I am a writer. I write stories. Not once have I sold a copy of my writing. Sure I write fan-fictions, but that isn't stopping me from working on original material, and maybe even selling it at a loss of profit (for the fan-fiction).
Now do I want to make money off of my writings? Maybe. Do I have to? No!
Could I ask you something: why should I care? How is it that if I click on a random link with the belief that I'm doing something wrong, I get pointed out for creating a liability? How does one tell if they are clicking this link for evil purposes? I really don't get it. Clicking on a link does nothing other than going to a site. What we do on that site could count, but the link itself? I don't get it!
... As opposed to giving a link to something that will help someone with a school project?
Honestly I don't see how linking to anything could be consider infringing. I agree with the AC above you: It isn't and shouldn't be. It's just a link. What is the harm in clicking on something that could be useful in getting something done?
Ooh... yeah, wording did play a factor in it. Maybe it was a good thing I removed "package" from my first comment. Still, it's a good idea and I do like to get some of the shows that I do like and watch those to catch up on what I am missing.
Re: Re: Re: Bah. Innovation as defined around here is pretty meh
Another reason why I will never use iTunes.
How do doors make people honest? Aren't the TPP negotiations going on behind closed doors and not once are we given a straight, honest answer about what's going on? I don't think DRM is good to build honesty.
Yay... and I'm doing that as flat as humanly possible.
... Though I have no opinion on the Annoying Orange, they do have a deal with Cartoon Network so money won't be an issue.
Then again, I was thinking of putting in "package" to my comment, but left it out, but it still fits it. Part of the thinking reminds me of the favorite system that Dish has (I'm not familiar with the others out there) where you can group the channels that you watch and leave everything else out, but why do we have to pay for those extra channels? Let us make our channel package and then pay for what we get, not for what we don't need!
It is at times like this I begin to think about what to add to this proposition I have in my head. After reading over "-- and then seeks to make it impossible to view them elsewhere thanks to ridiculous regional restrictions, release windows and DRM," I want to put in a part detailing that if you have a build-up of fans in different countries, you give them what they want. If Hollywood were to service their fans, then they should do that instead of holding back and putting all of these restrictions on good material.
It is a dream at this point, but maybe one day, once I have it written out, I will make my way through the system and fight to help get the people what they need!
Well, excuse me for being confused. I'm not a smart person and I'm still learning new things everyday. Can't I interpret your words and speak out what I think in a nice way?
OK, so taking something hurts a person. Here's my question:
HOW?
Now maybe I wasn't as clear with my analogy above, but what I was trying to get at, as some others have said, copyright does prevent those who do create from creating the same thing and making improvements on it. Sure, that does hinder a person from creating, but when I think harm, there's physical, mental, psychological, emotional... do you see where I'm going? Where is the harm that the person is inflicting when they are taking something from a creator? I know physical harm is impossible if someone is stealing or pirating online, but internal harm like mental and psychological? Well maybe. It'll still be hard to prove if you don't have anything to back you up if someone did do some harm from making a copy of a song without you knowing it.
Seriously, I... no, a lot of us wants to know what harm does copying does to a person. Is it like getting a stab wound in the chest and leaving behind a large scar that will stay there forever, or is it like getting a small papercut that could heal in a few days? Is it like seeing the sight of a gruesome image too disturbing to speak out loud, that permanently burns into your mind and haunts you at night, or is it like forgetting something so small that it'll be over with in a day?
Tell us Joe, what is like being harmed from copying?
"Events that came to mind were Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment."
Those are "events"? From what I can understand, both are two different forms of written documents. If by events you mean the reading of the Emancipation Proclamation and the addition of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, then I could see those as events. But two sheets of papers being "events"?
Maybe I could be looking at this differently, but I can't see how just two sheets of written paper can be "events". If what is written on them cause certain things to change during that time, then that's an event. Heck, even writing such a piece of important documents is an event in itself (albeit boring for some). You should be a little more precise on what you're saying. Just saying "[e]vents that came to mind were Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment" makes me wonder that you should brush up on your history.
"Yep, copyright limits what everyone else can do with someone's property."
Uh... no, not really. There's something call human imagination and we can use that to make changes to whatever property there is. There are such things where other people have taken other stuff and subvert, avert, invert, downplay, enforce, defy, discuss, converse, deconstruct, reconstruct, invoke, imply, exaggerate, parody, enforce, and plays it for drama or for laughs. You can take a trope and twist it multiple ends until you beat it dead, and you can apply that to just about everything on this planet, and maybe beyond.
Copyright shouldn't stop human innovation. If someone wants to improve on something, then let them. With copyright in place, you're saying that we can't take a property and make our own changes to it to make it better for other people to enjoy? Personally I would like to have not only a say in what I want in a new device, but also have a crack at maybe designing something that might appeal to others. If copyright is preventing us from innovating, then why do we have it?
And that "it's the law" BS you're going to say, if you reply to this... yeah, not going to faze me. Try and it's not going to work.
"If a pirate is violating someone's rights, then someone is a victim of that pirate's actions."
OK Joe, I have to ask you this: how is this possible? From how I am seeing this, it is as if the pirate is reaching out and violating the person over the Internet, instead of going after the goods. OK, I should elaborate on this:
I imagine seeing Person A coming up to Person B and noticed that Person B has an iPod. Person A takes it and claims it for himself. OK, I could see that if Person A takes Person B's iPod and says that Person B can't have and/or use it anymore, then Person B has lose his rights to that iPod. But that isn't stopping him from buying another one. Then there's the thought that Person A comes up and flashes a cloning device that makes him a physical copy of the iPod. Sure Person B can sound off in not having his iPod being copy, but that will make him look like a clingy child.
However, if Person A were to meet up with Person B and threaten him about his creative abilities and cut off his hands, then he's violating a person's rights. If he takes a few steps up, Person A goes from taking away a person's rights to create to taking a person's rights to live. If Person A does not touch the iPod and only focused on Person B, then there's your violation of rights.
Now you may think that this might be a bad analogy, but it's better than comparing murder and rape to digital copying. There are serious repercussions when it comes to murder and rape, especially when more than one person has be violated, when copying is just making a duplicate of a file. Seriously, where is the harm in having one extra, identical file?
Bottom line: If a person is doing actual harm to another person, there are violations. If someone made a copy of a file, then there's no real harm. Copying =/= violations of human rights!
"When nobody is paying for it anymore, what do you think happens?
Hint: You won't have anything new to pirate."
... OK, that's completely bull-crap. First off, as a writer and an artist, I make stuff for free for not only my enjoyment, but for those who are fans of the series that I like and others out there that might be interested in the stuff I like. I can create anything that I want, either a fan-fiction or an original story, and I could post it online for people to read or put a price on it and have people buy it (though I have yet to do that). Same goes for my art, again not having a price on my art. Then again, do I really need to put a price on my work?
Sure I might as well do it if I were to pursue it, but it's not like I'll make a true living off it. In fact, I could care less if my stuff is being pirated or not! It means that someone is looking at my stuff and they are curious about it. Sure it'll be nice to know who is looking at it, but I'm satisfy with people coming in and seeing what I have available for them. And personally I do like to have more positive reviews than negative, but having a few negatives isn't essentially a bad thing. If people do hate it then that will attract some people to see how it is bad.
I guess my point is that even though I create free stories and art online, it doesn't mean that there isn't anything good or bad being made today. There are seriously stuff being pumped onto the Internet constantly, no matter what it is, and some of it IS for free! Granted Sturgeon's Law is in effect, but there's always that 10% that is going to be worth it in the end. Even if Hollywood is still getting paid, it doesn't mean that money is going to go for something in that project. A large sum of cash =/= good quality. As I said, I create stuff for free and I let the people decide for themselves whether or not it is good. Even then, I do have a feeling that I create doesn't look good, but most of the time I believe that I am creating a good idea, even a great idea, and that helps me continue working to entertain those who love my work and the work I'm basing my ideas on.
Good or bad, stuff is being made and piracy is not the cause of it. Money isn't a problem. As long as humans can create something in their minds, they will find ways to get that idea out without the aid of money. Sure it's useful, but not all the time. ... You know, this kinda reminds me of a saying my drafting teacher once said:
Improvise, Adapt, Overcome.
If no one can do that, then why bother doing anything? If you can't do one of those things, then perhaps you should stay behind. It's probably for the best.
Their "justification" into putting these blocks kinda bugs me, especially the quote of having the kids looking at " the most hardcore, violent and abusive images." If kids are really looking into that, then it's best to talk to them about that. And honestly I could take that quote and provide it to something else that doesn't involve porn.
Evidence clearly shows pornography has a detrimental impact on children and young people including premature sexualisation..."
"Premature sexualization"? Wouldn't that be call puberty?
"... negative body image..."
I do question my own appearance, but I am at least satisfy with what I am now and I do want to improve my image. And this isn't thanks to porn that made me think about my body.
"... and unhealthy notions about relationships."
Who needs porn when you have Twilight to show you how an unhealthy relationship turns out?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now do I want to make money off of my writings? Maybe. Do I have to? No!
On the post: Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I feel like that every time that you reply, I'm going to repeat this to you: "It's just a link. I shouldn't worry about it."
On the post: Dutch Court Says Linking Can Be A Form of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Honestly I don't see how linking to anything could be consider infringing. I agree with the AC above you: It isn't and shouldn't be. It's just a link. What is the harm in clicking on something that could be useful in getting something done?
On the post: Don't Focus On Why People Pirate; Focus On Why They Don't Buy
Re: Re:
On the post: The Math Says HBO Shouldn't Go Direct, But They Left Innovation Out Of The Equation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
... Again, why can't it be done?
On the post: The Math Says HBO Shouldn't Go Direct, But They Left Innovation Out Of The Equation
Re: Re: Re: Bah. Innovation as defined around here is pretty meh
How do doors make people honest? Aren't the TPP negotiations going on behind closed doors and not once are we given a straight, honest answer about what's going on? I don't think DRM is good to build honesty.
Yay... and I'm doing that as flat as humanly possible.
... Though I have no opinion on the Annoying Orange, they do have a deal with Cartoon Network so money won't be an issue.
On the post: The Math Says HBO Shouldn't Go Direct, But They Left Innovation Out Of The Equation
Re: Re: Re: Bah. Innovation as defined around here is pretty meh
Also, I can't tell what you're saying in your second sentence. You're missing a few words, but then it still won't make any sense whatsoever.
On the post: The Math Says HBO Shouldn't Go Direct, But They Left Innovation Out Of The Equation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then again, I was thinking of putting in "package" to my comment, but left it out, but it still fits it. Part of the thinking reminds me of the favorite system that Dish has (I'm not familiar with the others out there) where you can group the channels that you watch and leave everything else out, but why do we have to pay for those extra channels? Let us make our channel package and then pay for what we get, not for what we don't need!
On the post: Don't Focus On Why People Pirate; Focus On Why They Don't Buy
With all this talk about harm, who is really doing the most damage: the pirates/consumers, the content creators or the gatekeepers?
If all of this boils down to money, then where's the harm, who is it harming, and what kind of harm is it doing?
On the post: The Math Says HBO Shouldn't Go Direct, But They Left Innovation Out Of The Equation
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: MPAA Sends Five Key Propaganda Points To Politicians
It is a dream at this point, but maybe one day, once I have it written out, I will make my way through the system and fight to help get the people what they need!
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
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: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
HOW?
Now maybe I wasn't as clear with my analogy above, but what I was trying to get at, as some others have said, copyright does prevent those who do create from creating the same thing and making improvements on it. Sure, that does hinder a person from creating, but when I think harm, there's physical, mental, psychological, emotional... do you see where I'm going? Where is the harm that the person is inflicting when they are taking something from a creator? I know physical harm is impossible if someone is stealing or pirating online, but internal harm like mental and psychological? Well maybe. It'll still be hard to prove if you don't have anything to back you up if someone did do some harm from making a copy of a song without you knowing it.
Seriously, I... no, a lot of us wants to know what harm does copying does to a person. Is it like getting a stab wound in the chest and leaving behind a large scar that will stay there forever, or is it like getting a small papercut that could heal in a few days? Is it like seeing the sight of a gruesome image too disturbing to speak out loud, that permanently burns into your mind and haunts you at night, or is it like forgetting something so small that it'll be over with in a day?
Tell us Joe, what is like being harmed from copying?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
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:
Those are "events"? From what I can understand, both are two different forms of written documents. If by events you mean the reading of the Emancipation Proclamation and the addition of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, then I could see those as events. But two sheets of papers being "events"?
Maybe I could be looking at this differently, but I can't see how just two sheets of written paper can be "events". If what is written on them cause certain things to change during that time, then that's an event. Heck, even writing such a piece of important documents is an event in itself (albeit boring for some). You should be a little more precise on what you're saying. Just saying "[e]vents that came to mind were Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment" makes me wonder that you should brush up on your history.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh... no, not really. There's something call human imagination and we can use that to make changes to whatever property there is. There are such things where other people have taken other stuff and subvert, avert, invert, downplay, enforce, defy, discuss, converse, deconstruct, reconstruct, invoke, imply, exaggerate, parody, enforce, and plays it for drama or for laughs. You can take a trope and twist it multiple ends until you beat it dead, and you can apply that to just about everything on this planet, and maybe beyond.
Copyright shouldn't stop human innovation. If someone wants to improve on something, then let them. With copyright in place, you're saying that we can't take a property and make our own changes to it to make it better for other people to enjoy? Personally I would like to have not only a say in what I want in a new device, but also have a crack at maybe designing something that might appeal to others. If copyright is preventing us from innovating, then why do we have it?
And that "it's the law" BS you're going to say, if you reply to this... yeah, not going to faze me. Try and it's not going to work.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK Joe, I have to ask you this: how is this possible? From how I am seeing this, it is as if the pirate is reaching out and violating the person over the Internet, instead of going after the goods. OK, I should elaborate on this:
I imagine seeing Person A coming up to Person B and noticed that Person B has an iPod. Person A takes it and claims it for himself. OK, I could see that if Person A takes Person B's iPod and says that Person B can't have and/or use it anymore, then Person B has lose his rights to that iPod. But that isn't stopping him from buying another one. Then there's the thought that Person A comes up and flashes a cloning device that makes him a physical copy of the iPod. Sure Person B can sound off in not having his iPod being copy, but that will make him look like a clingy child.
However, if Person A were to meet up with Person B and threaten him about his creative abilities and cut off his hands, then he's violating a person's rights. If he takes a few steps up, Person A goes from taking away a person's rights to create to taking a person's rights to live. If Person A does not touch the iPod and only focused on Person B, then there's your violation of rights.
Now you may think that this might be a bad analogy, but it's better than comparing murder and rape to digital copying. There are serious repercussions when it comes to murder and rape, especially when more than one person has be violated, when copying is just making a duplicate of a file. Seriously, where is the harm in having one extra, identical file?
Bottom line: If a person is doing actual harm to another person, there are violations. If someone made a copy of a file, then there's no real harm. Copying =/= violations of human rights!
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hint: You won't have anything new to pirate."
... OK, that's completely bull-crap. First off, as a writer and an artist, I make stuff for free for not only my enjoyment, but for those who are fans of the series that I like and others out there that might be interested in the stuff I like. I can create anything that I want, either a fan-fiction or an original story, and I could post it online for people to read or put a price on it and have people buy it (though I have yet to do that). Same goes for my art, again not having a price on my art. Then again, do I really need to put a price on my work?
Sure I might as well do it if I were to pursue it, but it's not like I'll make a true living off it. In fact, I could care less if my stuff is being pirated or not! It means that someone is looking at my stuff and they are curious about it. Sure it'll be nice to know who is looking at it, but I'm satisfy with people coming in and seeing what I have available for them. And personally I do like to have more positive reviews than negative, but having a few negatives isn't essentially a bad thing. If people do hate it then that will attract some people to see how it is bad.
I guess my point is that even though I create free stories and art online, it doesn't mean that there isn't anything good or bad being made today. There are seriously stuff being pumped onto the Internet constantly, no matter what it is, and some of it IS for free! Granted Sturgeon's Law is in effect, but there's always that 10% that is going to be worth it in the end. Even if Hollywood is still getting paid, it doesn't mean that money is going to go for something in that project. A large sum of cash =/= good quality. As I said, I create stuff for free and I let the people decide for themselves whether or not it is good. Even then, I do have a feeling that I create doesn't look good, but most of the time I believe that I am creating a good idea, even a great idea, and that helps me continue working to entertain those who love my work and the work I'm basing my ideas on.
Good or bad, stuff is being made and piracy is not the cause of it. Money isn't a problem. As long as humans can create something in their minds, they will find ways to get that idea out without the aid of money. Sure it's useful, but not all the time. ... You know, this kinda reminds me of a saying my drafting teacher once said:
Improvise, Adapt, Overcome.
If no one can do that, then why bother doing anything? If you can't do one of those things, then perhaps you should stay behind. It's probably for the best.
On the post: Evidence That UK Needs Mandatory Porn Filters? Informal Survey Done At One School
Evidence clearly shows pornography has a detrimental impact on children and young people including premature sexualisation..."
"Premature sexualization"? Wouldn't that be call puberty?
"... negative body image..."
I do question my own appearance, but I am at least satisfy with what I am now and I do want to improve my image. And this isn't thanks to porn that made me think about my body.
"... and unhealthy notions about relationships."
Who needs porn when you have Twilight to show you how an unhealthy relationship turns out?
Next >>