What are you talking about? Haven't you heard of The Pirate Party? And the reason they haven't accomplished that goal is because the opposition has way more money, which is the only thing that talks in government. After all, money has been deemed speech and that means the *IAA have more speech than any grass roots org does.
Yes it does violate my right to speech. It's disturbing that you can say that and believe it. You don't have an exclusive right to "your" speech and neither do I have one to "my" speech. I can reuse any other person's speech any way I like, because that's how speech works. That's my human right. Any being that has the capacity to communicate has that right.
This is a brazen attempt to censor someone that is using speech that is the supposed "property" of someone else and they're trying to do it by throwing the baby out with the bath water or culling the herd to get one sick cattle. I find it reprehensible and despicable that people accept the idea the some speech can be owned and grant people the power to censor others from using that speech because of monetary concerns. Copyright is not about the profitability, or the enabling of, a particular business model. Copyright was concerned with one thing: greater access to a greater supply of creative and educational works so that others can use those to create even more works. However, we don't enjoy such a benefit, we are beholden to abide by overreaching property rights that have been insidiously obtained for the exclusive benefit of rent seekers like the publishing corporations in total contradiction to free speech. Speech is the inalienable right of every intelligent being capable of symbolic interaction. No one, and I mean NO ONE, deserves to subvert or abridge that right for any reason.
The whole reason publishers need the copyright laws to exist as they do is because the publishers themselves do not offer anything of value that is exclusive or scarce. They exploit the people that do the real work so they can collect income because they merely "own" something. The people they pay to create works already provided the exclusive and scarce value in content: the labor applied to the content's creation. They use their vast supply of money to exploit hard-working people so they can turn that money into more money, all without adding anything of real value. To do this, they establish laws that create the illusion of scarcity so that they can sell something that does not merit a market price. If ideas were worth money, the deluge of ideas coming at the publishing corporations would be bought up at a feverish pace, but ideas are worth shit. What's worth money is how you can execute that idea into an expression. If you execute well, people will respond. If not, you'll be ignored.
So, this whole idea of censoring free speech to silence a few people violating their ill-gotten property rights is just ethically disgusting. Nobody deserves nor needs copyright since it has no redeeming qualities. Any argument made for the existence of copyright can be countered by adapting business strategies to fit the situation. If you don't want people to get your works for free, then don't publish them. I guarantee you that is the only way you'll avoid anybody copying your works. Publishing is the first step to sharing content. However, the only person that will ever know about your work is you.
And you're a child. Calling someone gay? Really? How old are you that you'd think accusing someone of being a homosexual was a mature way to respond? Calling someone gay isn't even an insult. Either you are and you accept it or you're not and you're secure in your sexuality. Calling someone gay to insult them is like calling someone blonde.
That's just not the case. At distances greater than 3 feet, the sun emits more radiation than your phone. We're talking about a few milliwatts of radiation. Mobile phones are not strong enough to interfere with electronics at a distance. A mobile phone outside of the cockpit will not be strong enough to disrupt electronics.
Besides, the entire issue can be resolved by insulating the cockpit walls with a Faraday cage. As long as the door is shut, no emissions from the passengers will get to the instruments. The whole "turn off your devices" spiel is nothing but an ineffectual overreaction.
You want to talk about stealing? How about the fact that the content corporations have repeatedly stolen our culture from us all? How about the fact that they've stolen our freedom of speech and expression so they can have monopoly control over speech? No OOTB, the "content creators" are the real thieves and criminals.
Actually, the Earth would go rogue and leave orbit. The atmosphere and oceans would dissipate without gravity. Holding on to something will only delay the exposure to vacuum, not prevent it. To survive, we would need underground habitats sealed off from the vacuum.
"The biggest pirates are STILL just freeloading at a fraction of the sum honest people would pay for as much content."
And you think that matters in absolute terms? Does it cost the industry anything for them to have that content for free? Would those people actually be able to afford all the content they consume? No, it doesn't and they can't. But in absolute terms, they spend more money than your so-called "honest" people. The cost of letting people have that content is $0 because people that use p2p invest their own bandwidth and energy. It's free distribution for the publisher, even if it goes against their wishes, which are not sacrosanct by the way. So by comparison, $300 profit from an infringer is still $300 profit compared to $100 profit a non-infringer, which is still only $100 profit. With the cost per sale being the same, the infringer is sill generating more profit for the industry than the "honest" people.
So get off your high horse and leave your delusional concepts of morality and property rights behind.
Exactly! Give me a service where I can stream every newly released movie, every TV show at airing, and I will pay for it. We want universal, unlimited access to all content that is on-demand and in high quality. That's something I'd pay for.
Equivocation fallacy. Shoplifting and infringement are not the same.
The data bears out the facts. People who infringe spend more than people who don't and this isn't the first study that found this trend. The logical conclusion is that people that infringe more have a wider exposure to content and are more likely to find things they want to spend money on. Simply put, content is advertising. If content is advertising, I'd wager that the content industry would want to put as much content into the hands of their customers as they possibly can.
This whole storm of excrement stems from a distorted sense of property. The idea has been drilled into the head of just about every person today that, if you make something, you own it. However, this rationale forgets or disregards the fact that these works were built from the common wealth of human culture. That's something that belongs to no single person exclusively and to apply property concepts to works derived from such resources is an outright theft against every living person on Earth. Copyright is the legalized theft of human culture for the exclusive benefit of a select few.
The whole idea that we have specifically defined "authorized" uses (i.e. fair use) as opposed to absolute liberty in their use is nothing short of a cognitive distortion. I don't have to pay someone for the air that I breath, it belongs to anyone that wishes to use it. Yet, every living thing (including humans) contribute to the continued manufacturing of breathable atmosphere. Unfortunately, people still cling to this idea that they should have property rights over something that belongs to everyone equally and be allowed to extract payment for its existence. It should be free to access and use in new works at the moment of publishing.
Anyone with a capacity for rational critical thought should be able to see that the moment something is published, any hope of restricting the distribution of copies goes right out of the window. Anybody that tries to control works after publishing is a fool or insane. You'd have about as much luck controlling a published work as you would trying to recollect the feathers from a pillow torn open in the middle of a hurricane. Nevertheless people still try to turn intangible, abundant goods into discreet, exclusive property. A critical thinker would look at the issue and realize that selling published copies is a really bad business plan and that the real exclusive value is in the process of creating the works in the first place. Thus publishers have built an industry around a model that was never truly viable to begin with and they're probably freaking out because they see themselves becoming less relevant as time goes on. Neither law nor technology can change the nature of information as copyright and DRM repeatedly fails to change it. The moment you make information impossible to copy, it becomes unusable. Then, it's worthless.
It's truly amazing how crazy people get when it comes to their perceptions of profit and property. The two being sacrosanct, they'll lie, cheat, and abuse everyone to maintain their delusions.
Re: DRM is about control not Piracy
Mainly, it's meant to segment the market so they can charge an individual price for each segment instead of a lump charge to get access to everything.
Re: Read for comprehension!
Don't reply to the trolls, just hit report and spend your time talking to a rational person instead.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is that it?
By christian scientists.
Re:
What are you talking about? Haven't you heard of The Pirate Party? And the reason they haven't accomplished that goal is because the opposition has way more money, which is the only thing that talks in government. After all, money has been deemed speech and that means the *IAA have more speech than any grass roots org does.
Re: Re: Congress shall make no law...
Yes it does violate my right to speech. It's disturbing that you can say that and believe it. You don't have an exclusive right to "your" speech and neither do I have one to "my" speech. I can reuse any other person's speech any way I like, because that's how speech works. That's my human right. Any being that has the capacity to communicate has that right.
Re:
Oh, let's just make it simple. Kill all the humans. Then the lizard people can take over.
Re:
By glad, you mean the opposite.
More of the same.
This is a brazen attempt to censor someone that is using speech that is the supposed "property" of someone else and they're trying to do it by throwing the baby out with the bath water or culling the herd to get one sick cattle. I find it reprehensible and despicable that people accept the idea the some speech can be owned and grant people the power to censor others from using that speech because of monetary concerns. Copyright is not about the profitability, or the enabling of, a particular business model. Copyright was concerned with one thing: greater access to a greater supply of creative and educational works so that others can use those to create even more works. However, we don't enjoy such a benefit, we are beholden to abide by overreaching property rights that have been insidiously obtained for the exclusive benefit of rent seekers like the publishing corporations in total contradiction to free speech. Speech is the inalienable right of every intelligent being capable of symbolic interaction. No one, and I mean NO ONE, deserves to subvert or abridge that right for any reason.
The whole reason publishers need the copyright laws to exist as they do is because the publishers themselves do not offer anything of value that is exclusive or scarce. They exploit the people that do the real work so they can collect income because they merely "own" something. The people they pay to create works already provided the exclusive and scarce value in content: the labor applied to the content's creation. They use their vast supply of money to exploit hard-working people so they can turn that money into more money, all without adding anything of real value. To do this, they establish laws that create the illusion of scarcity so that they can sell something that does not merit a market price. If ideas were worth money, the deluge of ideas coming at the publishing corporations would be bought up at a feverish pace, but ideas are worth shit. What's worth money is how you can execute that idea into an expression. If you execute well, people will respond. If not, you'll be ignored.
So, this whole idea of censoring free speech to silence a few people violating their ill-gotten property rights is just ethically disgusting. Nobody deserves nor needs copyright since it has no redeeming qualities. Any argument made for the existence of copyright can be countered by adapting business strategies to fit the situation. If you don't want people to get your works for free, then don't publish them. I guarantee you that is the only way you'll avoid anybody copying your works. Publishing is the first step to sharing content. However, the only person that will ever know about your work is you.
Re: Re: Re: There you go
And you're a child. Calling someone gay? Really? How old are you that you'd think accusing someone of being a homosexual was a mature way to respond? Calling someone gay isn't even an insult. Either you are and you accept it or you're not and you're secure in your sexuality. Calling someone gay to insult them is like calling someone blonde.
Re: Re: Re: Too bad for Him
He may have tripped Godwin's law, but it's an apt usage.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, aluminum does absorb radio waves.
Re: Re:
That's just not the case. At distances greater than 3 feet, the sun emits more radiation than your phone. We're talking about a few milliwatts of radiation. Mobile phones are not strong enough to interfere with electronics at a distance. A mobile phone outside of the cockpit will not be strong enough to disrupt electronics.
Besides, the entire issue can be resolved by insulating the cockpit walls with a Faraday cage. As long as the door is shut, no emissions from the passengers will get to the instruments. The whole "turn off your devices" spiel is nothing but an ineffectual overreaction.
Re: Dotcom stole millions.
You want to talk about stealing? How about the fact that the content corporations have repeatedly stolen our culture from us all? How about the fact that they've stolen our freedom of speech and expression so they can have monopoly control over speech? No OOTB, the "content creators" are the real thieves and criminals.
Re: Re: Re: Re: re-read the report
Actually, the Earth would go rogue and leave orbit. The atmosphere and oceans would dissipate without gravity. Holding on to something will only delay the exposure to vacuum, not prevent it. To survive, we would need underground habitats sealed off from the vacuum.
Re: Lawyers aren't bad enough; now Mike embraces convicts.
More diatribe from OOTB and nothing of real substance to say.
Re: NOT "a valuable contribution to the field" -- IT'S A SURVEY.
"The biggest pirates are STILL just freeloading at a fraction of the sum honest people would pay for as much content."
And you think that matters in absolute terms? Does it cost the industry anything for them to have that content for free? Would those people actually be able to afford all the content they consume? No, it doesn't and they can't. But in absolute terms, they spend more money than your so-called "honest" people. The cost of letting people have that content is $0 because people that use p2p invest their own bandwidth and energy. It's free distribution for the publisher, even if it goes against their wishes, which are not sacrosanct by the way. So by comparison, $300 profit from an infringer is still $300 profit compared to $100 profit a non-infringer, which is still only $100 profit. With the cost per sale being the same, the infringer is sill generating more profit for the industry than the "honest" people.
So get off your high horse and leave your delusional concepts of morality and property rights behind.
Re:
Exactly! Give me a service where I can stream every newly released movie, every TV show at airing, and I will pay for it. We want universal, unlimited access to all content that is on-demand and in high quality. That's something I'd pay for.
Re:
Equivocation fallacy. Shoplifting and infringement are not the same.
The data bears out the facts. People who infringe spend more than people who don't and this isn't the first study that found this trend. The logical conclusion is that people that infringe more have a wider exposure to content and are more likely to find things they want to spend money on. Simply put, content is advertising. If content is advertising, I'd wager that the content industry would want to put as much content into the hands of their customers as they possibly can.
The problem is property.
This whole storm of excrement stems from a distorted sense of property. The idea has been drilled into the head of just about every person today that, if you make something, you own it. However, this rationale forgets or disregards the fact that these works were built from the common wealth of human culture. That's something that belongs to no single person exclusively and to apply property concepts to works derived from such resources is an outright theft against every living person on Earth. Copyright is the legalized theft of human culture for the exclusive benefit of a select few.
The whole idea that we have specifically defined "authorized" uses (i.e. fair use) as opposed to absolute liberty in their use is nothing short of a cognitive distortion. I don't have to pay someone for the air that I breath, it belongs to anyone that wishes to use it. Yet, every living thing (including humans) contribute to the continued manufacturing of breathable atmosphere. Unfortunately, people still cling to this idea that they should have property rights over something that belongs to everyone equally and be allowed to extract payment for its existence. It should be free to access and use in new works at the moment of publishing.
Anyone with a capacity for rational critical thought should be able to see that the moment something is published, any hope of restricting the distribution of copies goes right out of the window. Anybody that tries to control works after publishing is a fool or insane. You'd have about as much luck controlling a published work as you would trying to recollect the feathers from a pillow torn open in the middle of a hurricane. Nevertheless people still try to turn intangible, abundant goods into discreet, exclusive property. A critical thinker would look at the issue and realize that selling published copies is a really bad business plan and that the real exclusive value is in the process of creating the works in the first place. Thus publishers have built an industry around a model that was never truly viable to begin with and they're probably freaking out because they see themselves becoming less relevant as time goes on. Neither law nor technology can change the nature of information as copyright and DRM repeatedly fails to change it. The moment you make information impossible to copy, it becomes unusable. Then, it's worthless.
Re: Re:
It's truly amazing how crazy people get when it comes to their perceptions of profit and property. The two being sacrosanct, they'll lie, cheat, and abuse everyone to maintain their delusions.