And I should clarify that this is if copyright law were even possible to enforce in the first place, which I believe it is not. This push for literary opposition regardless of the papacy's probable petty claims of thought-property would have happened even if they had copyright protection.
If it WERE possible to enforce, it would clearly not be desirable for the reasons I've given. Copyright is not something that can work and it is not something that we should want even if it did.
My point is that copyright would have nonetheless been a useful weapon in the hands of these killers in putting down revolutions.
They couldn't kill EVERY believer of an opposing religious sect, sure, but they could have curbed their derivative holy books if they had the luxury of copyright law. Forever forbidding more secular derivatives of the holy books from ever seeing the light of day, and forever preserving ignorance and one-sect states.
When we ask the question "would copyright have been a hefty obstacle for reformers?", the answer can only be "yes".
If you think this was bad, consider what evil consequences would have unfolded in world history if the Bible or the Koran had been given copyright status.
Every rebellious translation and derivative would be legally crushed if not physically annihilated. The King James version would have had an injunction against it. The Reformation would have had inexcusable legal hurdles to jump.
And everybody knows how vomit-inducing it would have been if Islamofascists resorted to copyright claims of the prophet Mohammed over Charlie Hebdo in the case of a failed assassination.
It is not possible to comprehend the disgusting consequences of all of this. The only reason we pushed passed theocracy into secularism in Christianity (and what will be THE reason that will push Islam past theocracy into secularism too) was open discussion, derivatives and alternative translations of the holy books they claimed was God-mandated and God-copyrighted. Soon enough they learned, and will learn, to take God out of the equation entirely in political and philosophical atmospheres. If you believe God's holy books are infallible, you have to assume any deviation from them is an infringement, and use any means at your disposal to stop revolutions occurring against your holy order, and that ultimately means using copyright to attack derivative works of the holy books.
This is not an exaggeration. Many Islamofascists will still put people to death for reading translated Korans of any other language than Arabic because it is blasphemous - they may as well say that unauthorised translations are piracy and they infringe on their rights in order to get the end-result of quelling dissent.
No. No. No. Only a fool would think that this is all worth it in the name of defending property rights that can't even be defended because breaking copyright law is so easy.
There are claims going around that because anybody can upload anything to the App store and Apple reviews the stuff before it is put on the store, that therefore proves that copyright can be respected in a way that doesn't involve the Google/YouTube approach of stuff being uploaded first and checked afterwards, with the addition of no respect for copyright due to "whack-a-mole" and DMCA methods of takedown.
My response was to say that it's fecicious considering how Apple still profit from piracy in some way in another if the machines and the OS take part in it - that YouTube should be expected to have ContentID and take down copyrighted content while Apple is under no such obligation to fill their OS with ID checking software and reporting mechanisms to inform artists of breaches of copyright.
Apple also hosts a YouTube app, which according to hysterically-anti-Google logic makes Apple just as guilty.
Though, if Apple really DID try all of the anti-copying measures I described above it would look ridiculous to any thinking person. Though when it comes to copyright believers I'm not so sure.
See this is what happens when you believe in copyright: you end up being frustrated again and again when technology keeps moving forward.
And who's to say the internet will stop where it is now? Soon enough (if not already), GBs worth of videos will be as quickly downloadable as MP3s, and on phones to boot. Are copyright advocates the least bit prepared for the new speeds Moore's law is going to provide? Of course not.
I'm still laughing at things like Dropbox's hash-define content-ID system and how easily bypassable it is. As well as YouTube's and others.
I'm still laughing at how Apple's iTunes and App Store are hailed as examples of what a corporation can do when it "respects copyright" when I can still choose to use their internet browsers to download pirated content all for Apple's profit.
I'm still laughing at BitTorrent - the mighty monster that no copyright advocate can tame via any kind of practical suggestion to stop it at all.
I'm still laughing at the fact that the tracker files of the entire Pirate Bay website are only about 10MB in size.
I'm still laughing at the image-search websites that supposedly gives photographers means to find infringing images when these sites' hash-systems can be bypassed by one pixel and/or encryption and/or anything else.
I'm still laughing at the ISPs who will profit from all the piracy one way or another. Even toppling Google entirely won't do anything about that.
I'm still laughing at China's exporting of pirated goods to reap in the profit of foreign currencies in a way that would make Al Capone drool with envy. I'm not so sure if there has ever been a better time to be a prohibitionist profiteer.
I'm still laughing at deviantArt which strictly speaking makes a ton of profit out of piracy too.
I'm still laughing at anime conventions which strictly speaking make a ton of profit out of piracy too.
I'm still laughing at the fact that radio stations don't pay musicians properly - a very basic house that should have been in order by now. These people are meant to be trusted to enforce copyright on the internet?
I'm still laughing at the fact that copyright advocates would have stopped dissidents of the Soviet Union from reading pirated (and punishable by show trial) material to fight back against their authoritarianism, and would have stopped them in the name of "property rights".
I'm still laughing at recent Buzzfeed articles suggesting that national holidays (fucking Mother's Day) ought to have been copyrighted all the way back in the early 1900s because how else are movements meant to keep their original meanings? How else do folk preserve their right to choose what people think of their movement? Don't you realise that going out to celebrate your mother on a day of the year is PIRACY? Especially more so when you engage in activities that distort the original meaning of the day? Such as buying a card? (Look it up. I am not making this up.)
But don't worry I'm sure that when photographers finally find that a textbook on the other side of the world has been pirating their photos for 30 odd years solely because they could get away with it, their eventual suing will prove the system works. Plus you just know that copyright needs to last life plus X years because if it were reduced to 14 years, any sudden profit over a work for an artist would just vanish unfairly! How else are artists meant to make a living from idly waiting 14 years on no food before any profits come in?
It's a world of wish-thinking. What do you expect when you want to bombard the internet with legal content while removing such bombardments when it becomes illegal? It's hard enough for police to remove stuff from the internet when it's ALL illegal never mind half-illegal. And these guys depend on puny lawyers instead?
It's like if you were trying to make a country's money out of JPEGs and genuinely expecting nobody to cheat the system.
If by "what we're doing" you mean how little we are doing to resist them yes it is making them stronger. Though I will not having it said that fighting fascism is the cause of fascism. Al Qaeda are quite happy to applaud the U.S. when it callously and criminally gives Indonesia weapons to commit genocidal invasions on East Timor on the grounds that is a long lost holy Muslim land - Al Qaeda do not bomb random innocent civilians across the planet on those grounds, you can be sure. In fact, it bombs random innocents across the planet when East Timor independence is strengthened, not weakened.
Islamofascism is NOT a liberation ideology of any kind. And I find it disgraceful how we'll snicker at so-called ironies of "American liberation" before we'll long consider the mantra of this vile reactionary religious theocracy being in any fucking way for freedom and liberty. They consider women as slaves and wish to revive slavery on the modern world. They want to butcher homosexuals and throw the off cliffs. They possess a vile racism in the form of antisemitism and many other ethnic hatreds, and act on it. They want to blow up cartoonists for even suggesting to criticise them. They wish to torture and commit genocide against long surviving religious minorities - including that of other Muslims, who are supposedly their allies according to the minds of tits like Michael Moore - across the world.
What part of this is in any way a fucking liberation movement?
I wish we would grow up about this. Instead of portraying the U.S. as being the root cause of all evil of history while laughably accusing THEM of inventing boogeymen. INVENTING? The last I saw this fascist movement really does exist and really does mean harm to everybody whether the U.S. exists or not.
The Saudi oligarchs are not our friends, and I am aware it is a huge problem.
But bear this in mind: the Saudi's were strongly opposed to the U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003 because they wanted to maintain an oil duopoly with Saddamn Hussein. Now that this duopoly has been shattered, and the Saudis now have to work harder to manipulate oil prices, I am quite glad that in this instance the U.S. did not cave into Saudi realpolitik for ONCE. It also gives me the chance to laugh at the fools with "no blood for oil" placards - they did not and still do not have any idea what they are talking about. Keeping all of Iraq's oil with a 1984-esque totalitarian regime is practically calling FOR war.
Had the Saudi's had their way with the U.S., Saddam Hussein's regime would have imploded plus the bloody Syrian civil war plus ISIS. It would have turned the state into a killing field worse than the Khmer Rouge or the Congo. And would have sucked in unjust interventions from Turkey (to keep a harder iron fist over the Kurds), Iran (via Shia proxies) and of course Saudi Arabia for the Sunni proxies and oil goldmines. You just need to look at the way Saudi Arabia are causing unjust sectarian bombings in Yemen of all places right now to know this theory would have been credible. A bombing that at this very moment is being horribly UNDER-reported and shrugged off by long-ago-discredited "anti"-war folk - they sure pick odd times to give no fucks about true unjust wars.
The U.S. is not always at the knee of the Saudis, and we should be grateful for those rare circumstances (2003 Saddam toppling) where we stand up to them.
"Anyone caught taking home books to scan or take pictures of each page shall be punished by catapult. ALL PHONES ARE TO BE HANDED IN TO THE LIBRARIAN UNTIL THE BOOKS ARE RETURNED."
"Baking businesses must not draw three black circles on their cakes. Anyone caught doing so shall be punished by catapult. Any website giving instructions on how to bake a cake with three black circles WILL BE BLOCKED."
"All stationary shops are to have their pens and paper equipped with Digital Rights Management devices that incinerate themselves upon the creation of an infringing image. The user shall then be punished by catapult."
"FBI WARNING: Federal Law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes, DVDs or video discs. Criminal copyright infringement is investigated by the FBI and may constitute a felony with a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine. DO NOT COPY."
Then again there are folk like myself who will happily put their full names on show for everyone to see whilst insisting on telling people over the internet what vitriolic piss stains the cyberbullies are.
If you insist on a face-to-face confirmation of my statement, I will be glad to meet up with you and say in person what vitriolic, self-hating, weaseling, chronic juveniles and piss stains the cyberbullies are.
People are not as vocal in "real life" as they are on the internet. People need to start being more vocal in real life.
“If the access to the single page cannot be possible due to technical reasons,” it reads, “block access to wordpress.com.”
“If the access to wordpress.com cannot be possible either due to proxies,” it will soon read, “block access to the proxies.”
"If the access to the proxies cannot be possible either due to any node acting as some kind of relay on the internet," it will soon read, "block access to ANY internet outside of Turkey."
"If our economy collapses as a result," it will soon read, as even the amputation of Turkish internet from the rest of the world cannot contain the culprit blog post that started it all because people are not that stupid "blame Western foreign policy or something."
Now that I've got that out the way, let us examine this statement:
"I want my work to never appear on the internet in a way that I disapprove of, but I still DO want my work to flood the internet for me to make money. I want my stuff to proliferate, while NOT proliferating. I want the entire internet to bend to these means. I can totally make this work."
What fucking fools the hardline copyright believers have become.
It's an obvious hissy fit towards the more lenient attitude to derivative works found in Japan. Copyright advocates are terrified this idea will spread further, especially how there are ties between Western and Japanese cultures via anime/manga and video games. But it already has. DeviantArt and Tumblr being two immediate examples I can think of.
The claim is "If we get to a situation where the vast majority of artists are lenient about derivatives, that small minority of artists who are NOT okay with it will have no de facto rights whatsoever! But we think they should! Therefore we HAVE to stop this idea of leniency from becoming mainstream! Otherwise we'll arrive at this situation where the default attitude is 'take without permission' even although that's not true for EVERY artist. As long as there's a 1% who disagree, we must protect them!"
But even within the prism of copyright's philosophy this doesn't make any sense. The whole point about copyright is that if the original artist gives permission, he should be entitled to do that. However, what we are seeing is a provision that is directly HOSTILE to this, not supportive of it - directly contrary to copyright property philosophy.
In short, fools are pissed off that the copyright laws they support have boomeranged against them. Artists like it or not DO have to compete with free but not via piracy. Rather, they have to compete against those artists who willingly work for free.
I first noticed this resentment when I watched this video by Harlan Ellison:
Though the video is a great rant for the moral right of an artist to get paid for work, which should be a right regardless of your views on copyright, the most revealing line of all was the following:
"THOSE guys might be assholes! But I'M not!" - in relation to willing free-workers.
The line "how dare you imply I work for free?!" can only be met with the line "on what grounds can you say that I should NOT?" For one thing this logic makes the concept of charity to be frowned upon. An argument could be made that creators of all sorts should stand united in asking for payment so that their partners in the trade can earn a living in turn, even if it means giving away the money AFTER asking for it from a publisher, in order to at least set a precedent. This I am actually inclined to agree. Though, the subtle anger directed at those artists who drag the competing price down to zero needs to be treated with suspicion, especially when it comes to this international treaty. It is flat out wrong (and stupid) to FORCE an artist to ask for payment.
It could also be argued that Ron Paul's hysteria towards the open source software movement is also part of the paranoia towards the charitable, pro bono creator.
So I say resist it at all costs in the legal setting. And above all point out the blatant contradiction in the copyright advocate's principles of allowing an artist to choose what happens with his/her own work.
I just see copyright as a sorry excuse for the all-too-often apologist mantra "I believe in freedom of speech BUT..." Or as Salman Rushdie has recently called it, the "but brigade".
If I can't write a 5-novel epic of Mickey Mouse full of clever metaphor critical of his "official" world then I am being censored. There's no other way of putting it. And don't give me that idea/expression "dichotomy" nonsense: expressions ARE ideas. As Orwell used to demonstrate, the language reveals all. Pay real attention to those words and you will see there is no difference between them. An Orwellian is and always will be hundreds of leagues ahead of a lawyer with his "intellectual" jargon. ("There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.")
Stop the above 5 novel scenario from ever being published, and you necessarily take a certain sting out of my message. "Just use a different expression" is a euphemism for "tone it down". And a euphemism for thought crime.
"Intellectual property"... I guess to steal from said property is to commit an "intellectual crime" in that instance. Which sounds so much better than thought crime, doesn't it?