1. "Celebrity" says something manifestly stupid.
2. Mike highlights that fact, and explains why it's stupid.
3. "Anti-Mike" immediately -- and reflexively -- defends "celebrity" stupidity.
4. Other posters jump in and start to troll-smash "Anti-Mike" (don't get me wrong, he richly deserves it -- and I've done it myself.
5. Other posters protest that he's "just expressing a different point of view", proving that they have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of things like subtext (hint: "Anti-Mike" is a tip-off as to his real agenda for posting here.)
This pattern repeats over, and over, and over in EVERY thread. Oh wait, I'm wrong: occasionally (and refreshingly, I might add), "Sam I Am" pops up, posts yet another revision of his patented "civil liberties are expendable when commerce is threatened, but I'm no friend of the Cartels"-speech, and STILL manages to completely fail to ever address issues like whether copyright is a limited-duration monopoly privilege, whether corporate lobbyists/their corporate paymasters have violated the "copyright bargain" by (retroactive) term extensions, etc. etc.
Don't take him up on it, folks: I'll admit I had quite a bit of fun with him over on p2pnet -- and other places -- but I can tell you from previous experience that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU CAN SAY -- no point you can raise, no "evidence" you can give --- that has any chance whatsoever of "turning" Anti-Mike OR "Sam I Am" into free-culture activists.
They are corporate shills of the lowest order, and the mere fact that "Sam I Am" can DARE to claim that our "civil liberties" are expendable, but corporate excess is NOT, is pretty much all the proof you need.
And the absolute worst part of it is: *WE* hand them everything on a silver platter, the moment we make it an issue of whether creators are "getting paid". Debating the merits of particular business-models is all well and good, provided that there remains some sphere of cultural life which does NOT get reduced to mere pecuniary haggling.
Because, quite frankly, some methods of "getting paid" are indefensible: corporate lobbyists buying themselves out of the "copyright bargain" just to squeeze a few more decades of extortion out of their monopoly -- should be regarded as problematic ESPECIALLY when those defending such tactics dismiss the negative impact such draconian measures will inevitably have on our "civil liberties" as of no concern -- OR EVEN BLAME THE VICTIMS.
Sure, trolls: the corporate megaliths/their cronies in government "Have to" resort to totalitarian bullshit. The essence of all such "arguments" is that "freedom" is only tolerable WHEN IT ISN'T USED. Recognition of monopoly privileges for what they are, urging that those privileges be CURBED in the greater public interest, or even acknowledging the fact that coercive attempts to FORCE such privileges down everyone else's throats WILL BE RESISTED EN MASSE, is somehow just viewed as a thinly-veiled cover-story by those who supposedly "don't want to buy stuff".
I'm out, folks. Have fun "debating" the same tired, idiotic nonsense with the same recurring cast of trolls, shills, and wannabe-tyrants. Fuck it.
I'm not going to bother, because quite frankly, if what they're trying to do *isn't* resisted, then we deserve whatever they can manage to do to us.
Keep up the good work, Mike.
"Sam": nice to see you back! I actually admire the tenacity, although I still wonder why anybody who (by his own admission) "hates" the corporate media megaliths because they "extort" him for the use of "their" still-monopolized content (yes, I still remember!) wouldn't be right there on the front-lines of these issues, advocating AT THE LEAST, for really serious copyright reform/a resurgent Public Domain.
"Man, I dont like the ani-mike, but you guys are ridiculous. All he said was a straight out 'this sounds like a reply to citizen asking' rather than 'I'm goign to make sure something happens about this', and then, knickers = knotted. Give me (and him) a break. when he acts like a douche, call him out on it. When he doesnt, GTFO."
When exactly *doesn't* he "act like a douche?"
MIke's original post was that this qualifies as the UK admitting (in however "noncommital" of a fashion) that Acta-related secrecy is "not in the public interest". Did he say they would actually *do* anything about that? No. Different question entirely.
"Anti-Mike" wanted (as per usual) to make a big effort to find some kind of "gripe" with what Mike had posted. As per usual, he failed. What possible relevance was it whether the original question the statement responds to was "leading" or not?
Furthermore, what exactly would qualify as a "non-leading" question? Questions are, by their very nature, at least somewhat "leading", in that they EXPLICITLY REQUEST A SPECIFIC PIECE OF INFORMATION.
I guess by "leading question", Anti-mike could mean that the guy had asked whether Acta secrecy WAS "in the public interest" or not....but that wasn't the issue.
Personally, I'll cut Anti-Mike a break when it stops "acting like a douche" (in other words, when it decides to leave.)
The bigger issue is why anybody is actually surprised
About the fact that Google colludes with government censors.
They made it amply clear that their "do no evil" bullshit was exactly that the MILLISECOND they actively aided the Chinese government's "Great firewall" efforts.
Anybody who's been paying attention understands that corporations often aid governments in their most evil efforts ("Blackwater" and other so-called "Defense" contractors come to mind). Y'know why? Because corporations -- even ones with catchy "do no evil" rhetoric -- are SOLELY interested in making money, at any cost, and by any means. So the answer to "what will companies do" is, "whatever various States PAY them to do."
From the web-page Anti-Mike couldn't be bothered to examine:
"So here is a Council draft document in English to the reply to my secondary request for document access related to an ACTA criminal provisions document. The draft is dated 17 Dec and (mostly) identical with the German language reply document I received around Christmas 2009 (also uploaded here). Interesting is a dissenting opinion of the UK delegation."
Notice: FROM THE U.K. DELEGATION
Dunno if that qualifies as "UK Government", but an official delegation is hardly merely a group of "citizens" in the way Anti-Thought tries to portray.
Pretty sure that the "working party on information" and "council of the European union" are official sources.
True, it's in response to an "inquiry by a citizen", but the mere fact that the original quote does derive from an offial European Union council reply indicates that the quote itself is NOT from "a citizen", but from an official source.
But hey, Anti-Mike, don't feel bad. All it took to find that out was following two links. I can see how that would be difficult for you, given your other, fairly serious shortcomings (such as semi-randomly swapping the words "could" and "would" so as to completely obscure whatever argument you were trying to make, being excessively concerned about whether I kick my imaginary dog, random hamburger-related comments, etc.....
1. Why in the *hell* would a fan-film company (who, you'd THINK would understand the notion of leveraging the Internet for distribution) even bother to attempt to get it into theaters? Didn't they know that doing so would probably make them extremely "visible" to Nintendo?
3. Nintendo's attempt to "suppress" the thing was abysmally dumb. Anybody heard "The Grey Album?" People don't even *need* to do a co-ordinated effort like "Grey Tuesday" to stop something from vanishing down the memory hole. The only thing Nintendo managed to do was make themselves look like assholes, and basically treat their fans like garbage.
The *right* approach (or something closer to it), is how Paramount deals with Star Trek fanfilms. They don't try to suppress them or have them taken down (primarily because they know that doing so won't -- and can't -- actually work.)
Instead, they "permit" such fan films (proliferation of which they couldn't really stop if they tried) specifically because doing so makes them appear "magnanimous" and fan-friendly.
Nintendo shot itself in the ass on this one: whether they were attempting to "protect their IP" or whatever, they juust succeeded in recapitulating "Grey Tuesday" all over again.
"Anti-Mike" actually said something clever -- who woulda thunk it. :)
Seriously though: you did a hard-copy dump of a flame-war Ca. 1980 --- and then you *KEPT* it around? For almost thirty years? Why? Or is this a scenario where you were a sysop, and ran a local dial-up BBS or something?
If that's the case, then you should send those "logs" (or more exactly, digital COPIES of them!) to the guy who runs www.textfiles.com. He LOVES stuff like that.
But yeah, I actually agree with you on that one: the millisecond they re-open comments, the war will start again. Especially if they allow anonymous posting.
"Literacy" causes a lot of problems, too. When was the last time you used the "services" of a professional scribe? Widespread literacy kicked the *crap* out of that particular "business-model". "The spread of the automobile" kicked the crap out of buggy-related industries (except for a few "niche" markets such as the Amish, etc.)
The next problem with your "technology causes problem" nonsense, is that "technology" doesn't *do* stuff on it's own. PEOPLE have to do stuff WITH technology. So what you're advocating is that cronyism become ubiquitous -- if you're having problems "monetizing" or "monopolizing" something, get the State to step in and forcibly preserve the status quo. (VCR = Boston Strangler, "Home Taping is killing music", Ubiquitous literacy is a threat to the "professional" scribe.....)
"The most grotesque bit, though, is the phrase 'reverse Robin Hoods'. This is coming from a man who benefited from an Irish tax loophole that meant U2 paid no tax on royalties until 2006. And, when it looked as though they would have to, they moved their tax affairs to the Netherlands to pay a much lower rate of tax than the stupidly low 12.5% they would have had to pay in Ireland."
Hmm....kind of like "rights-holders" whimpering about how they "need" longer copyright-terms whenever they might have to actually honor THEIR side of the copyright "bargain".
Brilliant, Bono, you've now destroyed ANY pretense at being "in touch" that you might have once cherished.
More epic fail for "faux analog" digital "scarcity":
Let's assume that the set-top box, home PC, or whatever other "authorized" device you're running it on needs to be able to detect which uses of any given file are 'permissible" (by matching them up to licenses, or some other type of authorization-code.)
For this to work, it's going to have to "know" (at some combination of the software AND hardware level) the following:
1. That the file *is* the one associated with a given license-key.
2. That the license key *DID* actually originate from the "authorized" source. (In other words, it would require some "off-site" -- probably centralized -- repository of "authorized license keys" -- a license-server. Why? If they use a non-infinite set of license-keys, you just run into the same exact scenario as they have nowadays with "pirated" software -- if you have the license and reg info, you bypass the "protection". Think "keygen".)
(So the first -- and most glaringly obvious -- problem with any attempt to create "digital scarcity", is that you'll ned a unique "authorization key" for every single "legitimate" copy. You also need the ability for a playback device to "ask" the licensing-authority if the license is "legitimate" or not. Licensing server outage = NO copies of the content playable, even if they're "legitimately purchased."
Anybody remember when Wal-Mart (I think it was) wanted to shut down their attempt at a DRM-"protected" music store? They ended up having to TRAIN THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS how to break/bypass the DRM "protection", so as to not run into people actually noticing that what they'd "bought" was completely dependent on the DRM-key servers continuing to be up and running.
BTW: Glad to see "Anti-Mike" is back, with his food-related ramblings: first hamburgers, now Kool-aid. Yummy! :)
You "almost agree" with Anti-Mike? That's really pitiful.
"Many sci-fi writers foresee a similar fate,"
Please point us to them, preferably one that actually had an understanding of what digital content even *is.
"and I wouldn't be so bothered *IF* resale rights were preserved."
That's what the corporate scumbags deploying this idiocy are counting on: you don't give a shit about *principles* like fair use, why copyright is only intended to last a limited time, etc. -- YOU just want to be 'permitted" to "re-sell" existing copies. In other words, you take the "secondary market" enabled by the "first-sale" doctrine (or whatever it's local equivalent happens to be in any given jurisdiction) FOR GRANTED, and just want to cash in on it.
"Can you imagine a musician doing a limited run of 10,000 mp3s?"
Can you imagine anybody actually giving a shit about it if somebody *did*? Let's ignore the colossal hubris involved in taking advantages of the *benefits* of digital technology while counting on the "enforced scarcity" afforded by analog media. (Well, not actually even by analog media -- that CAN be copied, too -- we've just permitted an entire sub-specialty of lawyers, lobbyists, and leeches tasked with trying to prevent it.)
"Essentially digital goods would no longer be infinite."
Ah, the "Fritz Chip" scenario -- the ultimate corporate media/government wet dream. Pity it hasn't actually worked out (technical savvy + political principles = "black hat" subversives who break anything like that AS A MATTER OF BASIC PRINCIPLE.)
"However this scenario would require a complete alteration of both the fabric of the internet and computing as a whole, since as we know this would require enforcement at the hardware level."
It would also require:
1. All previous non-hobbled formats/anything capable of playing them back to magically disappear, which is impossible, for the simple reason that people *do* want interoperability/backward compatibility with the rest of their media.
2. By definition, the only truly "unbreakable" encryption is something equivalent to the one-time pad. Read up on it, sometime -- it's fascinating. One of the really amazing attributes of it, in terms of making DRM completely pointless, is that in order to be *really* secure, the "hardware-level enforcement" would *also* have to be invisible even to the "authorizing" authority. So how do you propose to make the PERMISSIONS (NOT "rights" -- please stop calling this a "restoration of rights") transferable?
Wouldn't the "licenses" involved with this inevitably be *visible* in some form, say, when you're switching from one "authorized" device to another? Can't see how any such 'enforcement key" would be anything other than a string of data associated with the file in question.
"Fairly intelligent and well-versed".....riiiiiigh.
1. Where does he come up with the "ten percent" file size thing?
2. "Downloads are shit" -- except, of course, for FLAC, which are totally lossless, and by definition have the same sound quality as the uncompressed CD version.
3. "You don't have the artwork" -- uhh...okay, then. So it's *not* about the music, then? Album "artowk" has always basically been a come-on for the real "content" -- the music (hence the tendency for decades to just absically have a picture of the group, or soloist or whatever, on the cover.) Ony a very few instances of cover-art have actually been clever enough to be interesting in their own right -- and, pardon me for saying the obvious -- even THEN I still wouldn't buy an empty CD jewel-box or record sleeve *just* for the cover-art.
Like I said in the other thread, somebody should really check if this label is a member of the local equivalent of the RIAA. If they *are*, then they're not "independent" by any stretch of the imagination -- even if they're not *directly* some kind of sub-unit owned by one of the major labels, they are STILL in bed with the major-label lobbying arm.
1. Screwing the artists has been standard procedure EVEN on the vast majority of "indie" labels for decades. They've also been bitching about how *all* of their bad sales figures etc. is due to some form of disruptive technology, and/or the evil subversive scumbags who use it: "home taping is killing music". "The VCR is just like the Boston Strangler". ad infinitum.
So their "solution" to this? A real-life version of the "MOOP' thing from South park. Y'know what? Dunno about you all, but -- even assuming that they are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that p2p "piracy" is killing what passes for a "music industrry", I'm STILL all for it -- ESPECIALLY when sanctimonious twits like Bono and Lily Allen advocate a digital police-state, and whiny has-beens like Lars Ulrich put themselves out their as the "public face" of corporate lick-spittlism.
2. Now read the comments. I dare *any* apologist for the corporate recording "industry", it's cronies in government, or the existing "75-years-past-death" IP bullshit to ignore the amount of complete and utter indifference or OUTRIGHT JUBILATION coming from news like this. We DON'T HAVE TO KILL THEM OFF -- they'll commit suicide on their own.
No self-respecting "indipendent" record label would actually be part of one of the major-label front groups, and we know that. But what is *most* glaringly amazing about decisions like this, is that whatever vanishingly-small shred of usefulness or value musicians *did* get from a label that reacts like this, is utterly and completely GONE.
And yet again, I'll say it: These so-called "indie" poseurs have ONLY themselves to blame, because they didn't bother to break ranks when the media megacorps and their lobbyist cronies in government started doing oppressive shit, and now because the combination of disruptive technology and the fact that the labels were a complete screwjob have converged into MASSIVE, GLOBAL-SCALE CONTEMPT -- if not outright hatred -- the best "solution" they can come up with is some variant of "I'm taking my toys and going home!"
Oh, boo hoo. The last genuinely "independent" music scene was the punk rock labels and 'zines thrown together on a shoestring by people who were *really* about the music, and connecting with their fans. Maybe the solution is to acknowledge a monopoly privilege for what it always was, stop raping the public domain/apologizing for organizations that do, actually *use* the new disruptive technologies instead of trying (fruitlessly) to have them banned -- EVEN (or especially) if that means that producing/distributing stuff isn't nearly so "expensive".
1. Glad you admitted that "profanity is in the eye of the beholder". Now, kindly blow me. (joke).
2. Your CEO example? Yet more presumptuous arrogance on your part. You're not the boss of me (anybody else remember the theme-song to "Malcolm in the Middle" -- BTW, even that small and oblique "quotation" of song lyrics is only "legal" due to the fair-use exception that "permits" quotation for specific reasons.
2. When exactly did I say the Supreme court were "fools"? Look at history. Examine the fundamental differences between, say, the "Dredd Scott" decision (blacks as 3/5ths of a White person) vs. "Brown V. board of education" -- total demolition of "Seperate but equal" leading to at least the tacit understanding that Blacks are "legally" EQUIVALENT to whites, or any other race, for that matter.
What does that have to do with copyright, the public domain, patents, or anything else? Glad "You" asked:
Government *HAD* to do something like "brown V. Board of education". It *had* to strike down laws against "miscegenation" (remember, just a few decades ago, Barrack Obama's mere existence as a "biracial" person would have violated numerous State laws.)
Sociopolitical systems (governments) can only accomplish a limited amount through "jackbooting" -- coercion, force, etc. And once a significant proportion of the populace *refuse* to placidly obey a given "law", that law is DE FACTO repealed. Oh, they can try and fight a running-battle, expend resources on it, and, above all, propagandize in the (vain) hope that the citizenry (or should we say, "subjects") stop rebelling -- but ultimately, they *have* to change whatever scribbles happen to be on the books at any given time, to make them more harmonious with what people ACTUALLY DO.
There's really no issue of "passion" involved (except for the fact that corporate lobbyists buying their clients out of THEIR side of the "copyright bargain" is profoundly repugnant -- or should be -- to anyone NOT affiliated with such corporations.
Really, how do you not get this?
Above all, I urge you strongly, to realize that (and here comes that "eye of the beholder" thing again), so long as you choose to lurk behind the default anonymous "handle" -- instead of at least giving us all something with which to dialog --- *I* for one don't give two liquidy shits WHAT you claim about yourself, or what kind of inane psychoanalytical games you try to play on any of us.
I've never been date-raped, but I see date-rape as a problem. Nobody ever dropped Rufinol into my drink at a bar, but I can see how that's problematic.
I've never been in an "inter-racial" relationship, but I can see how attempting to have laws against "miscegenation" is an affont to human dignity.
Read up on the history of copyright (and patents). Stop trying to read some sort of petty "personal" vendetta into this, as if we're all just "out to get the heroic corporations" or some bullshit.
Above all, wake the HELL up, and stop whining about how I -- or anybody else -- used what YOU happen to (mis)construe as "profanity", as if that's some sort of substantive answer to the points I raised. I'm not going to play Scarlett O'Hara ("Oh Fiddle-De-Dee!") just to assuage the delicate sensibilities of some TROLL who's self-evidently too chickenshit to even come up with a handle.
Can't really speak for anybody else on that score.
But yeah, if you really want to know, I'll tell you my deep dark secret: when I was ten a copyright lawyer killed a kitten and ate it while I was forced to watch.
Any more stupid questions? :)
(Trust me, folks -- I'm actually a nice person, when not dealing with Net-Trolls.) :)
1. This site gives access to a vast repository of content which has "fallen" into the infamous public domain. Obviously, one of the "masses" has taken it upon him or herself to put the effort into making this stuff available. PLUS, he sells CD's (for those who don't want to bother with downloading). Wouldn't be that hard to implement a Print-on-Demand type of derivative (through, say, Cafepress.com, or Lulu.com, or something).
See? Here's a clear example of where the monopoly privilege of copyright doesn't even come into play. The "public Domain" about which Anti-Thought didn't even *give* a crap (is that to "profane" for anybody, hmmm?) has LITERALLY made the above site possible.
(BTW, did anybody ever notice that older versions of the KJV -- King Jame's bible -- use the word "piss" quite frequently? Just sayin'.) :)
Lemme see if I can explain this. "In response to 'anonymous'" wouldn't really be very useful, because there are several folks posting as "anonymous coward". If it's directed at a specific person --- and they've chosen either to use a "handle" or their own name, then direct it at them.
So no, using "you" wasn't anywhere near sufficient to cover it.
As for your other nitpicking, please do us a favor, and define "profanity": is it the infamous "7 'dirty' words you can't say on TV" as so aptly -- and hillariously -- skewered by George Carlin? Or is it just whatever *you* personally happen to *want* to consider "profane"?
(Strictly speaking -- if we want to play these types of linguistic-category games, the infamous word 'fuck' doesn't strictly speaking, qualify as 'profanity', in that it doesn't involve an oath against a diety, whereas "god-damn" would.
So please, please, precious anonymous comment troll, feel free to stipulate what you consider "profanity" to be, so I (and others) can make sure to totally disregard it.
The other stuff where you claim to have participated in aerospace contracts etc.? Pretty sure a significant proportion of the aerospace industry is dominated by government contractors, no? Of course, that assumes that any of your claims are actually *true*, which is highly debatable, given the fact that you're STILL posting anonymously, and haven't even bothered to create a handle.
Shit (oops, there I go again!), every 12-year-old has an internet "Handle" nowadays.
But hey, nice to see your "response" didn't actually refute any of my examples.
(Hint: it's REALLY hard to sustain any kind of 'conversation' with large numbers of people posting NOT just "anonymously", but under the same default "anonymous" handle. Why don't people *get* this, I wonder.
To respond to PaulT: why do you deride a "copy whatever you want" situation as "utopia"? Haven't you been paying attention this last decade? People have been "copying whatever they want" in droves, and it *really* hasn't turned out bad at all, except of course, for those organizations dedicated to expanding the monopoly privilege of copyright to absurd lengths.
You like money? How about this: drastically-shorter copyright terms would allow people to "legally" bring a lot of "out of print" stuff back into widespread availability. Might not get you super-wealthy like Steven King, but it's just one of the new possibilities for which the technology already exists (Print-on-demand, etc.)
Y'ever heard of "Project Gutenberg?" And besides, EVEN in the "copy whatever you want utopia" that you deride (IE: even with the situation as it exists NOW), it *is* possible to "compete with free". Again -- and realize that this is probably just how I am -- I have my doubts as to whether you're actually paying attention, or a dismissive statement like that wouldn't even be possible.
Last point (for anybody who thinks some of us might be too "passionate" about these issues): the primary reason Lessig lost on the Eldred decision was -- as he put it -- because he couldn't get them to understand that the issue was important. Unless people understand that the issue of runaway corporate power IS important (on many fronts, btw -- not just the copyright or file-sharing thing), those corporations, and their lobbying front-groups, *will* continue to rape the surrounding culture, with impunity.