This, my friend, is exactly what they want. And unless you are willing to do without it, which most people will not be, they will then argue that the general agreement of folks constitutes prima facia evidence that what they are doing is moral and ethical.
Ultimately, immoral standards exist because people in general - not just a few people in specific positions, but people in general - are not terribly concerned with justice and fair play, let alone truth. What folks want is convenience. If you could make drinking the blood of babies convenient, and attach it to something fun to experience, people would merrily drink the blood of babies.
I get the feeling most people who are trying to shake loose of IP law have absolutely, positively no idea just how deep the roots of power and influence go that led to this system.
It's hard to take either seriously as they are both based on the canard that an artists has some right to work hand in hand with abusive and anti-competative businesses in order to protect a law granting artificial monopolies.
The easiest fix in the universe for this is to simply make it impossible for copyright licensing rights to be sold. The artist dictates terms under which their art can be sold, and anyone who wants to can pay them directly. Allowing corporations to own the licensing rights effectively destroys the argument that this is about creators.
If corporations are sidestepping the law, your real issue then is with limited liability, and especially how that interacts with modern central bank dominated finance, not IP law.
If this really is the infamous AJ, I am a little disappointed in the portrayal of him as a troll. He is obviously a relatively well informed true believer, giving you every opportunity to see into the mind of such people. He is a little on the impulsive and insulting side, but not worse than a lot of us really. It just stings because he's on the wrong side.
The poster says, "Your ToS is your due process." That, for someone who has an understanding of the law - and it is clear that the poster does in my opinion - is meant to be a bit of a hyperbolic metaphor. A ToS obviously has nothing at all to do with due process, as it is not a law. It is the agreement between yourself and a service provider. If you wish to sue a service provider over ToS, you can. In fact, some time not too long ago there was an article right here on Tech Dirt mocking a business for suing Twitter, I think it was, because they had a contract and Twitter changed the nature of their feed, thus in the opinion of their business partner violating their contract.
Most people here howled and mocked the plaintiff for suing, but that is precisely the kind of due process you have if you sign a ToS - to have the provider held to the terms to which they agreed.
That's really all he is saying, in a nutshell. Not all that scary.
"Wanna bet? Breaking Wifi encryption takes an average of 12.3 minutes with the proper knownledge and software. So jacking up your neighbors account, or even just setting them up, no problem... "
If this is true, that is interesting to me. Is it detectable? It seems to me that it would be, and the ISP should be forced to put the monitoring in place to deal with this so people are not getting struck when it is not their fault.
Breaking the encryption I presume allows you to snoop the password? Because just breaking the encryption and listening in is not going to be seen by anyone other than a similarly armed super-snoop, and thus is not going to end up counting as a strike.
I think the fact you get six strikes more than makes up for Charlie hacking your password. If everyone put a password on their wireless, and a secure one at that, there would be little chance of cracking passwords. Further, the techniques used to crack a password are detectable.
I would agree though that, if you had an issue like this, the ISP should be forced to consider evidence in your defense and take back the strike if you can show you are being hacked.
All of which is beside the point to me. The bottom line is that technology has made copyright obsolete at best, and that all such efforts to interfere with technology, other businesses, etc, in order to maintain the current copyright regulatory environment are wrong without any need to reference inconveniences or unfair prosecutions.
If the law is wrong, whether or not you are fairly convicted is moot.
You know I think you're right. I was even trying to avoid saying copyright or patent and fell right into the mess anyhow.
In the most fundamental sense, IP is evil because it is dishonest. There is no such thing as intellectual property, and therefore to speak of it once that fact is established represents an attempt to mislead.
You're right... and it is important to be specific and accurate about this.
Thoughtful, reasoned remarks often do not get the attention they deserve because they cannot be absorbed in a second and a half and voted "insightful" or "funny", but this post really strikes at the heart of the issue.
Rights owners are attempting to illegalize technologies, or specific uses of technology, or bully ISP's into doing it, all because the law is now hopelessly unenforceable. Technology created the perceived need for copyright, and now it has created the perceived threat of copyright to other, more cherished values.
My fear is they may win the battle for public perception in no small part because they still dominate the most convenient ways people have of collecting information or entertaining themselves.
The way you parsed out my statements makes it clear to me you have no desire to address my thoughts. Thanks for clarifying the direction from which you're approaching the discussion though. Obviously, I vehemently disagree.
As monopolies, or near monopolies, corporations are de facto arms of the government. The receive government largesse in the form of limited liability, so the owners cannot be held accountable even financially, much less morally, and yet they have power to limit access to information. This argument that they are privately owned and therefore owe the community in which they operate nothing is self destructive at best.
Re: How would this apply to copyright law? Patent law?
If one were to successfully argue that IP has any use at all, I think shortening the terms of coverage is the only real answer. My personal opinion, and I have only the vaguest of arguments for these, are two years for copyright and 6 months to a year for patent. These represent to me the fair turn around time for people who have invested a lot into something to get their money back out of it.
The expense of medical research might argue for a special exception for them, and perhaps some other disciplines as well. What you end up running up against with patents though is that there really is an expense associated with the physical portion of the research, and while I think that would be overcome in a free market, the transition from a patent regulated market to a free one would be bumpy if not well thought out.
And I don't even know who to go to for information on how a well thought out transition would look.
More and more it is becoming clear to me that one of the best ways to combat IP abuse is to simply opt out. Professors making their works available and artists ceding copyright protection strike at the heart of the system that pretends to be all about protecting their rights.
What this boils down to is that human beings make a distinction between good and bad violence. It's intriguing to me that this is a Democrat. One of the calling cards of their way of doing business is to eventually medicalize everything and come at it from that direction. You see Yee here making the comment that he is going to have the decision studied to see what new angle they can come at it from. It will likely be based on this little tidbit here -
"California’s Act does not adjust the boundaries of an existing category of unprotected speech to ensure that a definition designed for adults is not uncritically applied to children."
They won't end up needing to prove the kids do anything wrong. Merely that there is some documented "medical harm".
I think the more interesting question that is not getting raised here is why people continue to object to violent video games and their perceived marketing to children. This decision is fairly one sided, and the Supreme Court took it up apparently to put an exclamation point on the fact that these sorts of laws need to stop coming up, but they still do.
There are apparently a lot of people out there enraged at the gaming industry, and I think entertainment just in general, over what is perceived to be a torrent of negative, unwanted entertainment that kids then harass their parents for. I know some parents just feel beleaguered by a culture seemingly steeped in violence and filth, and nothing ever seems to stem that tide.
I am not for these laws. I love violent video games in fact. But there is something to this - something that is not getting a lot of airtime either in media or among most pundits. I think people are just growing sick of sickness being the status quo.
Some of what you say is obvious b.s., especially that part about getting caught with stolen goods even though you paid for them and have a receipt from a legit outlet. That's nonsense.
I am a little disconcerted though that this post got enough votes to end up being hidden. I'm glad the link is available to see what caused all the uproar.
To "the community" -
Pro Tip - when attempting to censor someone, shouting and pointing at them does not help to keep attention off of their words. =)
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nevermind.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ultimately, immoral standards exist because people in general - not just a few people in specific positions, but people in general - are not terribly concerned with justice and fair play, let alone truth. What folks want is convenience. If you could make drinking the blood of babies convenient, and attach it to something fun to experience, people would merrily drink the blood of babies.
I get the feeling most people who are trying to shake loose of IP law have absolutely, positively no idea just how deep the roots of power and influence go that led to this system.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Hrm "Creators Rights"
The easiest fix in the universe for this is to simply make it impossible for copyright licensing rights to be sold. The artist dictates terms under which their art can be sold, and anyone who wants to can pay them directly. Allowing corporations to own the licensing rights effectively destroys the argument that this is about creators.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The poster says, "Your ToS is your due process." That, for someone who has an understanding of the law - and it is clear that the poster does in my opinion - is meant to be a bit of a hyperbolic metaphor. A ToS obviously has nothing at all to do with due process, as it is not a law. It is the agreement between yourself and a service provider. If you wish to sue a service provider over ToS, you can. In fact, some time not too long ago there was an article right here on Tech Dirt mocking a business for suing Twitter, I think it was, because they had a contract and Twitter changed the nature of their feed, thus in the opinion of their business partner violating their contract.
Most people here howled and mocked the plaintiff for suing, but that is precisely the kind of due process you have if you sign a ToS - to have the provider held to the terms to which they agreed.
That's really all he is saying, in a nutshell. Not all that scary.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If this is true, that is interesting to me. Is it detectable? It seems to me that it would be, and the ISP should be forced to put the monitoring in place to deal with this so people are not getting struck when it is not their fault.
Breaking the encryption I presume allows you to snoop the password? Because just breaking the encryption and listening in is not going to be seen by anyone other than a similarly armed super-snoop, and thus is not going to end up counting as a strike.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would agree though that, if you had an issue like this, the ISP should be forced to consider evidence in your defense and take back the strike if you can show you are being hacked.
All of which is beside the point to me. The bottom line is that technology has made copyright obsolete at best, and that all such efforts to interfere with technology, other businesses, etc, in order to maintain the current copyright regulatory environment are wrong without any need to reference inconveniences or unfair prosecutions.
If the law is wrong, whether or not you are fairly convicted is moot.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Association? Try Guilty by Guilt
In the most fundamental sense, IP is evil because it is dishonest. There is no such thing as intellectual property, and therefore to speak of it once that fact is established represents an attempt to mislead.
You're right... and it is important to be specific and accurate about this.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Rights owners are attempting to illegalize technologies, or specific uses of technology, or bully ISP's into doing it, all because the law is now hopelessly unenforceable. Technology created the perceived need for copyright, and now it has created the perceived threat of copyright to other, more cherished values.
My fear is they may win the battle for public perception in no small part because they still dominate the most convenient ways people have of collecting information or entertaining themselves.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Re: Re:
The way you parsed out my statements makes it clear to me you have no desire to address my thoughts. Thanks for clarifying the direction from which you're approaching the discussion though. Obviously, I vehemently disagree.
As monopolies, or near monopolies, corporations are de facto arms of the government. The receive government largesse in the form of limited liability, so the owners cannot be held accountable even financially, much less morally, and yet they have power to limit access to information. This argument that they are privately owned and therefore owe the community in which they operate nothing is self destructive at best.
On the post: EU VP On Aaron Swartz: If Our Laws Hold Back Benefits From Openness, We Should Change Those Laws
Re: How would this apply to copyright law? Patent law?
The expense of medical research might argue for a special exception for them, and perhaps some other disciplines as well. What you end up running up against with patents though is that there really is an expense associated with the physical portion of the research, and while I think that would be overcome in a free market, the transition from a patent regulated market to a free one would be bumpy if not well thought out.
And I don't even know who to go to for information on how a well thought out transition would look.
On the post: EU VP On Aaron Swartz: If Our Laws Hold Back Benefits From Openness, We Should Change Those Laws
Re: proud
We're all so very much alike, and yet we refuse to acknowledge it.
On the post: EU VP On Aaron Swartz: If Our Laws Hold Back Benefits From Openness, We Should Change Those Laws
Awesome Article
On the post: California Senator Leland Yee Tells Gamers To Shut Up And Let The Grown Ups Talk
Re: Sorry, Tim, you made a mistake.
What this boils down to is that human beings make a distinction between good and bad violence. It's intriguing to me that this is a Democrat. One of the calling cards of their way of doing business is to eventually medicalize everything and come at it from that direction. You see Yee here making the comment that he is going to have the decision studied to see what new angle they can come at it from. It will likely be based on this little tidbit here -
"California’s Act does not adjust the boundaries of an existing category of unprotected speech to ensure that a definition designed for adults is not uncritically applied to children."
They won't end up needing to prove the kids do anything wrong. Merely that there is some documented "medical harm".
On the post: California Senator Leland Yee Tells Gamers To Shut Up And Let The Grown Ups Talk
Re: Is this the law?
ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION ET AL.
I give up this time if it still doesn't work. Promise.
On the post: California Senator Leland Yee Tells Gamers To Shut Up And Let The Grown Ups Talk
Re:
On the post: California Senator Leland Yee Tells Gamers To Shut Up And Let The Grown Ups Talk
Is this the law?
ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION ET AL.
I think the more interesting question that is not getting raised here is why people continue to object to violent video games and their perceived marketing to children. This decision is fairly one sided, and the Supreme Court took it up apparently to put an exclamation point on the fact that these sorts of laws need to stop coming up, but they still do.
There are apparently a lot of people out there enraged at the gaming industry, and I think entertainment just in general, over what is perceived to be a torrent of negative, unwanted entertainment that kids then harass their parents for. I know some parents just feel beleaguered by a culture seemingly steeped in violence and filth, and nothing ever seems to stem that tide.
I am not for these laws. I love violent video games in fact. But there is something to this - something that is not getting a lot of airtime either in media or among most pundits. I think people are just growing sick of sickness being the status quo.
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
I am a little disconcerted though that this post got enough votes to end up being hidden. I'm glad the link is available to see what caused all the uproar.
To "the community" -
Pro Tip - when attempting to censor someone, shouting and pointing at them does not help to keep attention off of their words. =)
On the post: Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
Re:
It is illegal to know without paying, and those who have the information keep upping the prices.
Next >>