Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
The defining feature of real ownership is possession (as it has been since the dawn of time); the law only clarifies and systematizes that to make our lives simpler. Economically, real property can be regarded as a monopoly only because of its "uniqueness" (inherent exclusion by possession), not because of the law -- and that interpretation is stretching the economic concept of monopolies, as the word "monopoly" is not generally used to define "property".
Intellectual "property" is a figment created by law that has no actual basis on the natural characteristics of ideas. There is no inherent exclusion by possession, as ideas cannot be owned (as it has been since the dawn of time), and the only way Intellectual "property" can exist is through an artificial monopoly explicitly granted by congress.
I know there are relevant US supreme court rulings that state precisely this. Perhaps an american could cite them for you.
You definitely act like Mister Big Content. You and your monopoly are like Gollum and the ring.
You pay taxes to enforce everybody's rights, but your taxes are nowhere enough to cover the deadweight loss of enforcing your monopoly privilege.
And yes, my rights > your privilege. At the moment your monopoly is being enforced at the expense of our rights, and because of that we WILL (we MUST!) change the law, you can count on it.
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Don't worry, I'm not even mildly interested in your crappy 'product', but YOU BET I'll do everything within my power to reform copyright for the digital age.
Because relics like yourself are the excuse some bullies are using to push through things like ACTA, COICA and similar.
Distribute your crappy "product which is only a license and not a product" any way you like, but don't recruit governments to enforce your antiquated business models at the expense of other people's rights.
There's a difference between looking suspicious because a gun is bulging from your pocket, and looking suspicious because you are wearing a rude t-shirt or look Muslim. The job of the police is to catch the former, not harass the latter.
And even if you are caught standing over a dead body holding a bloody knife, you are still some way from being found guilty by a court.
Is that a shockingly roundabout way of making the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument?
Sure sounds like it to me.
If governments really cared about upholding communications privacy, then your idealistic concept of "pure freedom of information" would hold merit. Since governments don't care about such privacy, the public cater to themselves using various forms of encryption.
Indeed, the server owners went through the legal system to get their servers back, and now they can sue BREIN properly for a bunch of different reasons.
"Did they get a lawyers letter and decide by themselves that handing over the servers would be their best way to avoid any legal involvement?"
Probably, but the servers weren't their property to give away.
"Why is a dutch anti-piracy group doing some sort of covert operations in South (whatever)?"
Because it's a foreign company operating in the Netherlands?
"Are warez and copyright infringers so scared that they are down to trying to hide their servers in friendly countries to avoid legal action? Is that not the actions of guilty minded people?"
I don't think that's what happened, but I wouldn't hold it against them if they were afraid of BREIN and its illegal kamikaze tactics.
I'm sure you know, the suits can be just as intimidating, and only half as humane.
With all the fourth-, fifth-, sixth-, etc- party liability in copyright infringement litigation, it's not hand to see how they were forced to hand over the servers "voluntarily".
It's not beneath a group like BREIN to sue a datacentre, that stored servers owned by a different company, that hosted the content of another company, that was uploaded by random internet users.
This two-party problem is not only endemic to the US, tbh. I think it's a very dangerous problem to have, and I wish there were a way more people gave it some thought (can we put that down to lack of education, or too much indoctrination?).
While people keep voting for the same two (well-lobbied, well-funded, identical except in name, full of shit) parties, the same two parties stay in power. Kind of a truism there, I think, and I wonder if it's the kind of thinking you just described that perpetuates the problem.
I mean, if people voted for others besides the two main parties, isn't there a chance there are just enough disillusioned individuals out there to make a difference? Problem is, there's no way to force people to think for themselves*, and the propaganda pushed out by the main parties seems to make people's minds fizz out in the voting booth.
* Even if I'm wrong, and it's true that it's not worth voting for anyone except the two majors, I find the fact that I rarely see this issue debated online or offline to be quite worrying. But maybe it is being debated and I never noticed.
I'm not American, so perhaps it's not my place to say this, but doesn't anyone else feel that Obama is doing exactly the opposite things of what he promised during election time?
I mean, not just not keeping promises (as is the nature of most politicians), but turning around and kicking the people who voted for him in the groin...?
On the post: Music Is Not A Product, And You'll Never Adapt If You Think It Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
Intellectual "property" is a figment created by law that has no actual basis on the natural characteristics of ideas. There is no inherent exclusion by possession, as ideas cannot be owned (as it has been since the dawn of time), and the only way Intellectual "property" can exist is through an artificial monopoly explicitly granted by congress.
I know there are relevant US supreme court rulings that state precisely this. Perhaps an american could cite them for you.
On the post: Music Is Not A Product, And You'll Never Adapt If You Think It Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
On the post: Music Is Not A Product, And You'll Never Adapt If You Think It Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
On the post: Music Is Not A Product, And You'll Never Adapt If You Think It Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
You pay taxes to enforce everybody's rights, but your taxes are nowhere enough to cover the deadweight loss of enforcing your monopoly privilege.
And yes, my rights > your privilege. At the moment your monopoly is being enforced at the expense of our rights, and because of that we WILL (we MUST!) change the law, you can count on it.
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
On the post: Music Is Not A Product, And You'll Never Adapt If You Think It Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
On the post: Music Is Not A Product, And You'll Never Adapt If You Think It Is
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
You are asking the government to enforce *your* monopoly privilege against *other people* with tax money *those people* are paying.
If you want to keep enforcing your privilege, I suggest you pay for it yourself with just your own tax money.
On the post: Music Is Not A Product, And You'll Never Adapt If You Think It Is
Re: Re: Re: Grammatical angle
On the post: Music Is Not A Product, And You'll Never Adapt If You Think It Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
On the post: Music Is Not A Product, And You'll Never Adapt If You Think It Is
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
Distribute your crappy "product which is only a license and not a product" any way you like, but don't recruit governments to enforce your antiquated business models at the expense of other people's rights.
On the post: Music Is Not A Product, And You'll Never Adapt If You Think It Is
Re: Grammatical angle
On the post: Is It Possible To Block The 'Bad Stuff' Online Without Also Stopping The 'Good Stuff'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And even if you are caught standing over a dead body holding a bloody knife, you are still some way from being found guilty by a court.
On the post: Is It Possible To Block The 'Bad Stuff' Online Without Also Stopping The 'Good Stuff'?
Re:
Sure sounds like it to me.
If governments really cared about upholding communications privacy, then your idealistic concept of "pure freedom of information" would hold merit. Since governments don't care about such privacy, the public cater to themselves using various forms of encryption.
Problem, Echelon?
On the post: Dutch Anti-Piracy Group May Face Legal Charges For Stealing Servers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Dutch Anti-Piracy Group May Face Legal Charges For Stealing Servers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Willful possession of stolen property is often regarded a crime, isn't it?
On the post: Dutch Anti-Piracy Group May Face Legal Charges For Stealing Servers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Clearly, they didn't.
"Did they get a lawyers letter and decide by themselves that handing over the servers would be their best way to avoid any legal involvement?"
Probably, but the servers weren't their property to give away.
"Why is a dutch anti-piracy group doing some sort of covert operations in South (whatever)?"
Because it's a foreign company operating in the Netherlands?
"Are warez and copyright infringers so scared that they are down to trying to hide their servers in friendly countries to avoid legal action? Is that not the actions of guilty minded people?"
I don't think that's what happened, but I wouldn't hold it against them if they were afraid of BREIN and its illegal kamikaze tactics.
On the post: Dutch Anti-Piracy Group May Face Legal Charges For Stealing Servers
Re: Re: Re:
With all the fourth-, fifth-, sixth-, etc- party liability in copyright infringement litigation, it's not hand to see how they were forced to hand over the servers "voluntarily".
It's not beneath a group like BREIN to sue a datacentre, that stored servers owned by a different company, that hosted the content of another company, that was uploaded by random internet users.
On the post: Mediacom Puts Its Own Ads On Other Websites, Including Google & Apple
Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Got Reporter's Phone, Credit Card & Bank Records In Trying To Track Leaker
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To be honest, somewhere deep down, I somehow know it's because people don't give a fuck.
On the post: Feds Got Reporter's Phone, Credit Card & Bank Records In Trying To Track Leaker
Re: Re: Re:
While people keep voting for the same two (well-lobbied, well-funded, identical except in name, full of shit) parties, the same two parties stay in power. Kind of a truism there, I think, and I wonder if it's the kind of thinking you just described that perpetuates the problem.
I mean, if people voted for others besides the two main parties, isn't there a chance there are just enough disillusioned individuals out there to make a difference? Problem is, there's no way to force people to think for themselves*, and the propaganda pushed out by the main parties seems to make people's minds fizz out in the voting booth.
* Even if I'm wrong, and it's true that it's not worth voting for anyone except the two majors, I find the fact that I rarely see this issue debated online or offline to be quite worrying. But maybe it is being debated and I never noticed.
On the post: Feds Got Reporter's Phone, Credit Card & Bank Records In Trying To Track Leaker
I mean, not just not keeping promises (as is the nature of most politicians), but turning around and kicking the people who voted for him in the groin...?
Next >>