I support this. "Piracy" is a cartoonish word. "Sharing" is a little too biased in favour. "Infringement", it's technically correct, it's fairly neutral. Yeah, I'd rather that word used in articles like this.
Not to defend what's happened here, but shoplifters get banned from the stores they stole from, security will refuse them entry. And drunk drivers typically get their licenses revoked (although maybe not after the first time. Maybe after...well, the third or so).
"(Someone canít give you a replicator or make one with their replicator, because that would violate their license)"
In a world where a replicator could make another replicator...well, let's imagine we start off with two replicators. Both of them are being used properly, and with appropriate licenses. All is as the IP-believers would want it, and going smoothly.
But then suppose that the guy who owned the second replicator decided to crack his, and violate the license, and make an outlaw replicator for a third person. Let's bracket his motivations/justifications/ethics/reasonableness. In fact, let's assume he's a nasty selfish vile-hearted blaggard.
The replicator he just replicated will also be cracked. And the replicators it replicates will in turn also be cracked. And the replicators they replicate will in turn also...etc.
Now let's fast forward this hypothetical world a few years. What do you think has happened?
My bet is: There would exist ONE legal, proper replicator that still follows its appropriate licenses. And there would exist LIKE A GAJILLION replicators that are free to replicate whatever the hell they want.
This isn't an outcome I want to suggest is desirable, or laudable. It's just simply inevitable. There's no way you could lock up something like that, no matter how noble your desires, or how disastrous that result.
Wow, Genevieve Bell's conditions are odd. Not because they're wrong, but because they're way too...right. Open university fits those three conditions. Air travel fits them. Netflix. Fridges. Polaroids. Fake tan. Restaurants. Home movies. Yoga classes.
(In fact, swap out "other people" for "causality" and you have Kant's three pre-conditions for experience. As in, EVERYTHING you perceive/interact with is understood in terms of temporality, spatiality, causality.)
Dull material? DULL material?? Are you freaking kidding me??
If it's dull, why did Greg download the archives in the first place? If it's dull, why did he think anyone would care about his sharing it? If it's dull, why do people typically need to pay (and pay a lot) to get access to it? If it's dull, why's the journal still going, heck why was it started at all?
Well, see, I said that as an aside to point out that listen, ISP, it's dumb that Pirate Bay is blocked when after all it can allow access to free, public domain, legal materials. Bah humbug.
But you assumed I was trying to stick it to them by downloading 33 gigs I didn't want. That's not what I meant, but I guess I phrased it badly. But listen, your interpretation? It's goddamn stupid! You get that, right? I mean, you clearly thought I was stupid when you figured that was my motivation, right? But it's really bloody dumb!
a) If I wanted to stick it to my ISP, I'd stop paying them with money that covers whatever bandwidth costs I incur on them, plus.
b) If I were to download that torrent, it'd be for my enrichment. Not my profit, or my revenge, or any cruel motivations. Just to indulge my natural curiosity about the development of science and history of philosophy.
A gig I was at recently, a girl was recording video with her cameraphone. Instead of the usual "security shines a torch on offender and tells her to stop" you see at gigs though, what happened was this: the lead singer spotted her, and grabbed the camera off her, and sang into it, and ran in between the bassist and drummer, and sang into it again, and handed it back to her.
It's not something you can fake. You can't give a performer a "If X happens, do Y, then fans will like you more" heads-up. You can't draw up a cheat-sheet or present the how-to at a conference.
But if you just hold a certain attitude, a certain approach, to other people, to your music, to your gigs, then you'll make the most of the opportunities to gain people's good-will and admiration. And then you'll deserve the fruit that fall for you, and that's all it comes down to.
It seems to me all those points involve "instructing" or "reminding" the user. Can a set of instructions be patented/copyrighted? Maybe I should start coaching football (after a quick visit to the patent office first ;)).
The beauty of this is, the labels are damned if they win (because they lose a lot of control over their 'sold' mp3s), and damned if they lose (because they'll lose a lot of money over their controlled 'licenses').
This isn't a bad idea. But it feels odd to me that the whole thing is finished.
If I'm giving money in order to help fund Part 2, then I'm all for doing so. If I'm giving money in order to show my appreciation for the finished art, then I'm all for doing so.
But that's not what's going on is it? And it's not that I mind if the film-makers are just trying to demand a profit, hey if people pay more power to them. But...well is that what they're trying to do here?
My point is that jurors are prejudiced already. Maybe a month ago they happened to glance over an article about piracy, or when they were seventeen a guy with a reputation for being in the KKK stood up for them in a fight.
Who knows what opinions and biases lie within all of us.
So I'm not saying jurors should seek out facts as they research. I'm contending the point that more information isn't better. Because I'd believe that, provided it's coming from multiple sources, I'd think it is - not to provide courtroom evidence, but as a means of addressing the prejudices that the jurors already hold and entered the courtroom with.