The need to create entertainment is certainly not outdated, but their need to control distribution, or their desire to get paid for each instance of an infinite good-- those are outdated.
In much the same way, there is still a need for ice in your freezer, but you no longer pay someone in an insulated truck to drive it to your house so you can buy it from him.
You're right, if this were 2005, that would be an excellent way to catch those darn pirate. However, welcome to 2011. When you have legitimate use of bittorrent by companies, like the oft-mentioned Blizzard, or the even-more-oft-mentioned Linux, or the people like Radiohead, Trent Reznor, or the people behind Pioneer One, or any of the numerous legitimate, authorized uses for P2P that are growing in number every day, then you begin to get a *lot* of false positives. False positives that will cost you money. Money that could be better spent playing the lottery than chasing after those darn pirates.
It's not the initial actions themselves, e.g., piracy and leaking documents, but the reactions of those who feel injured by those actions that are the same. In both instances the reaction was an attempt to control something uncontrollable and when that failed, to enact laws to attempt to make it possible. Laws that can and will have severe, unstated (maybe unintended?) consequences, aka chilling effects.
So, since the reactions were the same, the fight against the reactions are, in fact, one and the same. To leave the internet alone, and by proxy, useful.
Helpful advice: Don't let them get under your skin, and definitely don't sink to name calling or gratuitous profanity. (I save my profanity for special occasions!) Stick to the content of their posts and don't let them sidetrack you. It's probably a good idea to indicate when you are being sarcastic. Whenever possible, support your facts or assumptions with a link. It's a good idea to register here, too, if you plan on posting often, though obviously it's not required.
In fact, if all sides of this argument did this, that would be just swell.
Wait.. what? That's *exactly* how it works! You're right, my circle will probably only have a few dozen people. But those 24 people have a few dozen friends, and all our friends aren't likely to be in common. Repeat, repeat, repeat.
With a 1TB hard drive costing less than half of my cable bill, how much data do you think can be moved around *without* the internet being used to actually transfer the files?
It's not *just* the internet that made file sharing so easy, it's also the fact that media is now just bits of 1's and 0's.
Preventing piracy is a losing battle. Spend the money on marketing to the pirates instead.
The problem is, up until now, it's never gone to trial. Now we have at least two people, perhaps 3, willing to chance having a felony on their record to spread light on a bad law.
I am ashamed to admit that I wouldn't have the courage to do so myself.
I love your logic. By that standard, arresting drug dealers is bad because it doesn't promote progress for the dealers.
Holy fucking shit. No, really. That was awesome.
Let's walk through this together:
Copyrights were designed to promote the progress of the arts.
Drug laws are designed to keep us from having controlled substances.
So, arresting drug dealers does, in fact, keep people from going to that drug dealer for drugs. However, if actively block people from creating because they sampled 4 seconds of a 50 year old song, you are *not* promoting the progress of the arts, are you? So, enforcing the law in this regard makes no sense.
I find it *completely* amazing that you couldn't reason through that by yourself.
PS- I'll admit, though, that arresting drug dealers does very little to actually stop drug use, but that's a conversation for a different day, I think.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The ACs sound very manic today...
Have you ever infringed on someone's copyrights? I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out everyone has. This is the problem with copyright laws taken to this extreme.
No one's opportunity to post a blog has been censored, you buffoon
I was unaware that the ability to create new speech meant that destroying old speech was not censorship. As soon as you point me in the direction of that caveat of the first amendment and I'll be glad to concede that. As is stands in my mind, if I write a book and you burn it to stop the spread of its message, I have been censored, even though I can just write it again.
None of the protected speech on any of those sites was taken and not allowed to be put on the net.
That's odd, if you were to try and visit those sites, you've get a nice page saying the domain has been taken down. Or am I wrong about that too?
or where unprotected conduct and content is blocked in a copyright context (not censorship)
..and when entire sites are taken down to fight "piracy"? Isn't that prior restraint, which is a form of censorship? Are you not in the least bit concerned that all it takes to have a site taken down is for a big corporation to call the government with "evidence" and ask for it to be taken down?
No, this is the best quote from the article I linked:
I ask Pasco if he believes someone like Michael Allison should go to prison, potentially for the rest of his life. "I don't know anything about that case," Pasco replies, "but generally it sounds like a sensible law and a sensible punishment. Police officers don’t check their civil rights at the station house door."
"That just doesn’t sound right," Allison says. "My civil rights are supposed to protect me from the government. When a police officer is on the job, he’s part of the government. So [Pasco] is trying to say the government has civil rights to protect it from the people? That doesn’t make any sense to me."
As part of this, he had a First Amendment lawyer with him... and a video crew.
The article implies that these actions were taken the first and second attempt at getting arrested, but both times he was let off with a warning. This was his third attempt. I know I read it somewhere that he had a small recording device in his jacket-- not a film crew on hand-- and that's what got him in trouble. Of course, I can't for the life of me find where I read that, so take it with a grain of salt.
Just to be fair, 12 states (IIRC) have laws that require all parties to give consent to be recorded. Of those 12, two of them (Illinois and Massachusetts, aka yours and mine) have no exception to this rule when there is no expectation of privacy, aka, in public.
One of them, MA I think, actually had it in the law and took it out.
So, rest assured, your state isn't alone in sucking... and yours, at least, has better pizza.
This is a good place to start if you want to know more.
Yes, but the man with the dead mother and dead brother doesn't want the items destroyed or the auction stopped, he wants the items given to him as well as the money they've made. He also wants his money back for the burial plot(s). He is also claiming that this has hurt him financially.
I don't think there are any upstanding citizens in this suit.
As the casket had been paid for, the ownership would have been with the estate.
With the fact that the living Oswald didn't pay for the new coffin, this is a win-win for the funeral home. They'll simply dig up the dead Oswald and put him back in his old coffin and sell the "new" one, that presumably they still own.
I am somewhat confused, as your reply has no basis on what you are replying to. Unless you yet again misunderstand the topic at hand, which seems to be where you excel, and therefore likely.
On the post: Tunisian State Secretary Says Censorship Is Fine Because The West Does It Too
Re: Re: Re: discussion over the word censorship
In much the same way, there is still a need for ice in your freezer, but you no longer pay someone in an insulated truck to drive it to your house so you can buy it from him.
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Tunisian State Secretary Says Censorship Is Fine Because The West Does It Too
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, since the reactions were the same, the fight against the reactions are, in fact, one and the same. To leave the internet alone, and by proxy, useful.
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fact, if all sides of this argument did this, that would be just swell.
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re: How Sneakernet Works
With a 1TB hard drive costing less than half of my cable bill, how much data do you think can be moved around *without* the internet being used to actually transfer the files?
It's not *just* the internet that made file sharing so easy, it's also the fact that media is now just bits of 1's and 0's.
Preventing piracy is a losing battle. Spend the money on marketing to the pirates instead.
On the post: Man Acquitted In Lawsuit Over Filming The TSA And Not Showing ID
Re: Re: Re: from TSA website
On the post: Artist Facing 15 Years In Jail For The Crime Of Videotaping His Own Arrest
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eavesdropping
I am ashamed to admit that I wouldn't have the courage to do so myself.
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re: The ACs sound very manic today...
Holy fucking shit. No, really. That was awesome.
Let's walk through this together:
Copyrights were designed to promote the progress of the arts.
Drug laws are designed to keep us from having controlled substances.
So, arresting drug dealers does, in fact, keep people from going to that drug dealer for drugs. However, if actively block people from creating because they sampled 4 seconds of a 50 year old song, you are *not* promoting the progress of the arts, are you? So, enforcing the law in this regard makes no sense.
I find it *completely* amazing that you couldn't reason through that by yourself.
PS- I'll admit, though, that arresting drug dealers does very little to actually stop drug use, but that's a conversation for a different day, I think.
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The ACs sound very manic today...
On the post: Tunisian State Secretary Says Censorship Is Fine Because The West Does It Too
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was unaware that the ability to create new speech meant that destroying old speech was not censorship. As soon as you point me in the direction of that caveat of the first amendment and I'll be glad to concede that. As is stands in my mind, if I write a book and you burn it to stop the spread of its message, I have been censored, even though I can just write it again.
None of the protected speech on any of those sites was taken and not allowed to be put on the net.
That's odd, if you were to try and visit those sites, you've get a nice page saying the domain has been taken down. Or am I wrong about that too?
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: that means he'll be in the hot seat
On the post: Tunisian State Secretary Says Censorship Is Fine Because The West Does It Too
Re: Re: Re:
..and when entire sites are taken down to fight "piracy"? Isn't that prior restraint, which is a form of censorship? Are you not in the least bit concerned that all it takes to have a site taken down is for a big corporation to call the government with "evidence" and ask for it to be taken down?
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: How Sneakernet Works
Cragslist, for example.
"WTT one used 1TB hard drive for used 1TB hard drive. Works like new, not in original packaging. Expect the same for trade."
Ta da!
On the post: Artist Facing 15 Years In Jail For The Crime Of Videotaping His Own Arrest
Re: Re: Re: Re: Eavesdropping
I ask Pasco if he believes someone like Michael Allison should go to prison, potentially for the rest of his life. "I don't know anything about that case," Pasco replies, "but generally it sounds like a sensible law and a sensible punishment. Police officers don’t check their civil rights at the station house door."
"That just doesn’t sound right," Allison says. "My civil rights are supposed to protect me from the government. When a police officer is on the job, he’s part of the government. So [Pasco] is trying to say the government has civil rights to protect it from the people? That doesn’t make any sense to me."
On the post: Artist Facing 15 Years In Jail For The Crime Of Videotaping His Own Arrest
Grain of salt.
The article implies that these actions were taken the first and second attempt at getting arrested, but both times he was let off with a warning. This was his third attempt. I know I read it somewhere that he had a small recording device in his jacket-- not a film crew on hand-- and that's what got him in trouble. Of course, I can't for the life of me find where I read that, so take it with a grain of salt.
On the post: Artist Facing 15 Years In Jail For The Crime Of Videotaping His Own Arrest
Re: Re: Eavesdropping
One of them, MA I think, actually had it in the law and took it out.
So, rest assured, your state isn't alone in sucking... and yours, at least, has better pizza.
This is a good place to start if you want to know more.
On the post: Tunisian State Secretary Says Censorship Is Fine Because The West Does It Too
Re: Re:
Judges are expensive?
On the post: Lee Harvey Oswald's Brother Sues Funeral Home For Selling Oswald's Old Coffin
Re:
I don't think there are any upstanding citizens in this suit.
On the post: Lee Harvey Oswald's Brother Sues Funeral Home For Selling Oswald's Old Coffin
Re:
With the fact that the living Oswald didn't pay for the new coffin, this is a win-win for the funeral home. They'll simply dig up the dead Oswald and put him back in his old coffin and sell the "new" one, that presumably they still own.
On the post: Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General
Re: Re: Re: Re: The ACs sound very manic today...
Next >>