Your argument is inaccurate, bob, because you do not understand that there are already laws in place to handle plagiarism. Copyright law has nothing to do with that and is unnecessary for that purpose. Copyright merely addresses the right to make copies, as its name implies. And to withhold that right from the public for over a century when most commercial benefit is gained within approximately ten to twenty years at most is unethical and goes against copyright's original purpose as written in the Constitution.
There are certain inalienable rights we have as human beings, and one of them is the right to access our common culture, to share it with each other and to experience it and preserve it for future generations. Only monopolists and those who benefit from the abnormal state in which the law currently exists oppose this natural right. Technology has allowed us to reassert that right, and those who have distorted the law fear this, and the loss of control over our lives, above all else.
And as a species, humans do naturally create. Consider the following, as Mike has already stated elsewhere:
Copyright in its current state is an anomaly, not the rule. It has only existed for a small part of human history, and a vast amount of creative works precede it. The entire European Renaissance, for example, occurred without the need for copyright, as well as the many works in the centuries preceding it. In essence, bob, creativity is in our very being, and to deny that is to deny reality.
Your assumption of the .torrent format's nature is incorrect, Gray AC. The format and the use of it are two different things, and it would be advisable for you to see them as such. The .torrent format is merely that, a format, a tool. Nothing more and nothing less. Its uses are widely varied, so do not focus on one merely because it displeases you. You state that that is its only use without any empirical data to support that conclusion. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
Lore here. My, the maximalists are out in force today, aren't they? Can't stand to see their new favorite lady shot down like the fake she is. I know you were probably expecting my dear brother instead, and it isn't often I agree with him, but I have to say, you maximalists really excel at deluding yourselves. It doesn't matter what you say or do. Technology doesn't care. Neither do we. The future is ours, not yours.
Go on and whine about your precious copyrights, for all the good it will do you. You push us, we'll push right back. The really amusing thing is that she likely has no idea of the hornet's nest she's stirring up, or that it's going to blow up right in her face. Just like it will in yours, my poor deluded maximalist friends. People can only stand being walked on for so long. Like water, they have a boiling point, and it's about to be reached. And I'm really going to enjoy watching you fools burn.
A boycott will not work unless hundreds of millions of people become involved in a simultaneous, coordinated effort. This is because these are multi-billion dollar companies we are opposing, and to bring them down, billions of dollars worth of damage must be done to them. Hundreds of millions of people not purchasing any of their products for an extended period of time will do that. Organizing such an effort, however, will not be easy. However, I do believe it is worth attempting.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Private Antitrust Remedies Under U.S. Law
Insults and condescension automatically invalidate any argument you make, AC 43. All you are doing here is making a fool out of yourself, and quite spectacularly, I might add. You avoid addressing the actual points raised as though doing so would infect you with some kind of virus. And empirical, non-industry evidence? You provide none, so do not expect to be believed. Never underestimate the ability of the oppressed to evade and resist their oppressors.
How can you steal something which cannot be diminished? Because content, once copied into digital form, is infinite. Making a copy is addition, not subtraction. Let me say that again, that you might better understand: A copy is addition, not subtraction. And it is multiplication, on a vastly exponential scale. You might as well try to stop tribbles from breeding.
Nothing is lost because the original still exists. The original still exists. And there is no technical or structural difference between an infringing file and a non-infringing one. With both on your computer and no information on where they came from or which was which, how would you tell them apart? It would be impossible because they are identical.
You do not pay for air (unless you are President Skroob stocking up on Perri-Air), so why do you expect us to pay for digital files, which are even less feasible to charge for and which are by their very nature infinite? Only those with a personal (most likely financial) stake in the old system defend it. Everyday people do not. And the efforts you saw that defeated SOPA? That was the stun setting. What will happen next is not.
You fail to understand the difference between cookies, which are physical and tangible and thus, can be diminished, with digital files, which are effectively infinite and thus cannot be diminished. Basic economics clearly dictates that when supply is infinite, price naturally and inevitably gravitates to zero. It is unavoidable. The only thing you can control is how you react to it, which will determine the continued existence of your business.
The underlying fallacy in your reasoning, Maven, is the assumption that IP itself is a valid concept and the rights around them also valid. However, they are not. Property is uniquely physical and naturally scarce, while ideas are not. Individuals come up with ideas all the time, and in the context of digital copies, which is one way in which an idea may be set down in fixed form, such copies are by their very nature infinite.
Your temporary redirect would be admitting that the concept of infringement is a valid one, when it is not. It exists merely because of unjust laws that were unethically passed by those whose interests lie solely in exploiting them for their own gain. While you are correct that blocking without court approval is wrong, you must also realize that the blocking of content itself is wrong. This is because the internet is a worldwide communications medium, and any time legacy interests attempt to block any part of it, they are in fact blocking communication.
We do not live in a one-way world any longer, and that is something the legacy industries cannot accept, because their very livelihood depends on the control that a one-way world gives them. What they cannot see is that they no longer have that control, nor have they had it for some time now. They have only an illusion of control, and even that will eventually fade away.
I do not agree, AC 17. As has been pointed out in the main post, content creators and content users are often one and the same. Also, content owners are rarely the creators, at least within the legacy media industries. You appear more concerned with the perpetual enrichment of middlemen than the societal benefit of more open access to culture.
I made the change yesterday, AC 23. Thank you. It has been my observation that a change of pace every now and then is a good way of keeping things fresh and interesting. The theme of logic, however, is still very much a part of this persona.
Unfortunately, Mike, their history and current behaviors continually demonstrate that the legacy media companies have little experience with reality. They act based on what they believe should be, not on what actually is. They do not yet understand that there is a clear difference between the two.
Fame may have benefits, AC 16, but the direct pursuit of it often causes many negative side effects and leads to many unwise choices, such as signing with a major music label or working with a Hollywood movie studio. Instead, a creator should concentrate on being honest and human with his or her fans and treating them respectfully. From that a modest fame is likely to follow, since word of mouth is the most powerful form of advertising one can possess.
Your emphasis on the need for fame, AC 10, overlooks the fact that fame is not a requirement for a creator to benefit from his creation. In fact, many times the pressures of fame drive individuals to destructive habits, as the lives of many major celebrities have clearly demonstrated. To be human, and to connect with those who appreciate your work, is a more desirable goal. Regarding fame, I submit this quotation from the film Krull, where the character Torquil comments on fame and how it often fails to bring us what we think we want:
"Fame? It's an empty purse. Count it, go broke. Eat it, go hungry. Seek it, go mad."
No, the entertainment industry did just fine without technology, entertainment has embraced technology, but does not rely upon it...
You appear to have misunderstood what John Fenderson was saying, AC 19. He was not referring to entertainment in general, but rather to the specific industry built around it. Namely, Hollywood and the major music labels. There is, as you have pointed out, a very large difference between the two. The entertainment industry is not the same as entertainment in general.
In addition, while entertainment in general does exist independently of technology and always will in certain forms, Hollywood does not. The transmission of their content requires technology and would be impossible without it. Therefore, they do depend on technology for their existence.
Technology, however, does not possess the same need for them, and will continue to evolve with or without Hollywood and the major music labels. It should be noted that any content creator who wishes to reach a large audience in today's world must rely on technology to do so, whether they are aligned with the legacy media companies or not.
Technology can be proven to be independent of the entertainment industry by the simple fact that technology is often designed for purposes other than entertainment. The entertainment industry, however, exists only for that one purpose. The industry's singular focus on what it does is what makes it reliant on technology to deliver its content to a wide audience, or to even record it at all. Without technology, it could not do so. Technology's multiple applications, however, are what allow it to be independent of the entertainment industry.
It should be noted, Richard, that the label "creationist" is more of a generalization than you may realize. If you are referring to those of the young-earth variety, you may have a point. However, not all believers take that approach. Merely assuming they do undermines your argument. I do not wish to take things off topic, but I thought it best to correct that misconception.
It is my understanding that those of you who do not feel Manning was right to do as he did appear to be so hung up on adhering to the letter of the law or oath so blindly that you do not seem to understand that what is legal is not necessarily always what is ethical. They are not always the same. In addition, it is not wrong to disobey a law or oath if it means exposing what should never have been secret in the first place. You should never be so bound up in the law and in oaths that you never allow yourself to question them.
There is also a fundamental problem organizations such as the military when their first response to any incident of misconduct within it is to attempt to cover it up and deceive the public about it rather than admit to the truth and take responsibility for what was done. As another example, the military did not admit the truth about Pat Tillman (the NFL player who joined the military and was killed) until it was forced to do so. The truth being that he was killed by friendly fire rather than an Iraqi attack as the military at first maintained. When an organization's first instinct is deception, that organization cannot be trusted.
Making policy due to theoretical scenarios is unwise, since potential does not equate to actual. One most work from what has actually occurred and actual evidence, not from what might occur. Governments have no right to play "what if" with our rights.