There is no such thing as "Intellectual Property". That's a made-up term aimed to make people view copyright differently.
Internet freedom is about defending the right to free speech on the internet. So long as certain types of speech (copyrights) are treated like property, our freedom of speech is being infringed upon. It goes against very core concept of freedom of speech to say that there are certain speech I can't use because someone "owns" it. If speech is the natural right of every human being, then applying property concepts to certain speech is a clear violation of that right. But people like you will put property rights above all others.
No, these attacks aren't frequent, only their news coverage is frequent. There has been a rise in news coverage of school shootings, but guess what! School shootings are on the decline. In fact, many crimes that are such fodder for news outlets are actually declining as they crank up their coverage. There's a saying in the news biz, "if it bleeds, it leads". It's all FUD and none of it is as real as the news portrays it.
"Just because YOU CAN copy or steal something off the internet, does not make it legal for you to do that."
It may be illegal, but it sure as hell isn't wrong. It's not anybody's property, it's everyone's right to say anything and everything on the internet. That includes creative works, because they are a form of speech and nobody has the right to violate my natural right to speech just because they have the foolish notion that they can "own" that speech. To all who think they can own the content they create, you disgust me.
I do think copying and sharing "someone else's" content is moral. In fact, sharing content is morally superior to hoarding it to leverage it for profit. I also don't ascribe any ownership to any content I might produce because it's not really mine, it's built on the common wealth of culture that belongs to every thinking being in existence. It's not mine nor any other person's property. Everything I have, or will, personally publish is, as far as I'm concerned, automatically part of the public domain. I'm not so stupid to think that I can make money by going against human nature's compulsion to share knowledge and culture. I know that if what I do is worth paying for, I can get paid for doing it. It's called being paid for labor. Idiots like you want to get paid for a product that doesn't exist. And what of the content I produce? It's advertising for my value as a content creator, so that people may know what I'm able to provide them. Content I publish isn't what's valuable, I'm what's valuable. If there is no me, there is no content created by me.
So, I have no fears about people sharing content I create because I will never support my income on that platform.
It would only eliminate centralized sources. Only sites and links would be gone, but there would still be tools out there that don't rely on fixed links and sites. There are pure p2p tools that aggregate their indices without a centralized server or link. They peer the index to fellow peers and the user searches through the index for content. No servers, no link required. Tools like Tribler make this possible. Once these tools are published, there's no way to make them disappear. The internet never forgets.
They could close down The Pirate Bay every other p2p site, but the genie is out of the bottle. There is nothing they can do short of shutting down the entire internet that will stop sharing of content. Since that will never happen, they're just pissing in the wind. It's war is over, they lost. What's left are some flailing corpses unwilling to accept the fact that they are dead.
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.
Re:
There is no such thing as "Intellectual Property". That's a made-up term aimed to make people view copyright differently.
Internet freedom is about defending the right to free speech on the internet. So long as certain types of speech (copyrights) are treated like property, our freedom of speech is being infringed upon. It goes against very core concept of freedom of speech to say that there are certain speech I can't use because someone "owns" it. If speech is the natural right of every human being, then applying property concepts to certain speech is a clear violation of that right. But people like you will put property rights above all others.
No, these attacks aren't frequent, only their news coverage is frequent. There has been a rise in news coverage of school shootings, but guess what! School shootings are on the decline. In fact, many crimes that are such fodder for news outlets are actually declining as they crank up their coverage. There's a saying in the news biz, "if it bleeds, it leads". It's all FUD and none of it is as real as the news portrays it.
"Just because YOU CAN copy or steal something off the internet, does not make it legal for you to do that."
It may be illegal, but it sure as hell isn't wrong. It's not anybody's property, it's everyone's right to say anything and everything on the internet. That includes creative works, because they are a form of speech and nobody has the right to violate my natural right to speech just because they have the foolish notion that they can "own" that speech. To all who think they can own the content they create, you disgust me.
Re: Too many thieves and pirates break ANY business model.
I do think copying and sharing "someone else's" content is moral. In fact, sharing content is morally superior to hoarding it to leverage it for profit. I also don't ascribe any ownership to any content I might produce because it's not really mine, it's built on the common wealth of culture that belongs to every thinking being in existence. It's not mine nor any other person's property. Everything I have, or will, personally publish is, as far as I'm concerned, automatically part of the public domain. I'm not so stupid to think that I can make money by going against human nature's compulsion to share knowledge and culture. I know that if what I do is worth paying for, I can get paid for doing it. It's called being paid for labor. Idiots like you want to get paid for a product that doesn't exist. And what of the content I produce? It's advertising for my value as a content creator, so that people may know what I'm able to provide them. Content I publish isn't what's valuable, I'm what's valuable. If there is no me, there is no content created by me.
So, I have no fears about people sharing content I create because I will never support my income on that platform.
Re: Re: Turnabout is fair play
It would only eliminate centralized sources. Only sites and links would be gone, but there would still be tools out there that don't rely on fixed links and sites. There are pure p2p tools that aggregate their indices without a centralized server or link. They peer the index to fellow peers and the user searches through the index for content. No servers, no link required. Tools like Tribler make this possible. Once these tools are published, there's no way to make them disappear. The internet never forgets.
They could close down The Pirate Bay every other p2p site, but the genie is out of the bottle. There is nothing they can do short of shutting down the entire internet that will stop sharing of content. Since that will never happen, they're just pissing in the wind. It's war is over, they lost. What's left are some flailing corpses unwilling to accept the fact that they are dead.
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.