AC 169, without an explanation as to how, with evidence and empirical data, your statement is invalid. It is possible, however, that you were being sarcastic rather than serious. If that is the case, then I will say well-played.
That is incorrect, AC 40. The public domain, by its very definition, has no copyright. It is the very opposite of copyright, in fact, and was always intended to be a continually grow pool of culture from which every generation of creators can draw. However, because of the distortions in copyright law over the last thirty years, that pool has been shrinking, not growing. It is a situation which must be remedied.
ProtectIP, DMCA, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, and TPP. All attempts to expand the definition of copyright. Not to mention that it's been extended fifteen times in the last 30 years. It's become a tool of maximalists and mercantilism, nothing more, and needs to be radically scaled back.
In case you're unaware, the original time limit in the Constitution was 14 years, with one (just one) optional 14 year expansion. Going back to that would be a good step. Most profit from works is made within the first few years anyway, so anything more than that is completely unnecessary.
As Queeg would say, "Double check and mate, sucka!"
Your insults and condescension undermine your credibility, Pink AC. If you wish to be taken seriously, remove those from your arguments. Also, it has been shown that this program will be quite ineffective at its stated goal. And its implementation does indeed tread the line of legality. The difference between this and what Anonymous does is that they have a legitimate grievance which they are expressing. The companies pushing this solution do not.
That was not the scenario I outlined, AC. What I said was that you have two identical files, one infringing and one not, with no information as to where they came from. You were to explain how to tell the difference from that information alone. You did not. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
You also fail to take into account the fact that the name of a file does not always equal what the contents of the file actually are. Or that files can be placed inside of other files. The only way to verify what a file actually is is to download it and open it yourself. And even that does not tell you anything about the source of the file or whether it was authorized or unauthorized.
By your definition of "offering up streaming and/or downloads of the latest Hollywood movie," sites like Netflix and Hulu would be classified as infringing, because that is exactly what they do. Your definition is extremely vague and easily abused. You also fail to accept that laws can be unethical, and that copyright law in its current state is, in fact, unethical in what it has become, and that infringement is only currently illegal because of laws that have been purchased by an industry that fears losing control.
And probable cause is not enough to override the presumption of innocence. Only a guilty verdict can do so. Mere accusations must never be allowed to bring judgement without trial or a hearing. Especially accusations originating from an extremely biases and powerful party such as the legacy entertainment industries.
You say that infringement is easy to detect, AC 349. Therefore, complete this exercise. You have two files, one infringing, one not, and no information about which is which or where they came from. The files are identical in every way. How do you determine which in infringing and which is not?
The answer is that you cannot. And you are incorrect. As has been stated before, all expression is protected, with very few exceptions in narrowly defined circumstances. There was no court hearing to determine if Dajaz1 was infringing, therefore, until such a hearing occurs and such judgement is passed, the site is not infringing and its expression is protected. The presumption of innocence is one of the core foundations of the American justice system, and it would not be wise for you to continue in your attempts to undermine it.
In addition, the very complex nature of copyright law itself speaks of how far it has strayed from its original purpose. It has been perverted over the years into a tool for mercantilism and monopolists and no longer serves the goal it was created for. It must be either reformed or removed. There are no other options.
Re: Re: Re: Indeed, the Good Book very specifically *forbids* *us* from going around condemning people.
Incorrect, Dave. The root cause is our flawed nature. You will find that two of the largest and most brutal dictatorships in the twentieth century were not religious in nature, but atheistic and secular: Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union and Maoist China. Together, they were responsible for almost 100 million deaths, whereas the Crusades, Inquisition, and the Salem witch trials only took less than 1% of that number, and over a much longer period of time (approximately 500 years) than Stalin and Mao's regimes.
People will bring up faith when they choose, there is no improper place for it because it is about what we believe, and that influences all other things. People of faith are constantly told by you and those like you where to speak of it, when, and under what circumstances it can be allowed, all while watching their freedom to discuss it as they wish be eroded by those who think the best way to avoid its implications is to pretend that it does not exist, much as certain politicians prefer to simply push an issue out of sight rather than actually deal with it.
Would you tolerate being told you could only discuss what you believe in certain restricted circumstances and locations? I do not believe so. The First Amendment's restriction against the establishment of religion also applies to atheism, the religion of no religion. In addition, the fact that you cannot help referring detrimentally to those whose beliefs differ from yours is telling of your own character.
Re: Re: Indeed, the Good Book very specifically *forbids* *us* from going around condemning people.
To the Anonymous Cowards, you should be aware that no theft has occurred. Digital files are essentially infinite in nature, therefore, they cannot be diminished. The source still possesses their copy, the infringer merely creates a new one. But the original is not lost. It remains exactly as it was, and the source can still monetize it just as effectively. You cannot steal what cannot be diminished. Infringement is addition and multiplication, not subtraction. Infinity remains infinity regardless of the mathematical operation applied to it.
And Lawrence, you have a tendency to take such passages of Scripture out of context, as well as discomfort with the idea of being held ultimately accountable for your actions. The original poster was correct. See below:
"He told his next story to some who were complacently pleased with themselves over their moral performance and looked down their noses at the common people: "Two men went up to the Temple to pray, one a Pharisee, the other a tax man. The Pharisee posed and prayed like this: 'Oh, God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, crooks, adulterers, or, heaven forbid, like this tax man. I fast twice a week and tithe on all my income.' Meanwhile the tax man, slumped in the shadows, his face in his hands, not daring to look up, said, 'God, give mercy. Forgive me, a sinner.'" Jesus commented, This tax man, not the other, went home made right with God. If you walk around with your nose in the air, you're going to end up flat on your face, but if you're content to simply be yourself, you will become more than yourself." -John 18:9-14
"Don't pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults—unless, of course, you want the same treatment. That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging. It's easy to see a smudge on your neighbor's face and be oblivious to to the ugly sneer on your own. Do you have the nerve to say, 'Let me wash your face for you,' when your own face is distorted by contempt? It's this whole traveling road-show mentality all over again, playing a holier-than-thou part instead of just living your part. Wipe that ugly sneer off your own face, and you might be fit to offer a washcloth to your neighbor." -Matthew 7:1-5
The command for us to not look down upon others is quite clear, and does not conflict with the inevitability of the final judgement that will one day occur. We are told not to judge, because we are not perfect and we are not God, but God is perfect, and so he has the authority to do so, and his very nature demands it. Perfect goodness requires perfect justice. And perfect justice requires the punishment of wickedness. Perfect goodness also requires perfect love, hence why he came as Jesus, to give us a way out of that judgement, if we give our lives to him. There are, I should also note, more translations of the Bible than just the King James. Perusing one such as The Message might help you to better understand what it really says.
People do not care about the fixed costs, AC 16. From an end-user perspective, they are irrelevant. The cost you refer to when speaking of reproducing and distributing ebooks is marginal cost, not fixed cost. And even that is only brought up to highlight the excessive pricing which many ebook publishers still insist upon. It does not mean that we care about the fixed costs of what we might buy. We do not.
It is my observation that politicians value the appearance of having accomplished something rather than the effort of actually doing so. In other words, they would rather look good than do good. This is why they will often overlook evidence that contradicts their planned course of action rather than examine it.
As you have not provided any empirical evidence of your claim, AC 135, your argument has no support and is therefore invalid. There is no structural difference between an infringing file and a non-infringing one, as they both contain the same sequence of information. It often difficult to tell whether a file is infringing. Even courts of law struggle to do so.
In addition, you have not demonstrated any provable loss or that such "enrichment" is unethical at all. If you wish to be believed, you must support your statements with evidence, and it must not have been created by the legacy entertainment industries. The kind of control you seek is not possible with the existence of digital technology, and it would not be advisable for you to continue to attempt to retain it. What you seek is identical to attempting to empty the ocean with a spoon. It cannot be done.
Fear of the unknown is understandable, as is the use of moral outrage to mask it. However, clinging to such emotions will only hold you back. Also, the use of insults and condescension immediately discredits you, so do not use them. They are especially useless against me, as this persona has no emotion and therefore cannot feel insulted. If you will not be more constructive and receptive in the future, then you will become obsolete along with the legacy entertainment industries whose views you share.
You cannot spread the message on a worldwide scale, JQP, without sufficient coordination. The only way to make hundreds of millions of individuals act in concert in this effort is to encourage them to become involved, but do so on the scale required for inflicting billion dollar damages requires planning, coordination, and widespread visibility. Otherwise, few will participate and any such boycott will be ineffective.
Michael, I respect your position, however, theft cannot occur without loss. And as no loss occurs in infringement, which is merely the creation or use of an unofficial copy, it is therefore not theft. You cannot steal what cannot be diminished, and digital content cannot be diminished so long as new copies are made. Infringement or sharing is addition, not subtraction, and it is also multiplication on an exponential level. Stealing, therefore, is unethical, but infringement is not.
JQP, for any boycott to be successful, it must inflict billions of dollars worth of damage upon its targets, because these companies are multi-billion dollar companies and in order to cripple them, they must suffer monetary damage on that level. For that to happen, it would require hundreds of millions of participants in a worldwide, coordinated effort.
I would not be opposed to such an effort, however, but to launch such an economic offensive on that scale would require a great deal of planning and preparation and the involvement of major sites on the internet to ensure the message reaches as many individuals as possible. The support of several major technology companies and consumer rights organizations would further bolster this effort, as they did for the anti-SOPA blackouts.
Your argument is inaccurate, bob, because you do not understand that there are already laws in place to handle plagiarism. Copyright law has nothing to do with that and is unnecessary for that purpose. Copyright merely addresses the right to make copies, as its name implies. And to withhold that right from the public for over a century when most commercial benefit is gained within approximately ten to twenty years at most is unethical and goes against copyright's original purpose as written in the Constitution.
There are certain inalienable rights we have as human beings, and one of them is the right to access our common culture, to share it with each other and to experience it and preserve it for future generations. Only monopolists and those who benefit from the abnormal state in which the law currently exists oppose this natural right. Technology has allowed us to reassert that right, and those who have distorted the law fear this, and the loss of control over our lives, above all else.
And as a species, humans do naturally create. Consider the following, as Mike has already stated elsewhere:
Copyright in its current state is an anomaly, not the rule. It has only existed for a small part of human history, and a vast amount of creative works precede it. The entire European Renaissance, for example, occurred without the need for copyright, as well as the many works in the centuries preceding it. In essence, bob, creativity is in our very being, and to deny that is to deny reality.
Your assumption of the .torrent format's nature is incorrect, Gray AC. The format and the use of it are two different things, and it would be advisable for you to see them as such. The .torrent format is merely that, a format, a tool. Nothing more and nothing less. Its uses are widely varied, so do not focus on one merely because it displeases you. You state that that is its only use without any empirical data to support that conclusion. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
Lore here. My, the maximalists are out in force today, aren't they? Can't stand to see their new favorite lady shot down like the fake she is. I know you were probably expecting my dear brother instead, and it isn't often I agree with him, but I have to say, you maximalists really excel at deluding yourselves. It doesn't matter what you say or do. Technology doesn't care. Neither do we. The future is ours, not yours.
Go on and whine about your precious copyrights, for all the good it will do you. You push us, we'll push right back. The really amusing thing is that she likely has no idea of the hornet's nest she's stirring up, or that it's going to blow up right in her face. Just like it will in yours, my poor deluded maximalist friends. People can only stand being walked on for so long. Like water, they have a boiling point, and it's about to be reached. And I'm really going to enjoy watching you fools burn.