Re: Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
You are not talking to somebody who by any means is in favour of the argument "since we can't do everything, why don't we do nothing?" I've ridiculed this argument many times when it comes to silly ad-hypocritum arguments people put for their isolationist foreign policies, for example.
But let's really get real. A website taken out here and there has no effect, not even a SCRATCH, on the following: Google's linking to alternatives, advertising flooding the pirate sites, BitTorrent and the "I am Spartacus" effect, ISPs, VPNs, Tor, Encryption, international piracy, China's 80% piracy market share. The only thing you can do is break these piracy monopolies (especially China's) caused by the Al-Capone enabling of copyright, by abolishing copyright completely and force them to suffer from free-rider problems, in favour of a crowdfunding system that more strictly adheres to the principles of John Locke (i.e. not confusing products with services) where all monetisation goes to the artist if anyone is to benefit whatsoever.
Copyright is not out to prevent piracy, it is the ENABLER of piracy. You need to get this right or everything else will just fall apart. The Chinese government and Kim Dotcom probably SUPPORT copyright for the same reason drug cartels would lobby to keep the war on drugs going if they could. All untaxed, all unregulated.
But since you did not directly answer my question and say which "cause" is better than the other, drugs or piracy, I may as well say this. I know what would happen if I were to call the police and report somebody for possessing Class A drugs: they would most likely break down their door within the hour and search the house inch by inch. If I were to report somebody to the police for an illegal copy of a movie, chances are that I would be arrested for wasting police time.
If that doesn't tell you everything I do not know what does.
And I don't know why other people's opinions on this website should have any relevance to mine. I can do my own work, thank you.
There is a very, very high probability that several corporations, government agencies, etc are benefiting from all kinds of pirated software. This is only to be expected since trying to police copyright infringement is next to impossible - the urge for corruption becomes too great. It would make for a great story if you were an investigative journalist.
We need to step back and see the nature of the delusion for what it is: a philosophy that enables free-riders to benefit from working-class creators by waiting for them to invest all their fruits of labour and create, and then steal without paying dues without any practical punishment. And all of this is somehow considered better than setting up an assurance contract system that would make it a condition for corporations and states to put their fair shares into the hats of the creators if they wish to get what they want. And if they try to cheat, even a few, nobody gets anything. "Mutually Assured Destruction" is a good metaphor for this.
Copyright is anti intellectual property, not pro. Never forget it. And start supporting something that will really protect the life, liberty and property of creators. Crowdfunding trumps everything. Copyright enables pirates to steal such as the U.S. military and, most likely, other powers.
Repost the video in protest, regardless if GoldieBlox or The Beastie Boys have a problem with it. Situations like this make my dialectical mind quite pissed off.
WordPress is now doing what the likes of Google with Youtube and others have failed to do for so long: stand up for basic common sense.
DMCA claims ought to be examined individually before content is judged, and with no automated systems that are doomed with failure and predictable nonsense. If copyright advocates find such a method too impractical, that is their problem. They have no right to expect everyone else to bow the knee for their own ridiculous utopia.
When a large website is forced to resort to automated DMCA systems in order to stay stable, I call that government-subsidised Digital Rights Management.
I totally agree with the troll problem. We SHOULD have more people voicing their anger in person, in the faces of others and out in the open. I come from the United Kingdom: people are too fucking nice around here as it is, and it is actively encouraged in our culture. "We must be respectful!" "I am offended therefore I have rights!" "Apologise at once!" Shut the fuck up.
I for one wish I could be more famous than I am for my aggressive dissent, which is far too nice as it is. Americans: don't let our disgraceful cowardliness rub off on you for a second.
Re: Yes, but only proves that Google is a growing monster.
If you want to stop Google from being such a monster, and I would hope that you do, call for the abolition of copyright. They will have a real chance of losing both their monopolistic copyright strangleholds and monopolistic piracy strangleholds.
The thought of applying a present law to the past should make anyone sick. You would not punish someone under a law coming into force today that, for example, banned gambling, for a bet he made a few years ago when gambling was legal.
Why on Earth do copyright advocates think they are the exception to this essential democratic principle? Do they not know how many artists were making a living, and preparing to make a living, from releasing derivative works of public domain content for commercial flourishing and meeting the rights of their audiences, too? Have they no shame?
I am beginning to wonder if the heads of the NSA now repeatedly go about their day yelling in their offices "...why... WHY didn't I DRM-lock that document?!"
Because that IS the only way to prevent your data from being copied without permission, you know! It's not like you need a massive copying LAW or anything...
Here in the U.K., we have just seen police officers lie about "pleb" comments while the IPCC does hardly anything to chase it up.
But yet people are still deluded into thinking that similar independent regulation set up with the press will stop phone hacking... phone hacking that the police were complicit in. There is a reason why not as much fury is aimed at the police in relation to this issue: people do not want to admit the police have an independent body that keeps them "accountable". Need I even mention Hillsborough?
And that is on top of the even more insane delusion that it will stop tabloid readers from engaging in their sadomasochistic drivel.
You should have seen the way in which the Guardian's commenters were defending the royal charter in the articles (royal charter... ROYAL?! Fucking monarchy strikes again!)... a charter that would have put more pressure on the paper to be silent about Snowden's leaks on top of what they did to David Miranda. Their attitude is disgraceful.
I really do wish our society would take the values of the First Amendment as seriously as you guys in the U.S. do, and actually fucking get a Constitution.
Copyright is quite a vast subject. It probably deserves a spectrum all of its own, independent of the traditional Left-Right wings.
But I probably still could not fit anywhere on that copyright spectrum. I am an abolitionist, but not of any "faction" that I can see gaining popular ground right now.
For instance, I try my best to make a point by avoiding the cliches that my side of the spectrum dish out: "it's not theft it's infringement!" "But the labels are too rich, anyway!", "I can't afford paying!", "They won't make their streaming channels convenient enough!". These not only show that one isn't thinking for one's self, the arguments themselves undermine a lot of what the sensible pro-copyright advocates say, which is not fair. I come from a background that makes a big deal about knowing the arguments of opponents well enough that I could put them myself if I wanted to.
I have yet to meet an abolitionist like myself who claims to be against copyright because IT is responsible for enabling pirates to easily cheat on their dues, and who would like to reverse the process by making pirates accountable for their actions by making all monetisation be dependent on assurance contracts (crowdfunding primarily, but also tickets, subscriptions, pre-orders, etc). That is certainly a far more sensible way than the utopian madness of copyright that seems to benefit everyone - publishers and pirates - EXCEPT the actual creators. "Either you are with copyright or you are with pirates" is ridiculous. You can be against both.
I also like to point out that I do accept the idea of "intellectual property" if we talk about skills as property, such as a house builder's "property" of his learned skills, or a plumber's skills, etc. But then I go on to say that copyright must necessarily be ANTI intellectual property because it holds hostage the rights of derivative artists and their "skills". The pro-copyright advocates who put forward John Locke's philosophy as an argument for copyright get quite pissed off when I bring up that very same philosophy against THEM but more strictly. Locke would not have been in favour of holding hostage some kind of property in favour of defending that exact same kind of property, and probably would have sided with the assurance contract model to protect original AND derivative more morally.
This, I hope you can see, is not an argument that gets a lot of attention. And I think it is probably because there are few Marxist-dialectics who want copyright abolished and are willing to see how through the interpenetration of opposites.
We could really do with voting reform. I'm thinking mixed-member proportional representation, for a start. That would be enough of a wall-rattler to get things moving.
The anti-group thinker by definition has no word to describe him.
And those who call themselves an "X", whatever it is, are fundamentally saying they "think like those who like to think alike". When it comes to expressing my ideas, my own name is enough for me.
The Right can adopt Left principles all the time, and vice-versa. It can happen to the point where the meanings of the words "Left" and "Right" change significantly. For example, being an isolationist and/or a dictator sympathiser in the name of realpolitik would have probably got you called far-Right-wing in the West back in the days of the Cold War. However, now this tendency to abandon third-world people to the fate of totalitarian-state thugs for selfish interests of one's own is very prominent among the Left - in particular, the anti-war faction. And it can all be explained by them getting high on capitalism and turning into two-legged pigs of their own. When you have (nearly) everything you ever wanted from a not-perfect but still very lucky civilisation such as the United States or the United Kingdom, who cares about third-world problems? There is a reason why the vast majority of people who give to a charity are among those who have most likely been actually affected by the troubles the charity is trying to fight: the corollary is that people who indulge in video games, booze and expensive clothes while still claiming that Western capitalism is the root of all evil have no urgent reason to care about such humanitarian causes - they have had the privilege of being the luckiest mammals who ever walked the planet in all its billions of years.
It was not like this back in, say, the 60s where poverty was more predominant. Ironically, Socialist solidarity was greater during this period, because there were more people around to have empathy with dissidents fighting dictators, as they could better identify with them in relation to their class divide. Even some sensible Communists got this point. Totalitarianism was, and still is, something to be opposed in ALL forms, and no comprise is up for discussion.
But now, most of the working-class have become middle-class enough to not care any more. You only need to look at the lack of help among Syria's refugees as well as the near-complete lack of solidarity with the people of Iraq during the last decade. For the "Left", it wasn't just enough to be against the war and it wasn't enough to stop any arming of the fighters against fascism - dictatorial and/or religious. They had to throw away any redeeming factor completely, and give only the tiniest aid towards the Iraqis as possible. Because ONLY Right-wing Cheney can be prone to and guilty of selfishness, right?
Yes, Bush's administration deserved a good deal of impeachment: not for "lies" told to and believed by gullible idiots who proceed to blame everyone else for their gullibility, but for incompetently not protecting Iraq enough from the religious fascists of Al Qaeda. Some gravely inexcusable mistakes were made such as giving Saddam's supporters enough time to retreat and rearm. But this is an argument for MORE intervention, not less.
You are going to get much more of this in your lifetimes. Don't think you wont. Syria is going to implode; Lebanon will suffer badly; Nigeria is in a state of chaos; Iran is on the brink of revolution; Russia's bullying against the Syrian people, journalists, homosexuals, punk rock bands and many others is going to provoke something nasty; Zimbabwe is under severe oppression; both Libya and Egypt are on the brink of civil war; Pakistan's nuclear weapons remain a grave danger; China have a seemingly unoverthrowable stranglehold, North Korea cannot possibly sink any lower. And this is to only name a few.
If you want a historical perspective on what ought our role in the world should be, unilateral or not, partisan or not, look to Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone. We will not be able to do everything, obviously. And military intervention is obviously not warranted in all circumstances of human rights abuses. But there is such a thing as a totalitarian state that has hit the bottom of the barrel, and we should recognise it when we see it.
Take the side of the victim in each conflict, every conflict, and you will feel much more like what the Left used to stand for. And don't make excuses for Right-wing extremism. Wake up and smell the fascism. Then go and read ONLY the opening lines to Richard Dawkins' "Unweaving the Rainbow" and realise how inconceivably fortunate you are.
...and then realise that you may only live once, but you are not the only one alive.
There is nothing about DRM that cannot be ridiculed. And even if DRM DID somehow achieve the utopian claims put forward by its advocates and restrict the ability to copy, that means these same advocates do not need copyright law to protect their work. It is transparent as that.
I should also add that even stable-boys back in the day had enough dignity not to flog the invention of the automobile with their dead horses, and suck it up.
On the post: Make Art Not Law
Re: Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
But let's really get real. A website taken out here and there has no effect, not even a SCRATCH, on the following: Google's linking to alternatives, advertising flooding the pirate sites, BitTorrent and the "I am Spartacus" effect, ISPs, VPNs, Tor, Encryption, international piracy, China's 80% piracy market share. The only thing you can do is break these piracy monopolies (especially China's) caused by the Al-Capone enabling of copyright, by abolishing copyright completely and force them to suffer from free-rider problems, in favour of a crowdfunding system that more strictly adheres to the principles of John Locke (i.e. not confusing products with services) where all monetisation goes to the artist if anyone is to benefit whatsoever.
Copyright is not out to prevent piracy, it is the ENABLER of piracy. You need to get this right or everything else will just fall apart. The Chinese government and Kim Dotcom probably SUPPORT copyright for the same reason drug cartels would lobby to keep the war on drugs going if they could. All untaxed, all unregulated.
But since you did not directly answer my question and say which "cause" is better than the other, drugs or piracy, I may as well say this. I know what would happen if I were to call the police and report somebody for possessing Class A drugs: they would most likely break down their door within the hour and search the house inch by inch. If I were to report somebody to the police for an illegal copy of a movie, chances are that I would be arrested for wasting police time.
If that doesn't tell you everything I do not know what does.
And I don't know why other people's opinions on this website should have any relevance to mine. I can do my own work, thank you.
On the post: Make Art Not Law
Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
On the post: US Hypocrisy: Pushing For Maximum Damages For Infringement, While Settling Its Own Piracy Bill For Less
There is a very, very high probability that several corporations, government agencies, etc are benefiting from all kinds of pirated software. This is only to be expected since trying to police copyright infringement is next to impossible - the urge for corruption becomes too great. It would make for a great story if you were an investigative journalist.
We need to step back and see the nature of the delusion for what it is: a philosophy that enables free-riders to benefit from working-class creators by waiting for them to invest all their fruits of labour and create, and then steal without paying dues without any practical punishment. And all of this is somehow considered better than setting up an assurance contract system that would make it a condition for corporations and states to put their fair shares into the hats of the creators if they wish to get what they want. And if they try to cheat, even a few, nobody gets anything. "Mutually Assured Destruction" is a good metaphor for this.
Copyright is anti intellectual property, not pro. Never forget it. And start supporting something that will really protect the life, liberty and property of creators. Crowdfunding trumps everything. Copyright enables pirates to steal such as the U.S. military and, most likely, other powers.
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
On the post: It's Not Such A Wonderful Public Domain, As Paramount Plans To Block 'It's A Wonderful Life' Sequel
Re: Yet another where I fail to see the downside!
On the post: Wordpress Goes Legal: Sues Over Two Egregiously Bogus DMCA Notices That Were Designed To Censor
DMCA claims ought to be examined individually before content is judged, and with no automated systems that are doomed with failure and predictable nonsense. If copyright advocates find such a method too impractical, that is their problem. They have no right to expect everyone else to bow the knee for their own ridiculous utopia.
When a large website is forced to resort to automated DMCA systems in order to stay stable, I call that government-subsidised Digital Rights Management.
On the post: Sports Journalist Gets Trolled On Twitter, Tattles To Troll's Parents
I for one wish I could be more famous than I am for my aggressive dissent, which is far too nice as it is. Americans: don't let our disgraceful cowardliness rub off on you for a second.
On the post: Google Gets Total Victory Over Authors Guild: Book Scanning Is Fair Use
Re: Yes, but only proves that Google is a growing monster.
On the post: Google Gets Total Victory Over Authors Guild: Book Scanning Is Fair Use
Because people don't think "copyright" and "slippery slope" can be mentioned in the same sentence.
On the post: Copyright Extension Goes Into Effect In The UK: More Works Stolen From The Public Domain
The thought of applying a present law to the past should make anyone sick. You would not punish someone under a law coming into force today that, for example, banned gambling, for a bet he made a few years ago when gambling was legal.
Why on Earth do copyright advocates think they are the exception to this essential democratic principle? Do they not know how many artists were making a living, and preparing to make a living, from releasing derivative works of public domain content for commercial flourishing and meeting the rights of their audiences, too? Have they no shame?
On the post: Swedish Artists Looking To Take Labels To Court Over Spotify Royalties
Re:
On the post: Rep. Alan Grayson: I Learn Much More About The NSA From The Press Than From Intelligence Briefings
Because that IS the only way to prevent your data from being copied without permission, you know! It's not like you need a massive copying LAW or anything...
On the post: UK Continues To Censor The Press: Orders Wall Street Journal To Pull Details From Already Published Story
But yet people are still deluded into thinking that similar independent regulation set up with the press will stop phone hacking... phone hacking that the police were complicit in. There is a reason why not as much fury is aimed at the police in relation to this issue: people do not want to admit the police have an independent body that keeps them "accountable". Need I even mention Hillsborough?
And that is on top of the even more insane delusion that it will stop tabloid readers from engaging in their sadomasochistic drivel.
You should have seen the way in which the Guardian's commenters were defending the royal charter in the articles (royal charter... ROYAL?! Fucking monarchy strikes again!)... a charter that would have put more pressure on the paper to be silent about Snowden's leaks on top of what they did to David Miranda. Their attitude is disgraceful.
I really do wish our society would take the values of the First Amendment as seriously as you guys in the U.S. do, and actually fucking get a Constitution.
On the post: Nintendo Shuts Down Recreation Of Original Super Mario Bros. For No Reason Other Than It Can
Derivative artists have their rights be treated as disposable once again.
On the post: The Old 'Partisan' Lines Don't Fit Nicely With Modern Civil Liberties And Tech Policy Issues
Re: Liberal vs. Conservative?
But I probably still could not fit anywhere on that copyright spectrum. I am an abolitionist, but not of any "faction" that I can see gaining popular ground right now.
For instance, I try my best to make a point by avoiding the cliches that my side of the spectrum dish out: "it's not theft it's infringement!" "But the labels are too rich, anyway!", "I can't afford paying!", "They won't make their streaming channels convenient enough!". These not only show that one isn't thinking for one's self, the arguments themselves undermine a lot of what the sensible pro-copyright advocates say, which is not fair. I come from a background that makes a big deal about knowing the arguments of opponents well enough that I could put them myself if I wanted to.
I have yet to meet an abolitionist like myself who claims to be against copyright because IT is responsible for enabling pirates to easily cheat on their dues, and who would like to reverse the process by making pirates accountable for their actions by making all monetisation be dependent on assurance contracts (crowdfunding primarily, but also tickets, subscriptions, pre-orders, etc). That is certainly a far more sensible way than the utopian madness of copyright that seems to benefit everyone - publishers and pirates - EXCEPT the actual creators. "Either you are with copyright or you are with pirates" is ridiculous. You can be against both.
I also like to point out that I do accept the idea of "intellectual property" if we talk about skills as property, such as a house builder's "property" of his learned skills, or a plumber's skills, etc. But then I go on to say that copyright must necessarily be ANTI intellectual property because it holds hostage the rights of derivative artists and their "skills". The pro-copyright advocates who put forward John Locke's philosophy as an argument for copyright get quite pissed off when I bring up that very same philosophy against THEM but more strictly. Locke would not have been in favour of holding hostage some kind of property in favour of defending that exact same kind of property, and probably would have sided with the assurance contract model to protect original AND derivative more morally.
This, I hope you can see, is not an argument that gets a lot of attention. And I think it is probably because there are few Marxist-dialectics who want copyright abolished and are willing to see how through the interpenetration of opposites.
On the post: The Old 'Partisan' Lines Don't Fit Nicely With Modern Civil Liberties And Tech Policy Issues
Re: Re: Pride And Partisanship
On the post: The Old 'Partisan' Lines Don't Fit Nicely With Modern Civil Liberties And Tech Policy Issues
The anti-group thinker by definition has no word to describe him.
The Right can adopt Left principles all the time, and vice-versa. It can happen to the point where the meanings of the words "Left" and "Right" change significantly. For example, being an isolationist and/or a dictator sympathiser in the name of realpolitik would have probably got you called far-Right-wing in the West back in the days of the Cold War. However, now this tendency to abandon third-world people to the fate of totalitarian-state thugs for selfish interests of one's own is very prominent among the Left - in particular, the anti-war faction. And it can all be explained by them getting high on capitalism and turning into two-legged pigs of their own. When you have (nearly) everything you ever wanted from a not-perfect but still very lucky civilisation such as the United States or the United Kingdom, who cares about third-world problems? There is a reason why the vast majority of people who give to a charity are among those who have most likely been actually affected by the troubles the charity is trying to fight: the corollary is that people who indulge in video games, booze and expensive clothes while still claiming that Western capitalism is the root of all evil have no urgent reason to care about such humanitarian causes - they have had the privilege of being the luckiest mammals who ever walked the planet in all its billions of years.
It was not like this back in, say, the 60s where poverty was more predominant. Ironically, Socialist solidarity was greater during this period, because there were more people around to have empathy with dissidents fighting dictators, as they could better identify with them in relation to their class divide. Even some sensible Communists got this point. Totalitarianism was, and still is, something to be opposed in ALL forms, and no comprise is up for discussion.
But now, most of the working-class have become middle-class enough to not care any more. You only need to look at the lack of help among Syria's refugees as well as the near-complete lack of solidarity with the people of Iraq during the last decade. For the "Left", it wasn't just enough to be against the war and it wasn't enough to stop any arming of the fighters against fascism - dictatorial and/or religious. They had to throw away any redeeming factor completely, and give only the tiniest aid towards the Iraqis as possible. Because ONLY Right-wing Cheney can be prone to and guilty of selfishness, right?
Yes, Bush's administration deserved a good deal of impeachment: not for "lies" told to and believed by gullible idiots who proceed to blame everyone else for their gullibility, but for incompetently not protecting Iraq enough from the religious fascists of Al Qaeda. Some gravely inexcusable mistakes were made such as giving Saddam's supporters enough time to retreat and rearm. But this is an argument for MORE intervention, not less.
You are going to get much more of this in your lifetimes. Don't think you wont. Syria is going to implode; Lebanon will suffer badly; Nigeria is in a state of chaos; Iran is on the brink of revolution; Russia's bullying against the Syrian people, journalists, homosexuals, punk rock bands and many others is going to provoke something nasty; Zimbabwe is under severe oppression; both Libya and Egypt are on the brink of civil war; Pakistan's nuclear weapons remain a grave danger; China have a seemingly unoverthrowable stranglehold, North Korea cannot possibly sink any lower. And this is to only name a few.
If you want a historical perspective on what ought our role in the world should be, unilateral or not, partisan or not, look to Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone. We will not be able to do everything, obviously. And military intervention is obviously not warranted in all circumstances of human rights abuses. But there is such a thing as a totalitarian state that has hit the bottom of the barrel, and we should recognise it when we see it.
Take the side of the victim in each conflict, every conflict, and you will feel much more like what the Left used to stand for. And don't make excuses for Right-wing extremism. Wake up and smell the fascism. Then go and read ONLY the opening lines to Richard Dawkins' "Unweaving the Rainbow" and realise how inconceivably fortunate you are.
...and then realise that you may only live once, but you are not the only one alive.
On the post: DRM In HTML5: What Is Tim Berners-Lee Thinking?
On the post: 15 Technologies The Legacy Content Companies Have Sued In The Past 15 Years
And guess what? We are going to see it all again when the 3D printer really unleashes itself.
On the post: Once Again, If Copyright Enforcement Doesn't Improve The Bottom Line, What's The Point?
Re:
Next >>