It's an interesting theory, which relies on the idea that somehow getting your picture tweeted by a handle followed by a grand total of twelve-thousand people in the whole wide world was somehow more of a deterrent than getting arrested in the first place.
It's not "twelve thousand people in the whole wide world," though. The majority of those people aren't "in the whole wide world;" they're locals. The idea that your neighbor, your coworkers (or boss!) or even a relative might find out--that is a heck of a deterrent, and don't even try and say it's not.
Why does who they are matter? What matters is what they say, and how much damage they do because people end up listening to them.
My "beef," as you put it, is with false, harmful ideas that legitimize the abusive system we have today rather than expose it as corrupt. Not with any specific person.
Try reading his article on the Statute of Anne, which you linked to in an earlier comment. As he explains clearly, the act they pushed for didn't look much like what ended up getting passed.
And what would that paradigm be? The laborer is worthy of his hire. What would you propose, to ensure that a person who creates something of intrinsic value to a large population is able to make it their livelihood if they so choose, even if it's something that is easily copied?
It's easy to say "this thing that exists is bad and should be replaced with something better," but unless you can propose a workable plan for "something better," don't be surprised if no one listens.
I just looked at that, and it looks like Deazley got things right. The Stationers, as tone-deaf as today's mega-publishing cartels, introduced an act that would have forwarded their interests (after having had their monopoly powers smacked down a few years previous, the author does not mention) but both houses of Parliament introduced revisions that limited the power of the publishers and improved the rights of authors.
He sums it up rather well in the last paragraph: And yet the Statute of Anne was markedly different from that which had gone before - the world of the seventeenth century stationer was fast disappearing. It's rather annoying to see people today try to say that the Statute of Anne was a continuation of the corrupt Stationers' censorship regime, when it was in fact exactly the opposite.
Because a printer had to commit to a number of copies at the start of a print run, they were always liable to be left with unsold books if someone else brought the same title to market. Therefore the be all and end all of copyright was to regulate who could print a title, and authors were only brought in as political spin to get a bill passed, as several prior attempts which did not mention authors failed.
Re: Re: Stupid moral people, they just don't get it!
Of course there's a moral right to copyright: the right of an author to not have his livelihood stolen by publishers.
The problem is that publishers have distorted copyright so much that most people don't realize what it's supposed to be about, which is why the morality is all twisted up now.
Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing, Reprinting, and Publishing, or causing to be Printed, Reprinted, and Published Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and Writings, to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families: For Preventing therefore such Practices for the future, and for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books; May it please Your Majesty, that it may be Enacted...
-- Preamble to the Statute of Anne
Copyright, up until fairly recently (in historical terms) has always been about reining in abusive middlemen. There are a few revisionist historians trying to make a different argument these days, but their argument is not supported by the facts, and frankly they really should stop because it's not only false, it weakens our case too.
There's a reason why copyright policy is so strongly based on moral arguments: moral arguments work. For most people (not everyone, certainly, but for the majority of people) a strong, clear moral argument is more persuasive than an appeal to evidence or even to self-interest. People want to believe that they are good people. People want to believe that, where they have faults, they are improving. So of course people listen to moral arguments.
The right way to fight a flawed moral argument is not to dismiss moral arguments, but to counter with a better moral argument. And the morality here is clear: copyright was designed with the explicit aim of preventing publishers from abusing people. Today, it has been corrupted by those same publishers it was supposed to keep in line, to the point where the DMCA and similar legislation has the explicit aim of enabling publishers to abuse people and giving them legal protection for doing so. Therefore, the current copyright system is immoral and needs to be rolled back to earlier standards.
"Malware and PUPs (Potentially Unwanted Programs)"
Hmm... Sounds like a perfect description of the DRM that the publishing industry likes to saddle us with on their "legitimate" products. Why didn't they count that in their research?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A piece of malicious code by any other name...
You must be thinking of something other than what I'm thinking of, then. What do you mean when you say "code lookups"? Because what I have in mind is the thing that certain old games used to do where, when you launch them, you have to look up the key word printed on page XYZ of the manual and input it at some sort of prompt or the program won't start. And that is definitely software that executes, even if the code word is located somewhere other than inside the software. If it wasn't software executing, it couldn't lock you out of the rest of the program.
Anyone else find it odd that, around here, taking an existing, well-understood concept, adding "on the Internet," and attempting to patent it is denounced as non-innovative and harmful, but taking an existing, well-understood business model (such as running taxicabs or hotels) and adding "on the Internet" is praised as innovative and disruptive and must be a good thing?
In fact, he notes that pretty much everyone agrees that full enforcement is "undesirable and counterproductive." And, really that should be a clear sign of just how flawed the law itself is.
I believe the legal doctrine we're looking for is:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: A piece of malicious code by any other name...
The normal operation of the computer, by default, is "program/file is on the computer, because I chose to put it there. I run/open it, and it runs/opens, just like I told it to." Anything that is designed to interfere with that normal operation, in any way, is interfering with the normal operation of my computer.
And yes, I say "because I chose to put it there" for a good reason. Sometimes you have to be pedantic so no smart-aleck comes along and says you want to have antivirus software declared as illegal malware.
Of course, what publishers still don't seem to grasp is that a healthy used market actually increases the value of the primary market, since buyers are more comfortable knowing they can at least make back some of the money at the other end.
In a free market, yes, that's absolutely true. But you just got done explaining how this is 1) a monopoly publishing system and 2) required by the professor, which means that the student does not have the choice not to buy the product. (Especially if the class is a required class for them and therefore "just don't take the class" isn't an option.)
Free market economic principles are only valid in a free market. When monopolistic conditions exist, the market is not free, and free market principles go out the window, replaced by an entirely new set of rules: monopoly economics. And under these principles, a secondary market does nothing to improve the willingness of a student to buy your product, because they aren't buying it willingly in the first place; they're buying because they have no choice.
Re: Re: consumer protection from DRM - how much longer?
No it wouldn't, because that means it's acceptable to put DRM on in the first place is acceptable. It isn't, and it never will be. It has exactly the same moral status as installing a virus on my computer, and ought to have exactly the same legal status.
Re: Re: A piece of malicious code by any other name...
Those old code lookups in the earlier days of gaming, dongles, damaged disks & CDs, and the like are not malware by any means.
Why not? They operate by the same principle: you are assumed to be illegitimate until you prove otherwise, to the satisfaction of the program, and if the program is mistaken, tough luck for you, you're still locked out. IMO that's as mal as it gets. The standard of proof should always be "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law," and putting the decision-making in the hands of (potentially buggy) software is never legitimate. Period.
Re: Re: A piece of malicious code by any other name...
Yes, thank you. It's good to see someone other than me finally saying this. Though I can't help but wonder, what "exceptions ... for commercial softwares like Photoshop etc." are you referring to, and why would they be desirable?
For me it was the URL's being blacked out with black and gray blocks. I don't trust not being able to see the actual URL I am on. I hear rumors of Google doing this to Chrome/Chromium, and if they do, they will lose me too.
I'm still using Firefox, and I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never seen any URLs anywhere in the UI being covered by redaction boxes, in any version.
Who cares about the political issues it would raise? I say bring it on. Attempt to classify ISPs as the public utilities that they are... and then watch what happens. It would be like a hunter flushing birds out: do something that startles them, see what reacts, and you know exactly what to aim at. Make sure that any politician that freaks out and comes down on the wrong side of the issue never gets reelected.
On the post: Victory: Marlyand Police Department Planning To Tweet Arrests Of A Vice Sting Arrests Nobody
It's not "twelve thousand people in the whole wide world," though. The majority of those people aren't "in the whole wide world;" they're locals. The idea that your neighbor, your coworkers (or boss!) or even a relative might find out--that is a heck of a deterrent, and don't even try and say it's not.
On the post: The Bizarro, Fact-free World Of Copyright Policymaking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My "beef," as you put it, is with false, harmful ideas that legitimize the abusive system we have today rather than expose it as corrupt. Not with any specific person.
On the post: The Bizarro, Fact-free World Of Copyright Policymaking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Bizarro, Fact-free World Of Copyright Policymaking
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's easy to say "this thing that exists is bad and should be replaced with something better," but unless you can propose a workable plan for "something better," don't be surprised if no one listens.
On the post: The Bizarro, Fact-free World Of Copyright Policymaking
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He sums it up rather well in the last paragraph: And yet the Statute of Anne was markedly different from that which had gone before - the world of the seventeenth century stationer was fast disappearing. It's rather annoying to see people today try to say that the Statute of Anne was a continuation of the corrupt Stationers' censorship regime, when it was in fact exactly the opposite.
On the post: The Bizarro, Fact-free World Of Copyright Policymaking
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Bizarro, Fact-free World Of Copyright Policymaking
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
On the post: The Bizarro, Fact-free World Of Copyright Policymaking
Re: Re: Stupid moral people, they just don't get it!
The problem is that publishers have distorted copyright so much that most people don't realize what it's supposed to be about, which is why the morality is all twisted up now.
On the post: The Bizarro, Fact-free World Of Copyright Policymaking
Re: Re:
-- Preamble to the Statute of Anne
Copyright, up until fairly recently (in historical terms) has always been about reining in abusive middlemen. There are a few revisionist historians trying to make a different argument these days, but their argument is not supported by the facts, and frankly they really should stop because it's not only false, it weakens our case too.
There's a reason why copyright policy is so strongly based on moral arguments: moral arguments work. For most people (not everyone, certainly, but for the majority of people) a strong, clear moral argument is more persuasive than an appeal to evidence or even to self-interest. People want to believe that they are good people. People want to believe that, where they have faults, they are improving. So of course people listen to moral arguments.
The right way to fight a flawed moral argument is not to dismiss moral arguments, but to counter with a better moral argument. And the morality here is clear: copyright was designed with the explicit aim of preventing publishers from abusing people. Today, it has been corrupted by those same publishers it was supposed to keep in line, to the point where the DMCA and similar legislation has the explicit aim of enabling publishers to abuse people and giving them legal protection for doing so. Therefore, the current copyright system is immoral and needs to be rolled back to earlier standards.
On the post: Copyright Industry Publishes Data-Free Report Claiming Pirate Sites Will Damage Computers
Hmm... Sounds like a perfect description of the DRM that the publishing industry likes to saddle us with on their "legitimate" products. Why didn't they count that in their research?
On the post: How DRM Makes Us All Less Safe
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A piece of malicious code by any other name...
On the post: Western Union Gets A Patent On An Exchange For 'Alternative Currencies'
Re: Ah, yes
On the post: How Many Times A Day Do You Violate Copyright Laws Without Even Realizing It
I believe the legal doctrine we're looking for is:
On the post: How DRM Makes Us All Less Safe
Re: Re: Re: Re: A piece of malicious code by any other name...
And yes, I say "because I chose to put it there" for a good reason. Sometimes you have to be pedantic so no smart-aleck comes along and says you want to have antivirus software declared as illegal malware.
On the post: Publisher 'DRMs' Physical Legal Textbook About 'Property,' Undermines Property And First Sale Concepts
Monopoly economics are not market economics
In a free market, yes, that's absolutely true. But you just got done explaining how this is 1) a monopoly publishing system and 2) required by the professor, which means that the student does not have the choice not to buy the product. (Especially if the class is a required class for them and therefore "just don't take the class" isn't an option.)
Free market economic principles are only valid in a free market. When monopolistic conditions exist, the market is not free, and free market principles go out the window, replaced by an entirely new set of rules: monopoly economics. And under these principles, a secondary market does nothing to improve the willingness of a student to buy your product, because they aren't buying it willingly in the first place; they're buying because they have no choice.
On the post: How DRM Makes Us All Less Safe
Re: Re: consumer protection from DRM - how much longer?
On the post: How DRM Makes Us All Less Safe
Re: Re: A piece of malicious code by any other name...
Why not? They operate by the same principle: you are assumed to be illegitimate until you prove otherwise, to the satisfaction of the program, and if the program is mistaken, tough luck for you, you're still locked out. IMO that's as mal as it gets. The standard of proof should always be "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law," and putting the decision-making in the hands of (potentially buggy) software is never legitimate. Period.
On the post: How DRM Makes Us All Less Safe
Re: Re: A piece of malicious code by any other name...
On the post: Mozilla To FCC: Hey, There's Another Way To Protect Net Neutrality
Re: Mozilla
I'm still using Firefox, and I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never seen any URLs anywhere in the UI being covered by redaction boxes, in any version.
On the post: Mozilla To FCC: Hey, There's Another Way To Protect Net Neutrality
Next >>