Freedom of speech. It comes under attack from all kinds of slippery slopes: the desire to protect the "easily offended", the religious fools who claim the right to be protected from blasphemy, the claims of "incitement" that by definition absolve responsibility of the person actually committing the crime because he supposedly loses control of his actions as a result of the "inciter", the over-extension of libel laws, the workers who are compelled into silence by their bosses (a big example recently being the risk analysers of bank managers), the super-injunctions of the U.K. that particularly stop women from calling out on their cheating husbands but also protect big corporations from exposure of their corruption, and plenty of others indeed.
Considering the long history of attacks from slippery slopes on freedom of speech, I can guarantee that the copyright maximalist who claims that, when it comes to his utopian vision of property, somehow freedom of speech is ITSELF the slippery slope, that maximalist has not the faintest hint of modesty whatsoever.
Re: Re: Make DRM mutually exclusive with Copyright?
What is ultimately more disturbing is that people happily allow such breaking of their paid-for and personal OS software even when made aware of it, and still buy the DRMed products.
Surely even strong advocates of copyright must find something really disturbing in the supposed necessity of partially breaking people's computers on the presumption that they might steal.
If the NSA claimed their spying was justified on the alternative reason of "people might steal from bank accounts online" we know what the reaction would be.
Copyright also overlaps with intellectual property rights, too. In particular, derivative works.
There is often a claim that goes around in counter to the reasonable observation that creations made from building blocks that belong to everyone (say, the letters of the alphabet) cannot be regarded as property, and that claim is this: "we may not own the building blocks because they are common, but we own the symphonies because they are unique". To which I respond: if the symphonies are unique, surely my symphony of Mickey Mouse told in a way never told before is also unique and therefore also my right? But apparently not.
There's no way they can escape this paradox. There is a REASON why we stress the importance of avoiding building upon property "blocks" that were never anybody's to begin with - because you get paradoxical overlaps.
If, however, such symphonies were regarded as the alternative kind of property to products - services, that is - no overlaps exist. Which is why assurance contracts such as crowdfunded projects are in the right and copyright is in the wrong.
Derivative artists have their rights to property too.
If the property were treated as services instead of products, we would not have this kind of irreconcilable overlap between an original artist's rights and derivative artists' rights.
And bear in mind, there are far more potential derivative arts than there are from the single original art.
Copyright philosophy makes the claim that creative property somehow must be treated as a product instead of a service because of the supposed "free-rider problem", but I do not accept this implication because a) the free-rider problem can not be solved by copyright, neither theoretically nor practically and b) the free-rider problem can be solved just fine with the property as a service by using assurance contracts.
Re: Re: Re: Hey, Mike: the neo-cons still want to invade Syria AND Iran.
I have not forgotten about the crimes of the Soviet Union. And neither have I forgotten about the U.S.'s pushing back against the Taliban's colonisation and oppression of every conceivable minority of Afghanistan. No, I have not forgotten. What is your point?
And even if I WAS being hypocritical here, by the way, by saying "no" to putting pressure on China (what I do say is "yes" to putting pressure on China to stop its authoritarianism, considering the country's size and what scale of pressure that would be most moral), you would have only proved that I was a hypocrite, and not whether taking out Saddam Hussein after 30 years of fascist oppression was the right thing to do.
Re: Re: Re: Hey, Mike: the neo-cons still want to invade Syria AND Iran.
Not everybody in Syria has "chosen" to be involved in that war, despite how you put it.
And there are many things that are supposedly none of our business: starvation in Africa, India and China, homelessness in our own countries, torture and oppression of the worst kinds in all sorts of totalitarian regimes, etc. To pretend otherwise would be to succumb to typical right-wing, isolationist, "poverty is not our problem and you can't take my property away from me" thinking. It's all too easy to forget that serious crises, including pointless civil wars that can be stopped, happen all the time on this planet while we live comfortable, quiet lives back home and get high on capitalism.
You may only live once, but you're not the only one alive.
Re: Hey, Mike: the neo-cons still want to invade Syria AND Iran.
And by the way, I don't know how much of a "nothing" you call the attempted colonisation of Afghanistan by the Taliban and the genocidal nightmare that was Saddam Hussein.
Do you know how many lives could have been saved had intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo happened earlier than they did? Never mind ANY intervention at all in Rwanda and Darfur?
I posted this about Alan Turing and the pardon issue a couple of months ago on Reddit:
"This man will never get enough recognition. To the extent that he should be pardoned I am uneasy. It always seems like the STATE is the one wanting to be pardoned above everyone else, to be honest. I would probably prefer it if the state was forever blotted with its shame for how Turning was treated. Besides, civil disobedience necessarily means breaking the law - often an unjust one - in the name of a brave and radical cause that can mean even prison, and it would be rather undermining of Turning's defiance against this barbaric law to pardon him and sweep the impact of his struggle under the carpet. Just because you have broken a law does not mean you have committed an immoral act. Sometimes, it means you have committed a great noble calling. And to do anything to make light of it would not be thinkable."
No, the Queen does not deserve points for this.
And no. There is no need for the U.K. state to do everything it can to glorify Alan Turning in this moment of all times when the GCHQ desperately needs to praise a code-breaker.
The GCHQ doesn't even break codes. It and the NSA changes the codes in its favour. And Al Qaeda will have the last laugh as it uses the real codes with no backdoors for evil purposes. While the rest of us get pointlessly spied on.
Put it this way: someone who works at Subway may "make" sandwiches, but that does not necessarily mean he "owns" the sandwiches. This is because he is being paid for his services, not products. This is why it is important to get the product and service distinctions correct.
You are making a mistake parallel with what the strict Socialists were claiming in terms of "owning the means of production."
Only if the raw materials you used to make it were your property to begin with. An author cannot say that about the words in the dictionary as they do not belong to him. You have to own the raw materials first.
John Locke put it like this with regards to an apple:
Can count as property - The stem. The skin. The seeds. The food.
Can not count as property - The colour. The shininess. The weight. The shape.
What separates them is whether or not they are tangible concepts of an apple. And the reason for making this distinction is because it is obviously futile to call an intangible attribute property let alone dream of being able to enforce it. Guess which category copyright falls into.
Copyright also got to this intangible stage by going against Locke's principles even further, by pretending that it involves products when it actually involves services. This distortion makes it far harder for the artist to claim what is rightfully his.
Thankfully, because I advocate an economy that DOES go by the principles correctly by treating creativity as a service, an economy in the form of crowdfunding/assurance contracts that is, it works "without that assumption" of copyright and I do not need to believe in it.
MegaUpload would not have been in such an easy position to steal if it wasn't for copyright. Let me repeat that: the root cause of Kim Dotcom's theft is copyright. This is because nobody has to answer to anyone when copyright distorts creativity into a product.
If creativity were a service on the other hand, MegaUpload would have had to pay their dues to the artist in order for the creativity, and hence MegaUpload's advantages, to exist whatsoever.
Every computer connected to the internet can virtually act as a proxy. UK user blocked by a filter? Ask someone in the United States to give you the HTML code over Skype. Done. That's being a proxy.
Asking to "make all unauthorised proxies illegal" is basically saying "make all unauthorised computers illegal".
If you sell ANYTHING for $5 - a washing machine, a toaster, a car, a jewel, a phone - only to have the person who you sold it to sell it on themselves for much, much more than you did, that is no excuse to have the deal "reversed" in any way. Even if you think there should be a slimy compromise in the form of tax, you can only morally say that that tax must be at a level of at least 99% in order to mean anything, which is ridiculous. Nasty "deals" like this happen all the time, everywhere. And there is no cure for it. As much as I find the "Cash in the Attic" shows tedious to watch, I wouldn't dream of stooping to such a level as a means of offensive.
I have to ask: what on Earth makes copyright advocates think they deserve special privilege, and insist they be the exception to the rule? Especially considering how this isn't even strictly a copyright issue, but a game-theory issue? The buyer is following every copyright law in the book, but that is not enough?
How would websites like eBay, Amazon, play.com, Google, the fucking Post Office, all be able to function if any value they bring to the market is treated like theft? They do after all profit in the scale of "millions" from pre-owned swapping just as much as any other "leech". It's blatant Rights-Management without the Digital, futile, and massively delusional.
If you want to devalue the painting beyond the buyer's control, make more fucking copies of it, and get the scarce funds which will most likely be close to the same price as the original. You're the only one with the authorisation to do so, right?
Or better yet, in fact the BEST way to devalue it and obtain your rewards, is to abolish copyright, because then the paintings stop becoming important economically and your ability to paint is the only thing worth any monetisation, as well as your official signature.
It's unbelievable how disconnected these people are.
Re: But Kickstarter disclaims all responsibility as a "platform".
Are you saying that Kickstarter deserves no reward for its service? That's rather anti-capitalism of you (in the bad sense). If there is a better value-for-money option that artists can find in other crowdfunding websites, they will take it.
And eBay can't be held responsible for the scams some users try to get away with there either.
On the post: Copyright Week: Fair Use Is Not An 'Exception' But The Rule
Considering the long history of attacks from slippery slopes on freedom of speech, I can guarantee that the copyright maximalist who claims that, when it comes to his utopian vision of property, somehow freedom of speech is ITSELF the slippery slope, that maximalist has not the faintest hint of modesty whatsoever.
On the post: Copyright Week: How Copyright Is Being Use To Destroy Property Rights
Re: Re: Make DRM mutually exclusive with Copyright?
It is softness on malware and hacking.
On the post: Copyright Week: How Copyright Is Being Use To Destroy Property Rights
Re: Make DRM mutually exclusive with Copyright?
If the NSA claimed their spying was justified on the alternative reason of "people might steal from bank accounts online" we know what the reaction would be.
On the post: Copyright Week: How Copyright Is Being Use To Destroy Property Rights
I would go even further.
There is often a claim that goes around in counter to the reasonable observation that creations made from building blocks that belong to everyone (say, the letters of the alphabet) cannot be regarded as property, and that claim is this: "we may not own the building blocks because they are common, but we own the symphonies because they are unique". To which I respond: if the symphonies are unique, surely my symphony of Mickey Mouse told in a way never told before is also unique and therefore also my right? But apparently not.
There's no way they can escape this paradox. There is a REASON why we stress the importance of avoiding building upon property "blocks" that were never anybody's to begin with - because you get paradoxical overlaps.
If, however, such symphonies were regarded as the alternative kind of property to products - services, that is - no overlaps exist. Which is why assurance contracts such as crowdfunded projects are in the right and copyright is in the wrong.
On the post: The Grinch Who Stole The Public Domain
Re: Rights in Property
If the property were treated as services instead of products, we would not have this kind of irreconcilable overlap between an original artist's rights and derivative artists' rights.
And bear in mind, there are far more potential derivative arts than there are from the single original art.
Copyright philosophy makes the claim that creative property somehow must be treated as a product instead of a service because of the supposed "free-rider problem", but I do not accept this implication because a) the free-rider problem can not be solved by copyright, neither theoretically nor practically and b) the free-rider problem can be solved just fine with the property as a service by using assurance contracts.
On the post: NSA Defenders Ratchet Up The Rhetoric: Two Former Gov't Officials Urge Hanging Ed Snowden
Re: Re: Re: Hey, Mike: the neo-cons still want to invade Syria AND Iran.
And even if I WAS being hypocritical here, by the way, by saying "no" to putting pressure on China (what I do say is "yes" to putting pressure on China to stop its authoritarianism, considering the country's size and what scale of pressure that would be most moral), you would have only proved that I was a hypocrite, and not whether taking out Saddam Hussein after 30 years of fascist oppression was the right thing to do.
On the post: NSA Defenders Ratchet Up The Rhetoric: Two Former Gov't Officials Urge Hanging Ed Snowden
Re: Re: Re: Hey, Mike: the neo-cons still want to invade Syria AND Iran.
And there are many things that are supposedly none of our business: starvation in Africa, India and China, homelessness in our own countries, torture and oppression of the worst kinds in all sorts of totalitarian regimes, etc. To pretend otherwise would be to succumb to typical right-wing, isolationist, "poverty is not our problem and you can't take my property away from me" thinking. It's all too easy to forget that serious crises, including pointless civil wars that can be stopped, happen all the time on this planet while we live comfortable, quiet lives back home and get high on capitalism.
You may only live once, but you're not the only one alive.
On the post: NSA Defenders Ratchet Up The Rhetoric: Two Former Gov't Officials Urge Hanging Ed Snowden
Re: Hey, Mike: the neo-cons still want to invade Syria AND Iran.
Do you know how many lives could have been saved had intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo happened earlier than they did? Never mind ANY intervention at all in Rwanda and Darfur?
On the post: NSA Defenders Ratchet Up The Rhetoric: Two Former Gov't Officials Urge Hanging Ed Snowden
Re: Hey, Mike: the neo-cons still want to invade Syria AND Iran.
On the post: NSA Defenders Ratchet Up The Rhetoric: Two Former Gov't Officials Urge Hanging Ed Snowden
On the post: It Is 2013, And The Queen Just Pardoned Alan Turing
"This man will never get enough recognition. To the extent that he should be pardoned I am uneasy. It always seems like the STATE is the one wanting to be pardoned above everyone else, to be honest. I would probably prefer it if the state was forever blotted with its shame for how Turning was treated. Besides, civil disobedience necessarily means breaking the law - often an unjust one - in the name of a brave and radical cause that can mean even prison, and it would be rather undermining of Turning's defiance against this barbaric law to pardon him and sweep the impact of his struggle under the carpet. Just because you have broken a law does not mean you have committed an immoral act. Sometimes, it means you have committed a great noble calling. And to do anything to make light of it would not be thinkable."
No, the Queen does not deserve points for this.
And no. There is no need for the U.K. state to do everything it can to glorify Alan Turning in this moment of all times when the GCHQ desperately needs to praise a code-breaker.
The GCHQ doesn't even break codes. It and the NSA changes the codes in its favour. And Al Qaeda will have the last laugh as it uses the real codes with no backdoors for evil purposes. While the rest of us get pointlessly spied on.
On the post: Four-Star General Screams At Reporter Working On Snowden Documents
On the post: DOJ Releases Some Megaupload Evidence; Actually Shows Difficulty Of Running Cloud Service
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DOJ Releases Some Megaupload Evidence; Actually Shows Difficulty Of Running Cloud Service
Re:
You are making a mistake parallel with what the strict Socialists were claiming in terms of "owning the means of production."
On the post: DOJ Releases Some Megaupload Evidence; Actually Shows Difficulty Of Running Cloud Service
Only if the raw materials you used to make it were your property to begin with. An author cannot say that about the words in the dictionary as they do not belong to him. You have to own the raw materials first.
John Locke put it like this with regards to an apple:
Can count as property -
The stem.
The skin.
The seeds.
The food.
Can not count as property -
The colour.
The shininess.
The weight.
The shape.
What separates them is whether or not they are tangible concepts of an apple. And the reason for making this distinction is because it is obviously futile to call an intangible attribute property let alone dream of being able to enforce it. Guess which category copyright falls into.
Copyright also got to this intangible stage by going against Locke's principles even further, by pretending that it involves products when it actually involves services. This distortion makes it far harder for the artist to claim what is rightfully his.
Thankfully, because I advocate an economy that DOES go by the principles correctly by treating creativity as a service, an economy in the form of crowdfunding/assurance contracts that is, it works "without that assumption" of copyright and I do not need to believe in it.
MegaUpload would not have been in such an easy position to steal if it wasn't for copyright. Let me repeat that: the root cause of Kim Dotcom's theft is copyright. This is because nobody has to answer to anyone when copyright distorts creativity into a product.
If creativity were a service on the other hand, MegaUpload would have had to pay their dues to the artist in order for the creativity, and hence MegaUpload's advantages, to exist whatsoever.
On the post: UK's New Mandatory Porn Filter Already Defeated By A Single Chrome Extension
Re: Law
Asking to "make all unauthorised proxies illegal" is basically saying "make all unauthorised computers illegal".
On the post: CBS Airs NSA Propaganda Informercial Masquerading As 'Hard Hitting' 60 Minutes Journalism By Reporter With Massive Conflict Of Interest
Shhhhhh
"The NSA. We have nothing to hide and everything to fear."
"The NSA. Because Al Qaeda can't be bothered with sending USBs in the post."
"The NSA. We install backdoors within the enemy's encryption: because Al Qaeda have kindly let us."
Shh, no tears. Only dreams now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yrt9qkBQ2Q
On the post: 59 Bootleg Beatles Tracks Released Officially -- For All The Wrong Reasons
Why are they so afraid of saying that copyright is the motivation? Are they not proud of it?
On the post: US Copyright Office Supports Artists Getting Paid Multiple Times For Same Work, Harming New Artists To Benefit Established Ones
If you sell ANYTHING for $5 - a washing machine, a toaster, a car, a jewel, a phone - only to have the person who you sold it to sell it on themselves for much, much more than you did, that is no excuse to have the deal "reversed" in any way. Even if you think there should be a slimy compromise in the form of tax, you can only morally say that that tax must be at a level of at least 99% in order to mean anything, which is ridiculous. Nasty "deals" like this happen all the time, everywhere. And there is no cure for it. As much as I find the "Cash in the Attic" shows tedious to watch, I wouldn't dream of stooping to such a level as a means of offensive.
I have to ask: what on Earth makes copyright advocates think they deserve special privilege, and insist they be the exception to the rule? Especially considering how this isn't even strictly a copyright issue, but a game-theory issue? The buyer is following every copyright law in the book, but that is not enough?
How would websites like eBay, Amazon, play.com, Google, the fucking Post Office, all be able to function if any value they bring to the market is treated like theft? They do after all profit in the scale of "millions" from pre-owned swapping just as much as any other "leech". It's blatant Rights-Management without the Digital, futile, and massively delusional.
If you want to devalue the painting beyond the buyer's control, make more fucking copies of it, and get the scarce funds which will most likely be close to the same price as the original. You're the only one with the authorisation to do so, right?
Or better yet, in fact the BEST way to devalue it and obtain your rewards, is to abolish copyright, because then the paintings stop becoming important economically and your ability to paint is the only thing worth any monetisation, as well as your official signature.
It's unbelievable how disconnected these people are.
On the post: Watch One Kickstarter Creator Self-Destruct As People Call Him Out For Scam Project
Re: But Kickstarter disclaims all responsibility as a "platform".
And eBay can't be held responsible for the scams some users try to get away with there either.
Next >>