Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Me and everybody else ..
does not matter what you recognize or not, if you dont recognize murder that does not give you the RIGHT to commit murder.
I never said I had a "right" to content. If it was a right, I would justified in forcing other people to give me content by any means necessary. Obviously that wouldn't be justified, so it's not a right of mine.
If society says if you create something you have a RIGHT to that thing, then your obligation is to uphold that right, as you would expect everyone to uphold it FOR YOU..
First off, rights don't come from the whims of society, therefore what society thinks is irrelevant. Secondly, for me to be beholden to a contract, I have to agree to the contract. You and your friends deciding to put a law in place that limits my freedoms does not make me morally beholden to your decision. Thirdly, I don't expect them to uphold copyright for me. Where have I ever said that?
And using things like "RIGHTS" and "OBLIGATIONS" as your 'excuse' for what is essentually pure theft.
I completely agree. IP supporters use words like "rights" and "obligations" as their excuse for stealing from the public. Thanks for making my point for me.
I was kicking around ideas for a game a couple of months back, and I decided that whatever I finally ended up doing, I wanted to release a special edition on ThePirateBay where certain game objects had been replaced by their pirate equivalents.
Re: "powerful anti-piracy software tool that Hotfile specially created"
That's trying to make a feature of following legal requirements to remove the content.
Following DMCA takedown procedures is a legal requirement. Creating a tool to make it quicker and easier for rights-holders to get infringing content removed is not a legal requirement.
Do you even read what you write before you hit submit, or does it just gush out of your brain and into the reply form, unbidden?
filling landfills with cheap garbage [...] how do we reshape society so that this organized brainwashing becomes nonsensical and people get the stuff they need instead of the stuff the manufacturers want to sell just so they can turn a bigger profit
Err, the companies produce what people want. Take refrigerators, for example. Today's refrigerators don't last nearly as long as older ones, which were built like a tank. Is this an example of companies putting profits ahead of customers? Not really. If you look at the price of fridges over time, it hasn't increased that much, and if you account for inflation, that built-like-a-tank fridge would cost over $9,000 dollars in today's money.
People have decided they would rather have a cheaply-built fridge for $700 then a last-forever fridge for $9,000. The fridge-makers comply. Don't blame companies for giving consumers what they want.
When you go shopping for airline tickets, sort by cheapest price, and then purchase the most inexpensive ticket on the list, you're telling airline companies what you value most: price. So don't complain when the airline charges for every snack.
Companies respond to the most purely democratic vote that you and I cast, the vote of what to buy with our dollar. If you want to change something, go explain to people why they should opt for a sturdy fridge instead of a new car. If you convince enough people, the companies will come around too.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright and Photography
Your desperate attempts to appear obtuse notwithstanding:
If I write a book, I own any physical representations that I create with my own materials. I don't own your paper or your ink, and I certainly don't have the right to prevent you from creating your own copy with your own materials.
You seem to be arguing against a phantom. I pointed out that IP as-it-exists-today doesn't make much sense from a property rights perspective, because the rights terminate after a certain number of years (if you leave your grandmother's diamond ring to your daughter, does she have to worry about the state confiscating the ring 70 years after said grandmother's death?).
You then went off the rails and started talking about how IP encourages innovation and how we need it, etc. I think that's garbage, of course, but none of that was in my post. Who are you arguing against?
You're diagnosing her with sociopathy because she pirates movies and doesn't see anything wrong with it?
"In other news, half of the world's population was diagnosed as having sociopathic tendencies this Monday. Experts say that an anonymous commenter made the striking discovery, which had evaded psychiatrists for over a decade."
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Me and everybody else ..
I never said I had a "right" to content. If it was a right, I would justified in forcing other people to give me content by any means necessary. Obviously that wouldn't be justified, so it's not a right of mine.
If society says if you create something you have a RIGHT to that thing, then your obligation is to uphold that right, as you would expect everyone to uphold it FOR YOU..
First off, rights don't come from the whims of society, therefore what society thinks is irrelevant. Secondly, for me to be beholden to a contract, I have to agree to the contract. You and your friends deciding to put a law in place that limits my freedoms does not make me morally beholden to your decision. Thirdly, I don't expect them to uphold copyright for me. Where have I ever said that?
And using things like "RIGHTS" and "OBLIGATIONS" as your 'excuse' for what is essentually pure theft.
I completely agree. IP supporters use words like "rights" and "obligations" as their excuse for stealing from the public. Thanks for making my point for me.
On the post: Famed Appeals Court Judge Worries That Allowing People To Record Police Might Mean That People Actually Record The Police
Re: Re: IMHO
If I was a public "servant"? Sure,
Are you offering to allow your employer to record all of your movements, all of your words, and all of your actions?
Fixed that for you. And if my employer wanted me to do that, I would then have a choice to make, wouldn't I?
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Me and everybody else ..
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Me and everybody else ..
I don't recognize copyright as a right, and breaking the law is a form of opting out.
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Re: Re: Where do you stand?
Abolish IP.
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Where do you stand?
The only "reasonable term" is zero.
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Me and everybody else ..
I would never say I have a "right" to content. But if someone is offering it up for free online, I'll take a copy, sure.
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: How does that even make sense?
Sentencing period changes don't apply retroactively. In fact, it would be unconstitutional to do so.
On the post: Indie Game Developer Posts Game on Pirate Bay, Sees Positive Results
Damnit
And now I see this. Think they'll sue? :P
On the post: Hotfile Responds To Lawsuit Filed By Studios, Countersues Warner Bros. For Copyright Misuse
Re: "powerful anti-piracy software tool that Hotfile specially created"
Following DMCA takedown procedures is a legal requirement. Creating a tool to make it quicker and easier for rights-holders to get infringing content removed is not a legal requirement.
Do you even read what you write before you hit submit, or does it just gush out of your brain and into the reply form, unbidden?
On the post: Why Does The Authors Guild Hate Education So Much? Sues Five Universities For Providing Access To Orphan Works
Re: Google is acting on behalf of the little guy against fat cat monopolists ?
Non-profit just means they don't pay shareholders. They can certainly pay themselves.
On the post: DailyDirt: Studying Advertising As A Science...?
Re: Isn't anyone else concerned?
Err, the companies produce what people want. Take refrigerators, for example. Today's refrigerators don't last nearly as long as older ones, which were built like a tank. Is this an example of companies putting profits ahead of customers? Not really. If you look at the price of fridges over time, it hasn't increased that much, and if you account for inflation, that built-like-a-tank fridge would cost over $9,000 dollars in today's money.
People have decided they would rather have a cheaply-built fridge for $700 then a last-forever fridge for $9,000. The fridge-makers comply. Don't blame companies for giving consumers what they want.
When you go shopping for airline tickets, sort by cheapest price, and then purchase the most inexpensive ticket on the list, you're telling airline companies what you value most: price. So don't complain when the airline charges for every snack.
Companies respond to the most purely democratic vote that you and I cast, the vote of what to buy with our dollar. If you want to change something, go explain to people why they should opt for a sturdy fridge instead of a new car. If you convince enough people, the companies will come around too.
Good luck with that.
On the post: DailyDirt: Studying Advertising As A Science...?
Re: Isn't anyone else concerned?
Err, how do you know the focus isn't on figuring out what makes people tick, so you can more easily fight those influences?
On the post: DailyDirt: Studying Advertising As A Science...?
Thanks For This
On the post: Photographs Are Mechanical Representations Of Facts, And Thus Should Have Only Thin Copyright Protection
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright and Photography
If I write a book, I own any physical representations that I create with my own materials. I don't own your paper or your ink, and I certainly don't have the right to prevent you from creating your own copy with your own materials.
Anything else is immoral.
On the post: Photographs Are Mechanical Representations Of Facts, And Thus Should Have Only Thin Copyright Protection
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright and Photography
See the unofficial "sequel" to the catcher in the rye, which didn't use anything from the original. They banned it in the US as a "derivative work".
Your position is not rooted in reality.
On the post: Photographs Are Mechanical Representations Of Facts, And Thus Should Have Only Thin Copyright Protection
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright and Photography
You then went off the rails and started talking about how IP encourages innovation and how we need it, etc. I think that's garbage, of course, but none of that was in my post. Who are you arguing against?
On the post: MPAA: Bad At Math & Bad At Economics
Re: Arguing exact figure just admits there are losses.
[Citation Needed]
On the post: US Gov't Continues Indicting People For File Sharing; 5 Indicted For NinjaVideo
Re:
No.
That is all.
On the post: US Gov't Continues Indicting People For File Sharing; 5 Indicted For NinjaVideo
Re:
You're diagnosing her with sociopathy because she pirates movies and doesn't see anything wrong with it?
"In other news, half of the world's population was diagnosed as having sociopathic tendencies this Monday. Experts say that an anonymous commenter made the striking discovery, which had evaded psychiatrists for over a decade."
Next >>