No, as I've told you before, you want more ammunition to discredit Mike. You don't care what his opinion is, so long as he keeps feeding your ad hominem attacks.
This question is no different than yours. Like yours, it's a tu qouque fallacy that is avoiding having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser, answering criticism with criticism.
Adenosine triphosphate. It's in every living thing on the planet. When it is broken down in our cells, it becomes adenosine diphosphate. These two substances affect your metabolism. The process of breaking down ATP into ADP can cause oxidative damage to cells. The only solution is to consume plenty of antioxidants such as dihydrogen monoxide, a substance that can kill you if you get too much of it in your lungs.
I don't give a damn if it's harder to protect the public, if they infringe on our civil rights to do their job, everything they are supposedly "protecting" just went out the fucking window. It's their job to protect liberty, not seek out threats while pissing all over those liberties. The moment a government starts treating its people as a potential enemy, the government becomes the enemy of the people. Safety and security of the nation was meant to be protected by the second amendment (i.e. people keep and bear arms so that they can defend against domestic threats, whether its terrorism or our own government).
You must be quite ignorant to think that it's okay for the government to disregard our basic human rights just so they don't have to work as hard stopping their ominous and ever-present threats. The DHS, DEA, and IPEC are all agencies made up to fight non-specific and infinite enemies so they can justify their agency's continued existence.
The democratic experiment known as "America" has failed. It failed a long time ago. It's long past that we could fix this system from the top-down; the only recourse is to fix it from the bottom up. People need to self-organize and solve their own problems independently from the government voluntarily, because the government is too corrupt and too beholden to the corporations to do anything positive for its people.
We need to solve our problems from the bottom-up, not top-down. We do that by making manufacturing, food, and energy abundant and universally accessible to the individual through technology that distributes the means to do so to the masses. The more abundant goods and all forms of energy are, the less people must rely on corporations and other centralized systems of production. Without people dependent on corporations, corrupting the government becomes pointless because they won't be able to afford to buy themselves favorable laws. Money in general will become less and less relevant because money exists in an economy of scarcity, but in an economy of abundance (abundance through distributed and accessible production created by technology), it has no purpose.
Think about it, it's already happening in the content industry. People have the means to be their own artist and the internet is their marketing/distribution tool. Control over what gets distributed and what doesn't is no longer the domain of rich publishers and labels. Who needs labels and publishers when you can do all that for yourself? So it goes for physical goods. As the tools to make your own goods becomes more accessible and technology makes certain scarce resources more abundant, the need for the "publishers" of manufacturing become irrelevant because people can design and share goods with only a 3D printer and an internet connection. And 3D printing will only get more and more advanced. Then, the only thing that's really scarce is time, time to design, compose, or problem solve.
The whole reason we are in such a volatile era is because we are beginning to shift from scarcity to abundance. Those that cling to scarcity are frightened that they will lose their position and so they corrupt the government to "protect" their right to be in control of the economy.
But those local events charge because they are not the vendor, they manage the event and provide the space for the vendors to sell. The event management has to pay for the cost of the building (they probably want to make a profit too), so they charge people for entry and the vendors attract people there. So the entry fee is to pay for the facility. None of it goes to the vendors, they are the bait. It's totally different from the scenario in the article.
But the thing is, the technology that makes copyright toothless also makes copyright unnecessary because the internet is the most anarchistic distribution medium and computers enable universal accessibility to creative tools that were impossible twenty years ago. When the tools to be a creative force in culture becomes available to any and all people, it dissolves any power of exclusivity that copyright used to grant. It's cultural socialism.
I'm advocating no copyrights and it doesn't mean they lose their right to express themselves as the article from "The Hill" claims. The first amendment protects freedom of expression, not copyright. Quite the opposite. It also doesn't mean they lose the ability to be profitable either, as they claim. Both points are a load of horse honky; there are plenty of viable and successful business models that don't require any copyright-like control over the dissemination of works.
The cold truth is, with the technology we have, copyright is impossible to enforce and impossible to justify. The computer I'm writing this comment on has the power to access every creative work ever published in a digital format and no law will ever change that fact. Furthermore, that technology will only get more efficient and more robust in the task of sharing and access of content regardless of what the law says about it.
Due to that fact, there is no such thing as a "sane" copyright law because enforcement requires that you violate basic civil rights of privacy and free speech to achieve it. This isn't like other laws such as murder or theft. Those crimes don't have an alternative strategy that nullifies their negative impact on those it affects (unless you can resurrect the dead and have matter replicators like Star Trek), but copyright does. Shift your revenue stream away from selling access to copies and infringement becomes inconsequential. No matter what adjustments to copyright are made, technology can and will always bypass it all.
The whole reason the copyright industry is throwing a fit over these issues is because the means of production is shifting from the hands of the multinational corporations, to the hands of common individuals. Now every goon with a PC can be a producer of quality content, so long as they have the necessary talent and time. Smosh is the most viewed channel on YouTube and they started with little more than two guys with a camera and an overabundance of imagination. The only way they can stop this, is if they can "own" the means to create content, but the genie is already out of the bottle. So it stands to reason that they need to adapt and we need to get rid of copyright because it stifles innovation.
The problem with the free-rider issue is that they consider it a problem at all. They only see free-riders as a problem because they still cling to the idea that every copy should be generating profit for them. If it doesn't, it's considered a loss. If you instead view the free-riders as part of your marketing strategy, then every copy shared is another prospective customer and it lifts the veil of obscurity.
Free-riders are not a problem, they are an opportunity. If you follow the crowdfunding model and ask for the full cost of a project up front, then it's a non-issue to give away copies of the resulting works. You already got paid and the resulting copies promote you to potential customers. For the free-riders, all they get are the copies, while the people who invested in you in the first place get more in return. They get benefits you provide only to those that pay you.
Well, crowdfunding is completely voluntary and each project must stand on its own merits because this is a business model, not a legal privilege. The author is protected by way of only producing content after payment is assured. It gauges public interest without a large initial risk. It encourages the building of relationships between author and audience, but also establishes reputation as the currency that buys you future support. The crowdfunding model has one core requirement: you must convince your patrons that you are worth paying for and after that, you only have to prove it. The only risk is being ignored, it's up to you to make people want it. If they don't, it's no major loss.
Copyright, however, is not a business model. It is a legal privilege that supports and mandates a particular business model. The business model it supports most commonly is the type which an author does their labor first and then tries to sell that labor to recoup their investment. The trouble being that once a copy is released, there's really no way to prevent others from simply making copies and distributing them, bypassing the entire business model. You actually have two fronts to face: getting people interested in buying and convincing them not to make copies instead of buying them.
Isn't it ironic, that the "dirty thieves" accomplished, for free, what EA failed to do, even though they were paid? They fixed the game, for free, while EA couldn't be bothered despite all of that money they were paid from sales that are now going to go to more worthy options.
Seriously though, nobody needs copyright. It's completely feasible to run a content business without it. As far as I see it, so long as there are other possible revenue streams and business models available that don't rely on controlling distribution, copyright doesn't need to exist. The internet itself made copyright unnecessary. There's crowd funding, subscriptions, merchandising, service contracts, and so on that can be just as viable as, or more so than, exclusive copy distribution.
The death grip on copyright is just a last ditch effort to save the dying publishers who are being replaced by technology that grants the individual with the ability to generate content that used to take immense publishing corporations to accomplish. The conflict between copyright and infringement is just an attempt to allow the uncreative suits to keep their jobs. We don't need publishers and we don't need copyright, they do.
This is just a sign of the times, the means of production is changing hands. Eventually, every person out there will have the means to produce what they need and want with the help of ubiquitous, easy-to-use technology. Manufacturing, creative content, agriculture, etc. will all be at the finger tips of every person and scarcity will cease to exist.
No, you're completely wrong. Without the DMCA safe harbors, every site and online service out there would be terrified about the idea of user generated content. Every customer would be a potential liability suit waiting to happen. That creates a chilling effect on innovation. The internet thrives on UGC and killing that off would make the internet nothing but a read-only format. Without safe harbors there would be no You Tube, no Vimeo, no Deviant Art, no blog comments, and no voice for the citizens of the internet. The content providers would post their media and we would passively consume it. That is the grim reality of no safe harbors.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: University Threatens Own Faculty With Copyright Infringement For Campus Survey
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: University Threatens Own Faculty With Copyright Infringement For Campus Survey
Re: Re: Re:
This question is no different than yours. Like yours, it's a tu qouque fallacy that is avoiding having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser, answering criticism with criticism.
On the post: DJs' 'Dihydrogen Monoxide' April Fool's Prank Results In Suspension And Possible Felony Charges
The next threat...
On the post: Homeland Security 'Fusion' Center Director: We're Not Spying On Americans... Just Anti-Government Americans
Re:
You must be quite ignorant to think that it's okay for the government to disregard our basic human rights just so they don't have to work as hard stopping their ominous and ever-present threats. The DHS, DEA, and IPEC are all agencies made up to fight non-specific and infinite enemies so they can justify their agency's continued existence.
On the post: Homeland Security 'Fusion' Center Director: We're Not Spying On Americans... Just Anti-Government Americans
USA inc.
We need to solve our problems from the bottom-up, not top-down. We do that by making manufacturing, food, and energy abundant and universally accessible to the individual through technology that distributes the means to do so to the masses. The more abundant goods and all forms of energy are, the less people must rely on corporations and other centralized systems of production. Without people dependent on corporations, corrupting the government becomes pointless because they won't be able to afford to buy themselves favorable laws. Money in general will become less and less relevant because money exists in an economy of scarcity, but in an economy of abundance (abundance through distributed and accessible production created by technology), it has no purpose.
Think about it, it's already happening in the content industry. People have the means to be their own artist and the internet is their marketing/distribution tool. Control over what gets distributed and what doesn't is no longer the domain of rich publishers and labels. Who needs labels and publishers when you can do all that for yourself? So it goes for physical goods. As the tools to make your own goods becomes more accessible and technology makes certain scarce resources more abundant, the need for the "publishers" of manufacturing become irrelevant because people can design and share goods with only a 3D printer and an internet connection. And 3D printing will only get more and more advanced. Then, the only thing that's really scarce is time, time to design, compose, or problem solve.
The whole reason we are in such a volatile era is because we are beginning to shift from scarcity to abundance. Those that cling to scarcity are frightened that they will lose their position and so they corrupt the government to "protect" their right to be in control of the economy.
On the post: Edwin Mellen Press Demonstrates How Not To Respond To Criticism: With Lawsuits & Bogus Threats
Re:
On the post: Dumb Policy: Store Charges $5 Just To Look At Goods, To Keep People From Looking And Then Buying Online
Re: ACTUALLY, this may work.
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
Re:
The cold truth is, with the technology we have, copyright is impossible to enforce and impossible to justify. The computer I'm writing this comment on has the power to access every creative work ever published in a digital format and no law will ever change that fact. Furthermore, that technology will only get more efficient and more robust in the task of sharing and access of content regardless of what the law says about it.
Due to that fact, there is no such thing as a "sane" copyright law because enforcement requires that you violate basic civil rights of privacy and free speech to achieve it. This isn't like other laws such as murder or theft. Those crimes don't have an alternative strategy that nullifies their negative impact on those it affects (unless you can resurrect the dead and have matter replicators like Star Trek), but copyright does. Shift your revenue stream away from selling access to copies and infringement becomes inconsequential. No matter what adjustments to copyright are made, technology can and will always bypass it all.
The whole reason the copyright industry is throwing a fit over these issues is because the means of production is shifting from the hands of the multinational corporations, to the hands of common individuals. Now every goon with a PC can be a producer of quality content, so long as they have the necessary talent and time. Smosh is the most viewed channel on YouTube and they started with little more than two guys with a camera and an overabundance of imagination. The only way they can stop this, is if they can "own" the means to create content, but the genie is already out of the bottle. So it stands to reason that they need to adapt and we need to get rid of copyright because it stifles innovation.
On the post: Register Of Copyright Suggests That Personal Downloading Should Not Be Seen As 'Piracy'
Re: one small thing...
On the post: Connecting Athletes With Fans Via Video Games... And Via Crowdfunding
Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence.
Free-riders are not a problem, they are an opportunity. If you follow the crowdfunding model and ask for the full cost of a project up front, then it's a non-issue to give away copies of the resulting works. You already got paid and the resulting copies promote you to potential customers. For the free-riders, all they get are the copies, while the people who invested in you in the first place get more in return. They get benefits you provide only to those that pay you.
On the post: Connecting Athletes With Fans Via Video Games... And Via Crowdfunding
Re: Re: Evidence.
Copyright, however, is not a business model. It is a legal privilege that supports and mandates a particular business model. The business model it supports most commonly is the type which an author does their labor first and then tries to sell that labor to recoup their investment. The trouble being that once a copy is released, there's really no way to prevent others from simply making copies and distributing them, bypassing the entire business model. You actually have two fronts to face: getting people interested in buying and convincing them not to make copies instead of buying them.
On the post: Maxis GM: Our Vision Is More Important Than Our Customers & Lots Of People Love Our Crappy DRM
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Maxis GM: Our Vision Is More Important Than Our Customers & Lots Of People Love Our Crappy DRM
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Maxis GM: Our Vision Is More Important Than Our Customers & Lots Of People Love Our Crappy DRM
Re:
On the post: Maxis GM: Our Vision Is More Important Than Our Customers & Lots Of People Love Our Crappy DRM
Re:
Would've, not would of.
Wouldn't have, not wouldn't of.
Could've, could of.
I hate being a grammar Nazi, but there it is.
On the post: More Details On Copyright Office's Suggestions On Copyright Reform; Some Good, Some Bad
Abolish.
Seriously though, nobody needs copyright. It's completely feasible to run a content business without it. As far as I see it, so long as there are other possible revenue streams and business models available that don't rely on controlling distribution, copyright doesn't need to exist. The internet itself made copyright unnecessary. There's crowd funding, subscriptions, merchandising, service contracts, and so on that can be just as viable as, or more so than, exclusive copy distribution.
The death grip on copyright is just a last ditch effort to save the dying publishers who are being replaced by technology that grants the individual with the ability to generate content that used to take immense publishing corporations to accomplish. The conflict between copyright and infringement is just an attempt to allow the uncreative suits to keep their jobs. We don't need publishers and we don't need copyright, they do.
This is just a sign of the times, the means of production is changing hands. Eventually, every person out there will have the means to produce what they need and want with the help of ubiquitous, easy-to-use technology. Manufacturing, creative content, agriculture, etc. will all be at the finger tips of every person and scarcity will cease to exist.
On the post: More Details On Copyright Office's Suggestions On Copyright Reform; Some Good, Some Bad
Re: How dare they.
On the post: More Details On Copyright Office's Suggestions On Copyright Reform; Some Good, Some Bad
Re: No safe harbor
On the post: More Details On Copyright Office's Suggestions On Copyright Reform; Some Good, Some Bad
Re:
Next >>