It's often pretty difficult to tell if a murder, rape, arson or any crime was committed. So let's just punt and give up.
Good idea. Automatic death sentence for anybody accused of any of the above. After all, it's too much trouble to actually study the evidence and hold a trial.
Think of all the money we'd save! No more niggling issues about habeas corpus and due process and the like.
How long do I wait until they realize this? A year? Twenty years? Meantime I can't upload my videos.
Seems there's a chicken-and-egg problem here -- I can't prove my innocence without first uploading my videos, and I can't upload them until I've proven my innocence.
Apparently, according to you, I'm guilty of copyright infringement because I haven't uploaded any too-long videos yet. Because if I weren't an infringer Youtube would have recognized that and released my account by now.
Yeah, the morons thought we'd never figure out how to make CDs recordable. Mwah hah hah hah! We're the f'ing GEEKS. We do six impossible things before breakfast as a f'ing hobby!
Harming everyone for the actions of a few is not only unjust, but it is bad business. Some people pay for consumption, some people don't. Putting up DRM schemes, increasing civil (and sometimes criminal) penalties, and repeatedly changing copyright laws to increase the rights of content distributors or producers rather than consumers are not good business practices.
DRM also has another downside: so-called pirates don't have to put up with it, because the products they get have had it removed. Legitimate users, however, have to deal with all the limitations and faults of DRM, including that it sometimes makes the content impossible to consume. Remember Macrovision on VHS? Most of the time it would play just fine, but some TVs couldn't handle it. And why should they? It works by corrupting the signal.
I don't know how many times have I heard about people who purchased a game legally but also download a hack (or a hacked copy) because the DRM either made the game unplayable or, at least, very inconvenient (e.g. requiring you to repurpose your optical drive as a DRM key).
DRM really only causes problems for legitimate customers. "Pirates" get to bypass all that. The more intrusive your DRM the fewer satisfied customers.
And then there are the schemes that force you to connect to a DRM server to access your content. That's fine, as long as you're in a position to connect, and as long as the servers stay up. But every time a company gives up and shuts down their DRM servers, locking customers out from content they've paid for, more and more people will look askance at any such scheme. I don't mind Steam because I mostly play online anyway, it's pretty transparent, and they're a solid company with a good history. But you won't catch me buying DRM-laden e-books or digital music. "I'm stupid, but I'm not BLOODY stupid." If I can't play it on my smartphone with the playback program of my choice I'm not really interested.
Yeah, driving your customers away isn't good for business.
"Many of your [cohort] seem to be under the delusion that it is their RIGHT to [be paid.]" You say that if we don't want to pay their price for their product, that we shouldn't use their product. If only it were that easy. If I don't buy or use their product, they cite lower sales as proof of piracy and attempt to get the law changed anyway.
Not to mention that sometimes they deliberately lock out markets, and then scream bloody murder when people work to get around that lock-out. If they make and sell a product that people want, and the only way many of them can get it is through illegitimate means, then I have trouble understanding why they're complaining that those people use illegitimate means to get their product. But they'll lock out 3/4 of the world and then kvetch about all the piracy from that 3/4 of the world and try to use it to justify locking them out.
Like my KF buddies say while playing Medic, "You can't heal 'stupid'." Everybody makes mistakes and usually you get a chance to learn from them. But if you play 'stupid' too much for too long you die.
This is totally ridiculous. I'm a firmware developer, and I have to say that every time I write a piece of code, I create it from whole cloth. Absolutely whole. I push aside all the code I've written before, all the code written by people I've worked with, all the examples I've been given; I discard everything I was taught in school about programming, all the documentation that comes with the products I use, and all the libraries that come with them. Because, you know, to re-use any of that prior art in any fashion would be stealing.
The really tough part is inventing a new processor each time, without using any of the techniques ever used previously. Do you know how hard it is to invent working computer processors without using flip-flops? Because, you know. That would be stealing.
First: learn what "censor" means. You're using it wrong. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Second: it's not gone, it's hidden behind a link. Click on it and you can read it. I managed it. You're at least 75 times as smart as I am, I can tell by the condescending sneer. Surely you can figure out how to use that left mouse button after a few lessons.
Third: It's not Mike, you asshole. It's the rest of us assholes. You're so hard up to troll Mike that you're blaming him for others' actions just so you can find something to blame him for.
P.S. possessive its does not have an apostrophe. Just thought I'd throw that in.
He didn't say the radio stations are the pirates, he said they were conduits. Pay attention. Do you realize that people record the music that is being played by those radio stations? I played that copy of Year of the Cat for months before I bought the album and, later, the CD. Every time I played it I stole thousands of dollars from Al Stewart. Because of me he starved to death in the early 1980s. Because of freetard pirates like me the music industry was completely dead by the 1990s. There is no more music.
You want specifics? Well, first of all, you didn't ask a question, you just gave an example of something unethical that could be done with mashups. What are you trying to say? You seem to be implying that there is something inherently wrong with mashups because an unethical person could possibly abuse them. But you don't actually come out and say that, it's just an obvious inference. Are you taking a stand? Asking a question? Trying to start a debate? You've left the whole thing open, and then accused one responder of being a "troll" and ignored the responder who asked what your point was?
So, what is your point? If your point is that mashups can be used towards unethical or immoral or illegal ends, so what? Are you asking for debate on that subject? If so, my reply is that I can use a knife for the same or similar ends. Or a hammer. Or an automobile. Or a building. Or a belt. A fist. Ammonia. Water. Wood. Words. Nothing exists that cannot be abused. The very possibility that something can be abused towards unfortunate ends does not mean that there is anything inherently wrong with it.
Mashups aren't even the issue in your example. It's the technology used to make them. The technology required to use audio-visual records show somebody saying something that he never actually said in real life has existed since it was possible to edit audio-visual records. The fact that modern technology makes it easier for the masses to do doesn't actually change anything.
If you want to ban one specific form of modern technology because it happens to be used to make something you personally object to, then I'd say you can probably get pills for that, or some kind of therapy. If you object to all modern technology because it can be abused, then I'd say to go find somewhere more primitive to live, Mr. Luddite. But before you go, answer this: just how far back do you feel it necessary to go before you've eliminated enough potential for abuse to make you safe? Because if somebody gets really pissed off at you they can always hit you with a rock. Good luck banning rocks.
If that's not what you were trying to say then perhaps you might stop with the ad hominem attacks and actually tell us what you're looking for? Because otherwise anything we say could get a response of "I don't understand, that's not what I said, you're a troll. HERP DERP!"
On the post: Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'… Except He Doesn't
Re: Well, let's give up on all laws then.
Good idea. Automatic death sentence for anybody accused of any of the above. After all, it's too much trouble to actually study the evidence and hold a trial.
Think of all the money we'd save! No more niggling issues about habeas corpus and due process and the like.
On the post: Viacom Exec: 'Everyone Knows A Rogue Site When They See One'… Except He Doesn't
Re: Re: Re:
Seems there's a chicken-and-egg problem here -- I can't prove my innocence without first uploading my videos, and I can't upload them until I've proven my innocence.
Apparently, according to you, I'm guilty of copyright infringement because I haven't uploaded any too-long videos yet. Because if I weren't an infringer Youtube would have recognized that and released my account by now.
On the post: A History Of Hyperbolic Overreaction To Copyright Issues: The Entertainment Industry And Technology
Re:
On the post: A History Of Hyperbolic Overreaction To Copyright Issues: The Entertainment Industry And Technology
Re: Re:
DRM also has another downside: so-called pirates don't have to put up with it, because the products they get have had it removed. Legitimate users, however, have to deal with all the limitations and faults of DRM, including that it sometimes makes the content impossible to consume. Remember Macrovision on VHS? Most of the time it would play just fine, but some TVs couldn't handle it. And why should they? It works by corrupting the signal.
I don't know how many times have I heard about people who purchased a game legally but also download a hack (or a hacked copy) because the DRM either made the game unplayable or, at least, very inconvenient (e.g. requiring you to repurpose your optical drive as a DRM key).
DRM really only causes problems for legitimate customers. "Pirates" get to bypass all that. The more intrusive your DRM the fewer satisfied customers.
And then there are the schemes that force you to connect to a DRM server to access your content. That's fine, as long as you're in a position to connect, and as long as the servers stay up. But every time a company gives up and shuts down their DRM servers, locking customers out from content they've paid for, more and more people will look askance at any such scheme. I don't mind Steam because I mostly play online anyway, it's pretty transparent, and they're a solid company with a good history. But you won't catch me buying DRM-laden e-books or digital music. "I'm stupid, but I'm not BLOODY stupid." If I can't play it on my smartphone with the playback program of my choice I'm not really interested.
Yeah, driving your customers away isn't good for business.
"Many of your [cohort] seem to be under the delusion that it is their RIGHT to [be paid.]" You say that if we don't want to pay their price for their product, that we shouldn't use their product. If only it were that easy. If I don't buy or use their product, they cite lower sales as proof of piracy and attempt to get the law changed anyway.
Not to mention that sometimes they deliberately lock out markets, and then scream bloody murder when people work to get around that lock-out. If they make and sell a product that people want, and the only way many of them can get it is through illegitimate means, then I have trouble understanding why they're complaining that those people use illegitimate means to get their product. But they'll lock out 3/4 of the world and then kvetch about all the piracy from that 3/4 of the world and try to use it to justify locking them out.
Like my KF buddies say while playing Medic, "You can't heal 'stupid'." Everybody makes mistakes and usually you get a chance to learn from them. But if you play 'stupid' too much for too long you die.
On the post: A History Of Hyperbolic Overreaction To Copyright Issues: The Entertainment Industry And Technology
Re: Re:
No, really. I paid for statistics that prove it.
On the post: A History Of Hyperbolic Overreaction To Copyright Issues: The Entertainment Industry And Technology
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: A History Of Hyperbolic Overreaction To Copyright Issues: The Entertainment Industry And Technology
Re: Re: Re: Re: Umm, yawn... Yet copyright continues, because useful to society TOO!
On the post: Russian Internet Content Monitoring System To Go Live In December
... Oh, sorry. I'm just in a silly mood. I needed a break from all the oppression. :(
On the post: More Nation-Level Web Censorship, As Sri Lanka Blocks News Sites It Doesn't Like
On the post: Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality Of Having People Tracked By GPS All The Time
Re: The problem with GPS == tailing
My hammer disagrees with you.
On the post: Aesop Rock Admits That Copying Others Is How He Makes Music
The really tough part is inventing a new processor each time, without using any of the techniques ever used previously. Do you know how hard it is to invent working computer processors without using flip-flops? Because, you know. That would be stealing.
On the post: Why PROTECT IP/SOPA Is The Exact Wrong Approach To Dealing With Infringement Online
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why PROTECT IP/SOPA Is The Exact Wrong Approach To Dealing With Infringement Online
Re: Re: Re:
Second: it's not gone, it's hidden behind a link. Click on it and you can read it. I managed it. You're at least 75 times as smart as I am, I can tell by the condescending sneer. Surely you can figure out how to use that left mouse button after a few lessons.
Third: It's not Mike, you asshole. It's the rest of us assholes. You're so hard up to troll Mike that you're blaming him for others' actions just so you can find something to blame him for.
P.S. possessive its does not have an apostrophe. Just thought I'd throw that in.
On the post: Once Again Court Says FCC Can't Fine Janet Jackson For Wardrobe Malfunction
On the post: Once Again Court Says FCC Can't Fine Janet Jackson For Wardrobe Malfunction
On the post: Entertainment Industry Gets Another Usenet Provider To Shut Down: Is Usenet Illegal?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Canadian Actor Claims Mashups Are Morally Wrong And Should Be Illegal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, what is your point? If your point is that mashups can be used towards unethical or immoral or illegal ends, so what? Are you asking for debate on that subject? If so, my reply is that I can use a knife for the same or similar ends. Or a hammer. Or an automobile. Or a building. Or a belt. A fist. Ammonia. Water. Wood. Words. Nothing exists that cannot be abused. The very possibility that something can be abused towards unfortunate ends does not mean that there is anything inherently wrong with it.
Mashups aren't even the issue in your example. It's the technology used to make them. The technology required to use audio-visual records show somebody saying something that he never actually said in real life has existed since it was possible to edit audio-visual records. The fact that modern technology makes it easier for the masses to do doesn't actually change anything.
If you want to ban one specific form of modern technology because it happens to be used to make something you personally object to, then I'd say you can probably get pills for that, or some kind of therapy. If you object to all modern technology because it can be abused, then I'd say to go find somewhere more primitive to live, Mr. Luddite. But before you go, answer this: just how far back do you feel it necessary to go before you've eliminated enough potential for abuse to make you safe? Because if somebody gets really pissed off at you they can always hit you with a rock. Good luck banning rocks.
If that's not what you were trying to say then perhaps you might stop with the ad hominem attacks and actually tell us what you're looking for? Because otherwise anything we say could get a response of "I don't understand, that's not what I said, you're a troll. HERP DERP!"
On the post: Canadian Actor Claims Mashups Are Morally Wrong And Should Be Illegal
On the post: The Secret Behind SOPA Defense: Insist That It Doesn't Say What It Actually Says
On the post: The Coming Fight Over Sales Tax For Online Retailers
Re: Re: Retailers COLLECT sales tax - they do not pay it!
Hell, if Walmart can do it, anybody can do it!
Next >>