prevent Parts Of The Web From Being Walled Off, We Need To Wall It Off Ourselves
Re: It's The Connectivity, Stupid!
On the post: W3C Chief: To Prevent Parts Of The Web From Being Walled Off, We Need To Wall It Off Ourselves
Re: Just the latest
Next >>