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.
If you sell ANYTHING for $5 - a washing machine, a toaster, a car, a jewel, a phone - only to have the person who you sold it to sell it on themselves for much, much more than you did, that is no excuse to have the deal "reversed" in any way. Even if you think there should be a slimy compromise in the form of tax, you can only morally say that that tax must be at a level of at least 99% in order to mean anything, which is ridiculous. Nasty "deals" like this happen all the time, everywhere. And there is no cure for it. As much as I find the "Cash in the Attic" shows tedious to watch, I wouldn't dream of stooping to such a level as a means of offensive.
I have to ask: what on Earth makes copyright advocates think they deserve special privilege, and insist they be the exception to the rule? Especially considering how this isn't even strictly a copyright issue, but a game-theory issue? The buyer is following every copyright law in the book, but that is not enough?
How would websites like eBay, Amazon, play.com, Google, the fucking Post Office, all be able to function if any value they bring to the market is treated like theft? They do after all profit in the scale of "millions" from pre-owned swapping just as much as any other "leech". It's blatant Rights-Management without the Digital, futile, and massively delusional.
If you want to devalue the painting beyond the buyer's control, make more fucking copies of it, and get the scarce funds which will most likely be close to the same price as the original. You're the only one with the authorisation to do so, right?
Or better yet, in fact the BEST way to devalue it and obtain your rewards, is to abolish copyright, because then the paintings stop becoming important economically and your ability to paint is the only thing worth any monetisation, as well as your official signature.
It's unbelievable how disconnected these people are.
Re: But Kickstarter disclaims all responsibility as a "platform".
Are you saying that Kickstarter deserves no reward for its service? That's rather anti-capitalism of you (in the bad sense). If there is a better value-for-money option that artists can find in other crowdfunding websites, they will take it.
And eBay can't be held responsible for the scams some users try to get away with there either.
Re: Re: Re: You need to separate STIFLING from STEALING.
You are not talking to somebody who by any means is in favour of the argument "since we can't do everything, why don't we do nothing?" I've ridiculed this argument many times when it comes to silly ad-hypocritum arguments people put for their isolationist foreign policies, for example.
But let's really get real. A website taken out here and there has no effect, not even a SCRATCH, on the following: Google's linking to alternatives, advertising flooding the pirate sites, BitTorrent and the "I am Spartacus" effect, ISPs, VPNs, Tor, Encryption, international piracy, China's 80% piracy market share. The only thing you can do is break these piracy monopolies (especially China's) caused by the Al-Capone enabling of copyright, by abolishing copyright completely and force them to suffer from free-rider problems, in favour of a crowdfunding system that more strictly adheres to the principles of John Locke (i.e. not confusing products with services) where all monetisation goes to the artist if anyone is to benefit whatsoever.
Copyright is not out to prevent piracy, it is the ENABLER of piracy. You need to get this right or everything else will just fall apart. The Chinese government and Kim Dotcom probably SUPPORT copyright for the same reason drug cartels would lobby to keep the war on drugs going if they could. All untaxed, all unregulated.
But since you did not directly answer my question and say which "cause" is better than the other, drugs or piracy, I may as well say this. I know what would happen if I were to call the police and report somebody for possessing Class A drugs: they would most likely break down their door within the hour and search the house inch by inch. If I were to report somebody to the police for an illegal copy of a movie, chances are that I would be arrested for wasting police time.
If that doesn't tell you everything I do not know what does.
And I don't know why other people's opinions on this website should have any relevance to mine. I can do my own work, thank you.
There is a very, very high probability that several corporations, government agencies, etc are benefiting from all kinds of pirated software. This is only to be expected since trying to police copyright infringement is next to impossible - the urge for corruption becomes too great. It would make for a great story if you were an investigative journalist.
We need to step back and see the nature of the delusion for what it is: a philosophy that enables free-riders to benefit from working-class creators by waiting for them to invest all their fruits of labour and create, and then steal without paying dues without any practical punishment. And all of this is somehow considered better than setting up an assurance contract system that would make it a condition for corporations and states to put their fair shares into the hats of the creators if they wish to get what they want. And if they try to cheat, even a few, nobody gets anything. "Mutually Assured Destruction" is a good metaphor for this.
Copyright is anti intellectual property, not pro. Never forget it. And start supporting something that will really protect the life, liberty and property of creators. Crowdfunding trumps everything. Copyright enables pirates to steal such as the U.S. military and, most likely, other powers.
WordPress is now doing what the likes of Google with Youtube and others have failed to do for so long: stand up for basic common sense.
DMCA claims ought to be examined individually before content is judged, and with no automated systems that are doomed with failure and predictable nonsense. If copyright advocates find such a method too impractical, that is their problem. They have no right to expect everyone else to bow the knee for their own ridiculous utopia.
When a large website is forced to resort to automated DMCA systems in order to stay stable, I call that government-subsidised Digital Rights Management.
I totally agree with the troll problem. We SHOULD have more people voicing their anger in person, in the faces of others and out in the open. I come from the United Kingdom: people are too fucking nice around here as it is, and it is actively encouraged in our culture. "We must be respectful!" "I am offended therefore I have rights!" "Apologise at once!" Shut the fuck up.
I for one wish I could be more famous than I am for my aggressive dissent, which is far too nice as it is. Americans: don't let our disgraceful cowardliness rub off on you for a second.
Re: Yes, but only proves that Google is a growing monster.
If you want to stop Google from being such a monster, and I would hope that you do, call for the abolition of copyright. They will have a real chance of losing both their monopolistic copyright strangleholds and monopolistic piracy strangleholds.