Whenever I shout "http://thepiratebay.org" aloud in the street in public, I have effectively "linked" all listening passers-by to the Pirate Bay and defied a lot of court orders. Simply by stating what the link is.
Because that is what all "link" websites effectively do. People often forget that it is the CLICKER'S BROWSER that actually carries out the automatic process of copy/pasting the link into the URL bar and sending the request for the HTML.
The guy who sends the message containing the location of that link is doing nothing more than I would if I were to shout the Pirate Bay's address in front of a crowd.
In fact, the Chilling Effects DMCA page that Google offers in relation to copyrighted content has effectively done the exact opposite of what it was intended to do, by STATING the many sites that were removed from the search pages and effectively "linking" the user in the process of stating what they are. This is preposterous.
What fool seriously thinks that because the text of a link is not an underlined hyperlink, that therefore it is not a link at all?
This is the state of affairs we are in, people. A mass delusion of wish-thinking and self-deceit. At least Charles Dickens somewhat implicitly acknowledged the impossibility of the copyright utopia. Here, we are just lying to ourselves.
"This I.P. leads to the many offices of a large corporation. Plaintiff, would you like to proceed?"
"We have found the computer in question, but it was a Tor exit node. We have found the next I.P. in the chain. Plaintiff, would you like to proceed?"
"We have found 23 more I.P. steps in the chain and one of them routed through a school firewall. Plaintiff, would you like to proceed?"
"This final I.P. address seems to lead to a cafe with WiFi access. Plaintiff, would you like to proceed?"
"The cafe has noted access by yet another middleman relaying to a neighbourhood all the way from fucking England. Plaintiff, would you like to proceed?"
"The final I.P., as in THE final one this time, has lead to a flat owner who had his WiFi hacked by a password cracker. We have no evidence of who did the hacking, and could have literally been anyone on the planet. That final pirate has not been caught. Plaintiff, would you like to proceed?"
"How DARE that flat owner not monitor his internet usage! Pirate facilitator!!!?!!?"
Yes, because copyright is your saviour against the Chinese government's leeching. 80% of the global piracy market and superpower strength to keep it that way? No problem! Copyright can solve all problems! You can TOTALLY control the Chinese government however you want!
No. What it does is ENABLE this regime to have this 80% piracy share by turning them into the Al-Capones of this prohibitionism. Kim Dotcom would also, similarly, want copyright to be in law so that he can benefit from the untaxed, unregulated rewards.
How do you stop them from stealing? Like all methods of fixing illegal monopolies as a result of unjust prohibition: stop the prohibition. They will suffer from a free-rider problem and will no longer be able to steal from the artists.
And all while the artists get filthy rich from crowdfunded support (which everyone - consumers and corporations alike - will have to turn to if they want their rewards).
That's how you stop stealing. And that's how you have a system of life, liberty and property that doesn't overlap with the rights of derivative artists.
Freedom of speech. It comes under attack from all kinds of slippery slopes: the desire to protect the "easily offended", the religious fools who claim the right to be protected from blasphemy, the claims of "incitement" that by definition absolve responsibility of the person actually committing the crime because he supposedly loses control of his actions as a result of the "inciter", the over-extension of libel laws, the workers who are compelled into silence by their bosses (a big example recently being the risk analysers of bank managers), the super-injunctions of the U.K. that particularly stop women from calling out on their cheating husbands but also protect big corporations from exposure of their corruption, and plenty of others indeed.
Considering the long history of attacks from slippery slopes on freedom of speech, I can guarantee that the copyright maximalist who claims that, when it comes to his utopian vision of property, somehow freedom of speech is ITSELF the slippery slope, that maximalist has not the faintest hint of modesty whatsoever.
Copyright also overlaps with intellectual property rights, too. In particular, derivative works.
There is often a claim that goes around in counter to the reasonable observation that creations made from building blocks that belong to everyone (say, the letters of the alphabet) cannot be regarded as property, and that claim is this: "we may not own the building blocks because they are common, but we own the symphonies because they are unique". To which I respond: if the symphonies are unique, surely my symphony of Mickey Mouse told in a way never told before is also unique and therefore also my right? But apparently not.
There's no way they can escape this paradox. There is a REASON why we stress the importance of avoiding building upon property "blocks" that were never anybody's to begin with - because you get paradoxical overlaps.
If, however, such symphonies were regarded as the alternative kind of property to products - services, that is - no overlaps exist. Which is why assurance contracts such as crowdfunded projects are in the right and copyright is in the wrong.
Derivative artists have their rights to property too.
If the property were treated as services instead of products, we would not have this kind of irreconcilable overlap between an original artist's rights and derivative artists' rights.
And bear in mind, there are far more potential derivative arts than there are from the single original art.
Copyright philosophy makes the claim that creative property somehow must be treated as a product instead of a service because of the supposed "free-rider problem", but I do not accept this implication because a) the free-rider problem can not be solved by copyright, neither theoretically nor practically and b) the free-rider problem can be solved just fine with the property as a service by using assurance contracts.
Re: Re: Re: Hey, Mike: the neo-cons still want to invade Syria AND Iran.
I have not forgotten about the crimes of the Soviet Union. And neither have I forgotten about the U.S.'s pushing back against the Taliban's colonisation and oppression of every conceivable minority of Afghanistan. No, I have not forgotten. What is your point?
And even if I WAS being hypocritical here, by the way, by saying "no" to putting pressure on China (what I do say is "yes" to putting pressure on China to stop its authoritarianism, considering the country's size and what scale of pressure that would be most moral), you would have only proved that I was a hypocrite, and not whether taking out Saddam Hussein after 30 years of fascist oppression was the right thing to do.
Re: Re: Re: Hey, Mike: the neo-cons still want to invade Syria AND Iran.
Not everybody in Syria has "chosen" to be involved in that war, despite how you put it.
And there are many things that are supposedly none of our business: starvation in Africa, India and China, homelessness in our own countries, torture and oppression of the worst kinds in all sorts of totalitarian regimes, etc. To pretend otherwise would be to succumb to typical right-wing, isolationist, "poverty is not our problem and you can't take my property away from me" thinking. It's all too easy to forget that serious crises, including pointless civil wars that can be stopped, happen all the time on this planet while we live comfortable, quiet lives back home and get high on capitalism.
You may only live once, but you're not the only one alive.
I posted this about Alan Turing and the pardon issue a couple of months ago on Reddit:
"This man will never get enough recognition. To the extent that he should be pardoned I am uneasy. It always seems like the STATE is the one wanting to be pardoned above everyone else, to be honest. I would probably prefer it if the state was forever blotted with its shame for how Turning was treated. Besides, civil disobedience necessarily means breaking the law - often an unjust one - in the name of a brave and radical cause that can mean even prison, and it would be rather undermining of Turning's defiance against this barbaric law to pardon him and sweep the impact of his struggle under the carpet. Just because you have broken a law does not mean you have committed an immoral act. Sometimes, it means you have committed a great noble calling. And to do anything to make light of it would not be thinkable."
No, the Queen does not deserve points for this.
And no. There is no need for the U.K. state to do everything it can to glorify Alan Turning in this moment of all times when the GCHQ desperately needs to praise a code-breaker.
The GCHQ doesn't even break codes. It and the NSA changes the codes in its favour. And Al Qaeda will have the last laugh as it uses the real codes with no backdoors for evil purposes. While the rest of us get pointlessly spied on.
Put it this way: someone who works at Subway may "make" sandwiches, but that does not necessarily mean he "owns" the sandwiches. This is because he is being paid for his services, not products. This is why it is important to get the product and service distinctions correct.
You are making a mistake parallel with what the strict Socialists were claiming in terms of "owning the means of production."
Only if the raw materials you used to make it were your property to begin with. An author cannot say that about the words in the dictionary as they do not belong to him. You have to own the raw materials first.
John Locke put it like this with regards to an apple:
Can count as property - The stem. The skin. The seeds. The food.
Can not count as property - The colour. The shininess. The weight. The shape.
What separates them is whether or not they are tangible concepts of an apple. And the reason for making this distinction is because it is obviously futile to call an intangible attribute property let alone dream of being able to enforce it. Guess which category copyright falls into.
Copyright also got to this intangible stage by going against Locke's principles even further, by pretending that it involves products when it actually involves services. This distortion makes it far harder for the artist to claim what is rightfully his.
Thankfully, because I advocate an economy that DOES go by the principles correctly by treating creativity as a service, an economy in the form of crowdfunding/assurance contracts that is, it works "without that assumption" of copyright and I do not need to believe in it.
MegaUpload would not have been in such an easy position to steal if it wasn't for copyright. Let me repeat that: the root cause of Kim Dotcom's theft is copyright. This is because nobody has to answer to anyone when copyright distorts creativity into a product.
If creativity were a service on the other hand, MegaUpload would have had to pay their dues to the artist in order for the creativity, and hence MegaUpload's advantages, to exist whatsoever.