I hear drug dealers mix hard drugs with soft drugs without the user's knowledge in an attempt to get them addicted, and that harm comes from lack of regulation due to prohibition.
That's what you get with copyright, too. With the malware and viruses going on.
Dealers also don't have to check for I.D., just like pirate websites with 18-rated movies.
Dealers also get filthy rich due to not paying tax, just like Google.
Dealers are prone to gang fights, and Kim Dotcom was found armed with a shotgun.
And as with Al Capone, the state sure seem to have a hard time netting Kim Dotcom, considering how both pay money for everyone to turn a blind eye. Perhaps they ought to get him on tax mistakes.
You see how prohibiting a majority black market makes things worse?
Imagine if, hypothetically, the United States were to abolish its currency and replace everybody's money with money made out of JPEG image files, in some deluded attempt to "ease the flow of transactions". Run with this thought experiment - it will be worth it.
The state would effectively have the "copyright" to this JPEG currency in order to control interest rates and inflation and so on - as well as making the thing fucking work. According to the theory of artificial scarcity put forward by most economists, this should work. After all, when you add artificial scarcity to anything its value should go up... right?
Well imagine this actually being put into practice (assuming it makes it past the first day without crashing the country). Imagine all the cheating that would inevitably take place. The ordinary layman would hit CTRL-C and CTRL-V on his keyboard and send many of these pirated JPEGs to anyone he can meet on Skype, Facebook, Twitter. Pirated JPEGs would flood the internet, just, well, in general. Huge corporations would be able to get away with more and manipulate the total value of the currency. Pirated JPEGs would be stored and traded overseas under the hands of crooked traders. International states would pull all the strings of the US. The working class would be investing their labour for worthless gain.
Now imagine that, in the face of total fury from the citizens, the state were to deny that the system itself is the problem - rather, lack of enforcement of the system is the problem.
They would then proceed to demand national malware packages to watch over computers to make sure unauthorised copies were not created (Digital Rights Management). They would, in the face of such nonsense failing to stop a single thing, insist that it was still necessary to protect the property rights of all the state's citizens, regardless of the contradictory evidence. They would insist "websites have just got to be blocked..." "channels just need to be monitored..." "other countries just need to sign treaties with us THEN they'll give a damn and stop!" "all we got to do is negotiate with China better!" They would send police officers to take down domains hosting counterfeit JPEGs regardless of how many times they will pop back up (which, give them credit, is still much better than having lawyers running around the planet).
They would cite evidence of such reproducibility being unheard of in the 1700s to support their claim that it should likewise be the case in this day and age. They would cite studies saying how "at least our GDP went up". They would rant "how ELSE are you gonna protect the property rights of workers?" "What about defamation and libel - surely that's relevant somehow?" "Don't you realise that terrorists support some of these cartels?" As they also likewise show how the Taliban profit from the prohibited black market heroin crop.
This is my new example of why I am a copyright abolitionist, because I cannot imagine how it could be refuted (along with the pro-assurance-contract theory to protect artists). Though I am of course, open to rebuttals that I cannot anticipate. Everything the pro-copyright side complain about with regards to piracy can pretty much resemble the above scenario: all the corruption, all the futility, all the lost labour, all the international black markets. If there is piracy corruption with Google, they've only got themselves to blame, because it is exactly what you would expect if you were to take seriously a commodity with the same de facto protection as JPEG dollars. Corporations would screw it up for everybody else, and pull law enforcement into corruption. Maybe that explains why Google gets let off the hook so often...
"Artificial scarcity" requires law. When it requires law, it better work. Otherwise it is merely a "deterrent" (a conservative concept that is not something to be proud of even if you could prove it to work - a society that says "because the law says so" doesn't make that society more moral and only buries something more sinister in the sand) and/or a ridiculous prohibition system that is laughably stupid in the eyes of any sensible criminal.
Everybody knows what the implications would have been had 2D printers been able to print genuine-looking money. All currencies across the planet would have crashed. But, thankfully, the technology did not get that far and currency organisations stayed ahead of the game.
One of the uncomfortable truths about laws is that they are only as good as you can realistically enforce them.
Uninventing uncrackable encryption is like uninventing the nuclear bomb. You can't do it.
Mainstream encryption can be sabotaged as much as agencies like. But the unsabotaged stuff will always still remain discoverable. The only real people to "blame" are mathematicians for opening this Pandora's box (and no I do not think they should be blamed - if they weren't going to discover uncrackable encryption, somebody else would have, probably under an authoritarian regime).
As long as this is true, bad actors will use unsabotaged encryption.
Re: It just isnt special to be gay anymore, sorry.
Ah yes. Here come the contrarians.
"Men have been oppressed, too!" "Black people being racist is a problem, too!" "Gays can be dickheads, too!" "Disabled people still have the ability to be offensive!" "Minority X think they are above criticism all because we say so and/or a few bad actors and THAT DESERVES OUR FULL ATTENTION AND RESOURCES. Am I cool yet? Am I polemical?! Where's MY column in the papers?! Bloody biased media! They should 'step aside' for my freedom of speech! I won't be corrupt at all, nope!"
And other euphemisms by ten million idiots. It's pissing me off and I hope some people in here will agree. There's been a lot of this and especially in particular gaming circles lately, and it infects Reddit all over: the idea that exceptional circumstances such as the above ought to be given equal attention by human rights groups even when they are stretched enough on funding as it is, and if you don't agree you are a biased media person of some sort.
There is such a thing as prioritization. If anything, human rights groups ought to be doing MORE for defending minorities in the face of anti-internationalist stupidity, such as women's rights, gay rights and many other rights for those in the Islamic world - taking the sides of those who fight fascism in particular. Muslims are oppressed every single day by fascist thugs in the Middle East such as ISIS, yet we think Muslims living in the secular West must be the most oppressed kind of Muslims on the planet due to Fox News fearmongering or whatever and therefore that's where all our focus should lie. It's enough to make me sick and shows complete ignorance of the wars people have to endure because of the scum of the Earth who will strip them of any and all liberty. Frankly, there is much more at stake.
And comments like this one are examples of what I mean: stressing how the problem is not the brutal treatment of gays in Russia or the fact that the Apple CEO should show no shame in standing up to bastards, rather the fact that they are just too loud and too proud. Well how MEAN of them! I did not realise the condition of your ears took precedence here! YOUR idea of equality is clearly far superior. And clearly "no one cares who you sleep with anymore" is enough of a warrant to stop caring about gays in general - at least, I can't see any other way of interpreting that statement. They've apparently done all they can and they should shut up regardless of the treatment some of their comrades still endure on the other side of the planet.
"Contrarians" is the right word to describe such a swarm of wannabe polemics who all think they are unique. When really they can't look outside their fucking windows.
Terroriser of Ukraine. Threatener of Poland. Bully of Georgia. Occupier of Chechnya. Supporter of Bashar Al Assad. Supporter of dictators in general. Vetoer of justified United Nations resolutions. United with a church behind the Protocols of the Elders of Zion fabrication. Headed by a KGB scumbag with a cult of personality. Brutaliser of the press. Spews piss from Russia Today. And, of course, homophobic scapegoater.
Praised by lunatics from the Left and the Right alike.
This is the Russian regime. Never before has the need for liberty been so great in that country.
What is it with artists and them wanting their work not to be blasphemed?
They seem to want to stop any kind of blasphemy by any means possible and keep their art sacred, whether it be through banning criticism or banning the rights of other artists through copyright when it involves derivative remixes (both of these, let's face it, are one in the same thing - it doesn't just matter what your criticisms are but HOW you criticise).
The whole point about freedom of expression is that nothing is sacred. Not the Bible, not the Koran, not any piece of creativity, and that includes your own god damned expressions which are up for free inquiry and ridicule just as any other. And in any medium, too.
Copyright believers in particular need to stop trying to square this circle.
Copyright is like trying to set up an official state currency made up of only jpg files, expecting the police to realistically enforce rules against unauthorised duplication of such a currency (including from outside the state's borders), and expecting nobody to become corrupt in the process.
There is a significant parallel between freedom and the skeptical necessity of burden of proof.
If the citizen is a danger towards the public, or has committed a crime towards the public, it is the role of the authorities to prove this in the positive, not the role of the citizen to prove the negative. Authorities must show why a citizen may be guilty. It is no good saying the citizen must show why he is NOT guilty.
And "everybody is suspect" is not an argument in itself unless it can be proven, which it cannot be.
"It [freedom of expression] is not just about the right of the speaker to be heard. It is also about the right of everybody to listen, and to hear. And every time you censor literature you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something."
- Christopher Hitchens, as he was attempting to summarise the major arguments made by John Milton, John Stuart Mill and Thomas Paine.
This point is almost always overlooked by those who think slippery slopes do not apply to them in these cases.
And what best proves my point when it comes to copyright is the issue of translation, and how copyright owners can forever deny expressions be read in a language they don't agree with. It is hard to find any other issue that goes against EVERYTHING worth defending about freedom of expression like that in such an ugly and revolting manner.
Then again, perhaps not so hard. Only the most toxic religious extremists want their holy books to be expressed in one language only, whether it is Hebrew for the Bible or Arabic for the Koran.
If there is one thing the planet needs more of, it is translators. Translators that flatten borders and offer humanity a more united front of solidarity. And what do copyright believers say? "We want nothing to do with it".
Alan Turing did not crack the Enigma code by politely asking the Nazis to install backdoors.
What makes the state think that just because it can force tech companies to install sabotaged encryption protocols, that therefore really nasty people - for example ISIS - will somehow NOT go out of their way to research what the REAL, unsabotaged encryption is like and put it into practice?
The point is that we cannot "uninvent" the mathematics no matter how hard we try. And we would not want to stop such mathematics from being discovered by scientists either as that would do nothing to stop the scientists of our enemies from conducting their own research.
Islamofascists are racist and totalitarian, but one thing they are not is stupid. Sam Harris sums this up in one terrifying sentence: "It is actually possible to be so well educated that you can build a nuclear bomb and still believe that you are going to get the 72 virgins."
I save the "thieving scum-of-the-earth pirates" appellation for people who simply pirate works wholesale. Derivative uses are different, and I actually support broader fair use and personal use rights. But fan fiction is a closer call for me. I don't think those who write it are all terrible people, I just think that what the author wants matters too.
Fan artists must be treated the same as wholesale pirates according to copyright property theory, especially when hundreds of thousands of dollars are at stake. There is no way you can avoid it. DeviantArt makes tons of money from advertising, merchandise, extra website features, etc. Anime conventions make tons of ticket money from the infringement of art via cosplays. Meme generator websites are guilty, too. Facebook is guilty via all the fan stuff that circulates around there. You have to face up to it and not take the cowardly option of saying "well they're just different", just because it's an uncomfortable conclusion. It is the natural end-result of the "ownership of expression" mentality.
All ownership involves the owner's right to administer the uses of the owned property to the exclusion of others.
Ah. I see you agree with the above, then.
It's not prior restraint in the First Amendment meaning of the term, if that's what you mean. It's simply respecting the rights of owners to determine how they want their property to be used.
"It wasn't murder, officer. It was a meditated preemption of an unwelcome incitement to outrageousness that was justified through my expression of lethal and calculated aggression."
Do you reckon there is something noble in, say, Disney going around to public schools and suing the schools if their kids happen to paint Mickey Mouse on the playground walls? Or Disney sending lawyers round to bakers to sue on the spot if the baker ends up baking cakes with Mickey Mouse icing?
Because both of these things have happened. All in the name of three black circles.
If that is the case, feel free to call the many loving fan artists of deviantArt, and those who view the fan art, thieving scum-of-the-earth pirates who don't know any better, and call for the website owners of deviantArt to be thrown in jail for mass piracy.
Your position really begs historical condemnation. There are many people across the planet who have plenty of liberal argument behind the claims to freedom of expression - a freedom that does not just defend the right of the person to speak, but the audience to listen - and folk such as yourself who think "well, I won't fall for any slippery slopes you are all freaking out about when it comes to expression because I have ownership of expression to focus on" are going to be pushed past in the moral Zeitgeist one way or another.
Ownership of expression is a euphemism for prior restraint.