And that may be precisely what he expects. He can afford to create a paywall even though he knows it will fail - because he wants to hasten the final solution, i.e. taxing the Internet.
Look foolish in failure in exchange for reaping the far bigger prize that can be brought about as a consequence of that failure.
This reminds me of an idea I had for a copyleft jukebox some time ago. This would play only unsigned/license-exempt music, but would still accept coins, which would ultimately be disbursed by the proprietor to the respective musicians, i.e. to encourage those musicians their customers most played to produce more music - and thus build up customers. A win-win outcome.
It really is crazy when the natural liberty of playing music must be charged for on threat of legal penalty. An effective tax on cultural liberty is certainly lucrative to those that collect it, but this doesn't make it ethical.
Let's make it easier for music lovers to pay musicians to make music, and far more difficult for 'collection societies' to get rich via extortion using anachronistic 18th century privileges.
Perhaps the Coffee shop could lease their land/forecourt to an 'events management company'?
This company would then go bankrupt when it failed to pay the 'protection money' demanded by the Mafioso collection societies.
This way, the indie bands can sing cover songs, etc. so the thugs get even less money than otherwise.
Moreover, the Coffee shop still gets to sell coffee to the punters sitting nearby.
Sounds to me like a new gap just opened up in the marketplace for license-exempt music, i.e. music by musicians who would rather be promoted than have value removed from their art. Jamendo are you listening?
All you have to do if you want people to use more paper and ink is to append long disclaimers, Google ads, Virus-free certifications, and essays to your e-mails explaining why the email shouldn't be printed.
Then, when people just want to quickly print out a five line street address (in an e-mail) they take two sheets of paper and umpteen millilitres of very expensive ink.
By 'theft' I mean unauthorised access to a private space of the individual and removal or communication of an intellectual work within to without.
I also mean the default on payment for the exchange of an intellectual work, e.g. if I hand you some software I've written for you in exchange for $500 and you refuse to hand me the $500 then you have stolen my intellectual work.
By 'theft' I do not mean the infringement of a state granted monopoly that enables the privileged party to prohibit you from making further copies of the covered work I've sold you - though this is the contemporary meaning of 'IP theft'.
So, there's a significant difference between intellectual work as property, and being granted a monopoly over its reproduction.
Thus the US Constitution properly recognises the need to secure writers' and inventors' exclusive right to their writings and designs. However, the reproduction/communication/utilisation monopolies of copyright and patent that were legislated a few years later are unconstitutional.
The vacuum would be the need to secure the natural exclusive rights of the individual, i.e. to recognise intellectual works as the property of the creator/possessor, to be secured from theft, and remedies provided.
There's also the need to recognise the natural right to truth, as embodied by what are known as moral rights, i.e. against misattribution, misrepresentation, compromise of integrity, etc.
There are many other issues regarding the possession, exchange and communication of information and intellectual works.
Law in this area is almost entirely focussed on the unnatural reproduction monopolies granted in the 18th century - monopolies that society is again going to have to recognise as counter-productive, unethical, and impediments to cultural and technological progress.
ACTA would appear to be an attempt to harmonise copyright and patent legislation - reinforcing it at the same time.
Perhaps it's driven in pursuit of cheaper, more predictable, more easily manageable legislation?
It certainly appears to result in the ability of publishing corporations to assume control/ownership of the Internet - given they'll have the power to disconnect anyone (with extreme prejudice aka on suspicion/accusation).
However, this harmonised legislation may be as fragile as it is strong, and that's because it's a legislative monoculture. One flaw stressed and the entire edifice shatters.
And on the other side of the looking glass it unites the global online population against the same cultural oppressor, a single instrument of injustice.
I'm still optimistic that ACTA hastens copyright's abolition, which is what I mean by 'ultimately good'. Though that really means we should get on with the business of formulating the law that must fill the vacuum...
This was the pretext used to import the monopolies of copyright and patent from the old world, that because they allegedly 'promoted progress' they must therefore be the mechanisms of securing authors' and inventors' exclusive right to their writings and designs that the Constitution had empowered Congress to legislate.
The thing is the Constitution hadn't empowered Congress to grant privileges, it had only empowered it to secure the individual's exclusive right - the right that could be recognised as naturally possessed by an individual by the Constitution.
But then, who cared? Who would raise a fuss, given nearly everyone concerned at the time either wanted the privileges granted or had zero influence?
Jefferson suggested the granting of those monopolies be included in an amendment, but Madison no doubt realised it was better not to draw attention to the fact that copyright and patent had no constitutional sanction, to simply legislate them anyway - allowing the inference they were the 'exclusive right' referred to in the Constitution.
It is the securing of the individual's exclusive right that promotes progress (why bother setting pen to paper if your writings or designs can be stolen?).
Constraints on cultural and technological exchange impede progress, with the brake of monopoly rents gifted to the privileged industrialists (lobbyists).
So no, the point of a monopoly is to reward the one the monopoly is granted to (and for favours to be returned to those granting them). Those granting and granted monopolies will say anything, invent any pretext, pretend they encourage learning, or cure disease, even that they promote competition and creativity. Ask who pays for the lucrative reward of a monopoly. Ask those without the power to grant them, those who either don't have them or who are paid a pittance to surrender them, and especially those who fall foul of them, those who've had their folk songs, folk tales, and folk lore, denied to them. Those who've lost their liberty to their own culture, knowledge, and technology, those prohibited from sharing it or exchanging their labour upon it. A monopoly is not without cost, it's just that the cost is borne by everyone else, a cost in liberty, in lost opportunity.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If people want the news that badly, it's a great thing
It might be worth asking yourself which news production team you'd be more inclined to sponsor:
1) One with news articles that one couldn't share or link to (except with other sponsors).
2) One with news articles that one could share and link to.
I don't know about most people, but I have little time or use for news I cannot share, and extreme antipathy for news that, if unwittingly shared, could make me liable for million dollar fines and possible imprisonment.
That leads me to suspect that all this talk of paywalls is simply a gambit preceding the imminent taxation of the Internet. News publishers have to price their news (even if they allow 99% of people free trial subscriptions that keep on getting extended) in order to claim a goodly chunk of the tax.
No, the "point of copyright law is" NOT "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts".
You're probably referring to the clause in the US Constitution empowering congress to secure the individual's exclusive right to their writings and designs.
The point of copyright is to enrich the publishing industry at the expense of the public's cultural liberty, i.e. creating a reproduction monopoly by suspending the public's natural right to copy, to share and build upon their own culture.
Privacy is the individual's natural right to protect the physical boundaries of their private domain (the spaces they enclose and occupy, and their contents), to exclude others.
Privacy is not the privilege of constraining the disclosure or circulation of 'sensitive' information by those it has been confided to.
No doubt many would like such a privilege over their fellows, to prosecute them if they betray their confidence, but it has no natural basis.
Corporations (being immortal psychopaths) may well need to be tightly regulated, but that's not the same as the folly of granting unnatural powers to mortals.
So, create regulations applying to corporations by all means, but don't corrupt the meaning of privacy in the process.
Re: Re: Re: If people want the news that badly, it's a great thing
Reducing supply does not logically increase demand, though it may well increase price.
However, you might incite a run on something if you threaten to withdraw supply, but then we're getting into the realms of marketing (increasing demand via psychological manipulation).
You can also appeal for sponsorship, e.g. "We will be forced cease supplying news unless we get 50 new subscribers each week", etc.
Re: If people want the news that badly, it's a great thing
Suzanne, TechDirt does not have a paywall and yet it already enjoys piracy. That indicates the articles are interesting (attract eyeballs to exploit via advertising).
However, I'm intrigued by your notion that reducing supply increases demand. If a public water fountain in Paris on a hot day is closed off to the public and an admission fee is charged does this increase demand for water? Vendors of bottled water may SEE an increase in demand for their wares, but that isn't actually an increase in overall demand - just a reduction in supply. What creates an increase in demand is the hot day.
In any case, news is not quite like water. Being reproducible without significant cost it is the human labour (the collection/production of news) that is the precious resource, and once published it becomes a perpetual public good diffused by word of mouth or Internet. One can no longer make the published news precious by prohibiting people from reproducing or distributing it.
Note though, that 'content' is a newspaper magnate's term for the stuff they fill their containers with.
Newspapers have been in the business of shipping intellectual work from the producers (journalists who they pay as little as possible), mass producing containers/copies of it at incredibly low cost, and then selling those containers at monopoly protected prices. They make their money not from the intellectual work, but from the profits their monopoly gives them in the sale of copies. If the work costs $10,000 and they sell a million copies for a dollar each that cost a cent to print, then it's not the work the price of a copy really pays for. The newspaper enjoys a monopoly in the distribution of that work to the reader.
When readers have their own distribution network (they pay ISPs for it) and their own production facilities (PCs), then the only party that needs paying are the intellectual workers - and they may as well expect to get paid the usual rate. A blogger can get paid a penny per article by each of their subscribers keen for it to be written. If the web is treated as a massive newspaper with billions of readers, a good blogger might attract a thousand of them interested enough to commission more, that's $10 per blog item.
What disappears are the box-shifters, the sellers of containers filled with content, copies of intellectual work.
In this way we can recognise that 'content' is a disrespectful term from the perspective of both the writer and the reader. 'Content' is an important term only from the perspective of the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of copies.
Re: Re: Sell the news. Let people make their own copies.
Absolutely. There's a great future for those who select the news as well those who produce it. The important thing to recognise here, is that selection is also intellectual work, just as is collection and analysis.
So, the person who selects all Techdirt articles about the future of newspapers should be entitled to be paid for their work in selecting those articles - by their customers who pay them to make such a selection.
When you remove the anachronism of copyright it's much easier to see why money should be exchanged for work, not the reproduction or communication of it.
You pay the ISP for their work in providing bandwidth you need for communication.
You pay the printer for their work in manufacturing paper prints you find convenient.
You pay the news selector for their work in selecting the news that interests you.
You pay the journalist for their work in collecting and analysing the news.
That's what a free market looks like.
The crazy one we have at the moment says no-one can communicate or do anything with any information unless they engage in multilateral negotiations with umpteen respectively privileged parties.
Effectively it's polarising into two markets:
The white market that's stagnating, grinding to a halt under an incredibly complex yoke of 18th century constraints.
The black market where anything goes, but one where it's difficult for the right people to get paid by those who want to pay them.
In the 20th century the cost of producing news was combined with the cost of its distribution/communication, and sold as one.
In the 21st century we pay for communication separately from production.
Thus you pay an ISP for bandwidth, and you pay Mike Masnick et al to produce TechDirt.
Anyone can communicate TechDirt. There is no monopoly over broadcast or production of copies.
However, only Mike Masnick can produce his commentary and analyses (possibly there are others who can produce intellectual work of comparable quality).
I suggest that in the 21st century, those who want to receive Mike's work will pay him to produce it.
Those who want to make copies of it, or to share it with their friends, will do so freely and for nothing.
One day people will recognise the difference between intellectual work and copies of it and I won't have to keep explaining it - that although a silicon chip can do one, it takes an incisive and intelligent expert to do the other.
Newspapers, by definition, think only in terms of selling copies.
Journalists on the other hand think in terms of selling news and analysis, i.e. their intellectual work.
The market for copies has ended.
The market for intellectual work is as strong as ever.
Unfortunately, the journalist has to survive the revolution of a transition between the sale of monopoly protected copies and a free market in the sale of intellectual work.
Journalists meet your readers. You've got to make a bargain with them for the exchange of news and money, because copies cost nothing to make and the monopoly that pretends people can't make their own copies is well past its use-by date.
The newspaper can't pay journalists, because no-one's paying the newspaper for copies. That's why the journalist has to sell their news to the people who want to read it (not those who want to sell copies of it).
It is the fan among the musician's audience that will pay the artist to produce it.
It is the performance and the recording of the music that the fans want and will pay for.
Where people are coming unstuck is in conflating the copy with the recording. The copy is not the recording.
The copy is not the recording.
Kids can make copies (and do). This is why, despite the 18th century privilege of copyright that has enthralled us, there is no longer a market for copies.
That's why neither the music industry nor the recording industry is doomed.
The industry that is doomed is that of the copy manufacturers/distributors/retailers, and those record labels among them that assume they can still exploit their anachronistic and ineffective monopoly to sell copies (that kids can make for nothing) for what they believe the market should bear.
People still want music to be made - the market for music will continue.
Musicians and their fans still need and want studio performances to be recorded - the market for studio recordings will continue.
Fans can make and distribute their own copies - the market for copies is collapsing (into a residual market for nostalgic vinyl copies).
It's childsplay, BUT:
Kids can't make the musician's music - the musician has no worries.
Kids can't record the musician's studio performances- the recording studio has few worries (apart from ever better home studio setups).
Kids CAN produce their own copies of released studio recordings - the record label's future is in selling the release of their back catalogue (that isn't already in wide circulation)
Actually, I'd say it was those who believe one should consult a privileged party for permission (before reproducing or communicating certain publicly available information already in one's possession) who were deficient in the sanity department.
On the post: Times Online Says Competitors Will Go Out Of Business Without A Paywall
Re: Re: Ironic
Look foolish in failure in exchange for reaping the far bigger prize that can be brought about as a consequence of that failure.
On the post: Nice Work ASCAP: Convinces Yet Another Coffee Shop To Stop Promoting Local Bands
Re: My ASCAP experience
This reminds me of an idea I had for a copyleft jukebox some time ago. This would play only unsigned/license-exempt music, but would still accept coins, which would ultimately be disbursed by the proprietor to the respective musicians, i.e. to encourage those musicians their customers most played to produce more music - and thus build up customers. A win-win outcome.
It really is crazy when the natural liberty of playing music must be charged for on threat of legal penalty. An effective tax on cultural liberty is certainly lucrative to those that collect it, but this doesn't make it ethical.
Let's make it easier for music lovers to pay musicians to make music, and far more difficult for 'collection societies' to get rich via extortion using anachronistic 18th century privileges.
On the post: Nice Work ASCAP: Convinces Yet Another Coffee Shop To Stop Promoting Local Bands
Lease the land
This company would then go bankrupt when it failed to pay the 'protection money' demanded by the Mafioso collection societies.
This way, the indie bands can sing cover songs, etc. so the thugs get even less money than otherwise.
Moreover, the Coffee shop still gets to sell coffee to the punters sitting nearby.
On the post: Australian Gyms Dumping Pop Music After Massive Increase In Royalty Rates
Roll on license-exempt music
On the post: Paper Industry Wishes You'd Ignore Environmentalists, Print More
It's easy to get people to use more
Then, when people just want to quickly print out a five line street address (in an e-mail) they take two sheets of paper and umpteen millilitres of very expensive ink.
On the post: How ACTA Exports Worst Of US Copyright Law Without Corresponding Exceptions
Re: Re: Re: Re: But is ACTA ultimately good?
I also mean the default on payment for the exchange of an intellectual work, e.g. if I hand you some software I've written for you in exchange for $500 and you refuse to hand me the $500 then you have stolen my intellectual work.
By 'theft' I do not mean the infringement of a state granted monopoly that enables the privileged party to prohibit you from making further copies of the covered work I've sold you - though this is the contemporary meaning of 'IP theft'.
So, there's a significant difference between intellectual work as property, and being granted a monopoly over its reproduction.
Thus the US Constitution properly recognises the need to secure writers' and inventors' exclusive right to their writings and designs. However, the reproduction/communication/utilisation monopolies of copyright and patent that were legislated a few years later are unconstitutional.
On the post: How ACTA Exports Worst Of US Copyright Law Without Corresponding Exceptions
Re: Re: But is ACTA ultimately good?
There's also the need to recognise the natural right to truth, as embodied by what are known as moral rights, i.e. against misattribution, misrepresentation, compromise of integrity, etc.
There are many other issues regarding the possession, exchange and communication of information and intellectual works.
Law in this area is almost entirely focussed on the unnatural reproduction monopolies granted in the 18th century - monopolies that society is again going to have to recognise as counter-productive, unethical, and impediments to cultural and technological progress.
On the post: How ACTA Exports Worst Of US Copyright Law Without Corresponding Exceptions
But is ACTA ultimately good?
Perhaps it's driven in pursuit of cheaper, more predictable, more easily manageable legislation?
It certainly appears to result in the ability of publishing corporations to assume control/ownership of the Internet - given they'll have the power to disconnect anyone (with extreme prejudice aka on suspicion/accusation).
However, this harmonised legislation may be as fragile as it is strong, and that's because it's a legislative monoculture. One flaw stressed and the entire edifice shatters.
And on the other side of the looking glass it unites the global online population against the same cultural oppressor, a single instrument of injustice.
I'm still optimistic that ACTA hastens copyright's abolition, which is what I mean by 'ultimately good'. Though that really means we should get on with the business of formulating the law that must fill the vacuum...
On the post: How ACTA Exports Worst Of US Copyright Law Without Corresponding Exceptions
Re: Re: The point of copyright law?
The thing is the Constitution hadn't empowered Congress to grant privileges, it had only empowered it to secure the individual's exclusive right - the right that could be recognised as naturally possessed by an individual by the Constitution.
But then, who cared? Who would raise a fuss, given nearly everyone concerned at the time either wanted the privileges granted or had zero influence?
Jefferson suggested the granting of those monopolies be included in an amendment, but Madison no doubt realised it was better not to draw attention to the fact that copyright and patent had no constitutional sanction, to simply legislate them anyway - allowing the inference they were the 'exclusive right' referred to in the Constitution.
It is the securing of the individual's exclusive right that promotes progress (why bother setting pen to paper if your writings or designs can be stolen?).
Constraints on cultural and technological exchange impede progress, with the brake of monopoly rents gifted to the privileged industrialists (lobbyists).
So no, the point of a monopoly is to reward the one the monopoly is granted to (and for favours to be returned to those granting them). Those granting and granted monopolies will say anything, invent any pretext, pretend they encourage learning, or cure disease, even that they promote competition and creativity. Ask who pays for the lucrative reward of a monopoly. Ask those without the power to grant them, those who either don't have them or who are paid a pittance to surrender them, and especially those who fall foul of them, those who've had their folk songs, folk tales, and folk lore, denied to them. Those who've lost their liberty to their own culture, knowledge, and technology, those prohibited from sharing it or exchanging their labour upon it. A monopoly is not without cost, it's just that the cost is borne by everyone else, a cost in liberty, in lost opportunity.
On the post: The Economist Warns That Newspapers Putting Up Paywalls May Create Newspaper 'Pirates'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If people want the news that badly, it's a great thing
1) One with news articles that one couldn't share or link to (except with other sponsors).
2) One with news articles that one could share and link to.
I don't know about most people, but I have little time or use for news I cannot share, and extreme antipathy for news that, if unwittingly shared, could make me liable for million dollar fines and possible imprisonment.
That leads me to suspect that all this talk of paywalls is simply a gambit preceding the imminent taxation of the Internet. News publishers have to price their news (even if they allow 99% of people free trial subscriptions that keep on getting extended) in order to claim a goodly chunk of the tax.
On the post: How ACTA Exports Worst Of US Copyright Law Without Corresponding Exceptions
The point of copyright law?
You're probably referring to the clause in the US Constitution empowering congress to secure the individual's exclusive right to their writings and designs.
The point of copyright is to enrich the publishing industry at the expense of the public's cultural liberty, i.e. creating a reproduction monopoly by suspending the public's natural right to copy, to share and build upon their own culture.
On the post: Draft Of Privacy Bill Introduced... And Pretty Much Everyone Hates It
Misunderstanding Privacy
Privacy is not the privilege of constraining the disclosure or circulation of 'sensitive' information by those it has been confided to.
No doubt many would like such a privilege over their fellows, to prosecute them if they betray their confidence, but it has no natural basis.
Corporations (being immortal psychopaths) may well need to be tightly regulated, but that's not the same as the folly of granting unnatural powers to mortals.
So, create regulations applying to corporations by all means, but don't corrupt the meaning of privacy in the process.
On the post: The Economist Warns That Newspapers Putting Up Paywalls May Create Newspaper 'Pirates'
Re: Re: Re: If people want the news that badly, it's a great thing
However, you might incite a run on something if you threaten to withdraw supply, but then we're getting into the realms of marketing (increasing demand via psychological manipulation).
You can also appeal for sponsorship, e.g. "We will be forced cease supplying news unless we get 50 new subscribers each week", etc.
On the post: The Economist Warns That Newspapers Putting Up Paywalls May Create Newspaper 'Pirates'
Re: If people want the news that badly, it's a great thing
However, I'm intrigued by your notion that reducing supply increases demand. If a public water fountain in Paris on a hot day is closed off to the public and an admission fee is charged does this increase demand for water? Vendors of bottled water may SEE an increase in demand for their wares, but that isn't actually an increase in overall demand - just a reduction in supply. What creates an increase in demand is the hot day.
In any case, news is not quite like water. Being reproducible without significant cost it is the human labour (the collection/production of news) that is the precious resource, and once published it becomes a perpetual public good diffused by word of mouth or Internet. One can no longer make the published news precious by prohibiting people from reproducing or distributing it.
On the post: The Economist Warns That Newspapers Putting Up Paywalls May Create Newspaper 'Pirates'
Re: Re: Re: newspaper pirates
Newspapers have been in the business of shipping intellectual work from the producers (journalists who they pay as little as possible), mass producing containers/copies of it at incredibly low cost, and then selling those containers at monopoly protected prices. They make their money not from the intellectual work, but from the profits their monopoly gives them in the sale of copies. If the work costs $10,000 and they sell a million copies for a dollar each that cost a cent to print, then it's not the work the price of a copy really pays for. The newspaper enjoys a monopoly in the distribution of that work to the reader.
When readers have their own distribution network (they pay ISPs for it) and their own production facilities (PCs), then the only party that needs paying are the intellectual workers - and they may as well expect to get paid the usual rate. A blogger can get paid a penny per article by each of their subscribers keen for it to be written. If the web is treated as a massive newspaper with billions of readers, a good blogger might attract a thousand of them interested enough to commission more, that's $10 per blog item.
What disappears are the box-shifters, the sellers of containers filled with content, copies of intellectual work.
In this way we can recognise that 'content' is a disrespectful term from the perspective of both the writer and the reader. 'Content' is an important term only from the perspective of the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of copies.
On the post: The Economist Warns That Newspapers Putting Up Paywalls May Create Newspaper 'Pirates'
Re: Re: Sell the news. Let people make their own copies.
So, the person who selects all Techdirt articles about the future of newspapers should be entitled to be paid for their work in selecting those articles - by their customers who pay them to make such a selection.
When you remove the anachronism of copyright it's much easier to see why money should be exchanged for work, not the reproduction or communication of it.
That's what a free market looks like.
The crazy one we have at the moment says no-one can communicate or do anything with any information unless they engage in multilateral negotiations with umpteen respectively privileged parties.
Effectively it's polarising into two markets:
On the post: The Economist Warns That Newspapers Putting Up Paywalls May Create Newspaper 'Pirates'
Re: newspaper pirates
In the 21st century we pay for communication separately from production.
Thus you pay an ISP for bandwidth, and you pay Mike Masnick et al to produce TechDirt.
Anyone can communicate TechDirt. There is no monopoly over broadcast or production of copies.
However, only Mike Masnick can produce his commentary and analyses (possibly there are others who can produce intellectual work of comparable quality).
I suggest that in the 21st century, those who want to receive Mike's work will pay him to produce it.
Those who want to make copies of it, or to share it with their friends, will do so freely and for nothing.
One day people will recognise the difference between intellectual work and copies of it and I won't have to keep explaining it - that although a silicon chip can do one, it takes an incisive and intelligent expert to do the other.
On the post: The Economist Warns That Newspapers Putting Up Paywalls May Create Newspaper 'Pirates'
Sell the news. Let people make their own copies.
Journalists on the other hand think in terms of selling news and analysis, i.e. their intellectual work.
The market for copies has ended.
The market for intellectual work is as strong as ever.
Unfortunately, the journalist has to survive the revolution of a transition between the sale of monopoly protected copies and a free market in the sale of intellectual work.
Journalists meet your readers. You've got to make a bargain with them for the exchange of news and money, because copies cost nothing to make and the monopoly that pretends people can't make their own copies is well past its use-by date.
The newspaper can't pay journalists, because no-one's paying the newspaper for copies. That's why the journalist has to sell their news to the people who want to read it (not those who want to sell copies of it).
On the post: Music Industry Execs Debate Brokep From The Pirate Bay
Trying to break it down into bullet points
Where people are coming unstuck is in conflating the copy with the recording. The copy is not the recording.
Kids can make copies (and do). This is why, despite the 18th century privilege of copyright that has enthralled us, there is no longer a market for copies.
That's why neither the music industry nor the recording industry is doomed.
The industry that is doomed is that of the copy manufacturers/distributors/retailers, and those record labels among them that assume they can still exploit their anachronistic and ineffective monopoly to sell copies (that kids can make for nothing) for what they believe the market should bear.
It's childsplay, BUT:
On the post: Is Just Talking About Infringing Content Infringing?
Re: Re: FUCK OFF COPYRIGHT
Next >>