The thought of applying a present law to the past should make anyone sick. You would not punish someone under a law coming into force today that, for example, banned gambling, for a bet he made a few years ago when gambling was legal.
Why on Earth do copyright advocates think they are the exception to this essential democratic principle? Do they not know how many artists were making a living, and preparing to make a living, from releasing derivative works of public domain content for commercial flourishing and meeting the rights of their audiences, too? Have they no shame?
Here in the U.K., we have just seen police officers lie about "pleb" comments while the IPCC does hardly anything to chase it up.
But yet people are still deluded into thinking that similar independent regulation set up with the press will stop phone hacking... phone hacking that the police were complicit in. There is a reason why not as much fury is aimed at the police in relation to this issue: people do not want to admit the police have an independent body that keeps them "accountable". Need I even mention Hillsborough?
And that is on top of the even more insane delusion that it will stop tabloid readers from engaging in their sadomasochistic drivel.
You should have seen the way in which the Guardian's commenters were defending the royal charter in the articles (royal charter... ROYAL?! Fucking monarchy strikes again!)... a charter that would have put more pressure on the paper to be silent about Snowden's leaks on top of what they did to David Miranda. Their attitude is disgraceful.
I really do wish our society would take the values of the First Amendment as seriously as you guys in the U.S. do, and actually fucking get a Constitution.
Copyright is quite a vast subject. It probably deserves a spectrum all of its own, independent of the traditional Left-Right wings.
But I probably still could not fit anywhere on that copyright spectrum. I am an abolitionist, but not of any "faction" that I can see gaining popular ground right now.
For instance, I try my best to make a point by avoiding the cliches that my side of the spectrum dish out: "it's not theft it's infringement!" "But the labels are too rich, anyway!", "I can't afford paying!", "They won't make their streaming channels convenient enough!". These not only show that one isn't thinking for one's self, the arguments themselves undermine a lot of what the sensible pro-copyright advocates say, which is not fair. I come from a background that makes a big deal about knowing the arguments of opponents well enough that I could put them myself if I wanted to.
I have yet to meet an abolitionist like myself who claims to be against copyright because IT is responsible for enabling pirates to easily cheat on their dues, and who would like to reverse the process by making pirates accountable for their actions by making all monetisation be dependent on assurance contracts (crowdfunding primarily, but also tickets, subscriptions, pre-orders, etc). That is certainly a far more sensible way than the utopian madness of copyright that seems to benefit everyone - publishers and pirates - EXCEPT the actual creators. "Either you are with copyright or you are with pirates" is ridiculous. You can be against both.
I also like to point out that I do accept the idea of "intellectual property" if we talk about skills as property, such as a house builder's "property" of his learned skills, or a plumber's skills, etc. But then I go on to say that copyright must necessarily be ANTI intellectual property because it holds hostage the rights of derivative artists and their "skills". The pro-copyright advocates who put forward John Locke's philosophy as an argument for copyright get quite pissed off when I bring up that very same philosophy against THEM but more strictly. Locke would not have been in favour of holding hostage some kind of property in favour of defending that exact same kind of property, and probably would have sided with the assurance contract model to protect original AND derivative more morally.
This, I hope you can see, is not an argument that gets a lot of attention. And I think it is probably because there are few Marxist-dialectics who want copyright abolished and are willing to see how through the interpenetration of opposites.
The anti-group thinker by definition has no word to describe him.
And those who call themselves an "X", whatever it is, are fundamentally saying they "think like those who like to think alike". When it comes to expressing my ideas, my own name is enough for me.
The Right can adopt Left principles all the time, and vice-versa. It can happen to the point where the meanings of the words "Left" and "Right" change significantly. For example, being an isolationist and/or a dictator sympathiser in the name of realpolitik would have probably got you called far-Right-wing in the West back in the days of the Cold War. However, now this tendency to abandon third-world people to the fate of totalitarian-state thugs for selfish interests of one's own is very prominent among the Left - in particular, the anti-war faction. And it can all be explained by them getting high on capitalism and turning into two-legged pigs of their own. When you have (nearly) everything you ever wanted from a not-perfect but still very lucky civilisation such as the United States or the United Kingdom, who cares about third-world problems? There is a reason why the vast majority of people who give to a charity are among those who have most likely been actually affected by the troubles the charity is trying to fight: the corollary is that people who indulge in video games, booze and expensive clothes while still claiming that Western capitalism is the root of all evil have no urgent reason to care about such humanitarian causes - they have had the privilege of being the luckiest mammals who ever walked the planet in all its billions of years.
It was not like this back in, say, the 60s where poverty was more predominant. Ironically, Socialist solidarity was greater during this period, because there were more people around to have empathy with dissidents fighting dictators, as they could better identify with them in relation to their class divide. Even some sensible Communists got this point. Totalitarianism was, and still is, something to be opposed in ALL forms, and no comprise is up for discussion.
But now, most of the working-class have become middle-class enough to not care any more. You only need to look at the lack of help among Syria's refugees as well as the near-complete lack of solidarity with the people of Iraq during the last decade. For the "Left", it wasn't just enough to be against the war and it wasn't enough to stop any arming of the fighters against fascism - dictatorial and/or religious. They had to throw away any redeeming factor completely, and give only the tiniest aid towards the Iraqis as possible. Because ONLY Right-wing Cheney can be prone to and guilty of selfishness, right?
Yes, Bush's administration deserved a good deal of impeachment: not for "lies" told to and believed by gullible idiots who proceed to blame everyone else for their gullibility, but for incompetently not protecting Iraq enough from the religious fascists of Al Qaeda. Some gravely inexcusable mistakes were made such as giving Saddam's supporters enough time to retreat and rearm. But this is an argument for MORE intervention, not less.
You are going to get much more of this in your lifetimes. Don't think you wont. Syria is going to implode; Lebanon will suffer badly; Nigeria is in a state of chaos; Iran is on the brink of revolution; Russia's bullying against the Syrian people, journalists, homosexuals, punk rock bands and many others is going to provoke something nasty; Zimbabwe is under severe oppression; both Libya and Egypt are on the brink of civil war; Pakistan's nuclear weapons remain a grave danger; China have a seemingly unoverthrowable stranglehold, North Korea cannot possibly sink any lower. And this is to only name a few.
If you want a historical perspective on what ought our role in the world should be, unilateral or not, partisan or not, look to Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone. We will not be able to do everything, obviously. And military intervention is obviously not warranted in all circumstances of human rights abuses. But there is such a thing as a totalitarian state that has hit the bottom of the barrel, and we should recognise it when we see it.
Take the side of the victim in each conflict, every conflict, and you will feel much more like what the Left used to stand for. And don't make excuses for Right-wing extremism. Wake up and smell the fascism. Then go and read ONLY the opening lines to Richard Dawkins' "Unweaving the Rainbow" and realise how inconceivably fortunate you are.
...and then realise that you may only live once, but you are not the only one alive.
There is nothing about DRM that cannot be ridiculed. And even if DRM DID somehow achieve the utopian claims put forward by its advocates and restrict the ability to copy, that means these same advocates do not need copyright law to protect their work. It is transparent as that.
In relation to the article before this one, I would actually say that the attempts to stop piracy are actually more delusional than the attempts to stop drug use through criminalisation. And even more delusional than the fucking war on prostitution, for goodness sake. And pardon the pun.
For one thing, some files with a pattern of 1s and 0s WILL be legal while other files with that same pattern of 1s and 0s will not. And unlike weed, which is called weed for the precise reason that it grows everywhere and is hard to get rid of, pirated files practically grow on trees.
Never mind the fact that some artists authorise file-sharing while others do not. Never mind that all Japanese visitors of deviantArt, fanfiction.net, tumblr, etc have technically violated piracy laws. Never mind that the Japanese state now has warrant to watch over not just torrents, but emails, file lockers, USBs sticks on the street, public WiFis, etc in their pathetic self-righteous, self-pitying Luddite utopia.
It is by no means an exaggeration to say that the futile war on drugs is still a thousand times more successful than the war on piracy, yet as the internet becomes much more faster, much more proliferated with more global users and much more anonymous in the near future, only copyright seems to think flogging it with a dead horse will do the world any good.
"The US right now regarding to people from the middle east, are acting Germany did with the jews during the Nazi era, with the news they they basically say that every mosque is a terrorist group, and every muslim must have a bomb under their beard."
Well technically if you think property trumps everything, you are inclined to say that it trumps even the economy. So you can expect this kind of behaviour from those who insist that the entire world, along with soverign democracies with their own economic and property systems, be within the boundaries of their fences.
I won't delve into patents too much: the short answer is we need a full-blown socialist perspective applied to patents, as scientific research is something everybody ought to be participants in.
But copyright is always going to lead to irony and hypocrisy as long as it forces creators to back away if what they wish to bring are derivative works. As well as insisting on being the exception to the rule that it is impossible to forbid the expression of opinions without falling into corruption, deliberate or not.
The only thing the Luddites ARE right about is how there can be temporary unemployment effects as a result of workers having to learn new trades.
And I posted this comment to go with:
"So donít blame technology for persistent unemployment."
Tell that to the bloody MPAA. Copyright philosophy is one of the greatest unspoken Luddisms in economics. It makes the utopian claim that a service with a free-rider problem is in need of property distortion into goods instead, as if second-hand copies somehow do not create a free-rider problem. Assurance contracts, the real answer to the creator's free-rider problem, suffers from no kind of Luddism whatsoever because it treats the property correctly as a service, not goods. In fact, IndieGoGo and Kickstarter can cheer for joy when the internet becomes 10,000 times faster and more anonymous as it allows more virtual "tickets" to be booked much faster, while the deluded "pirate hunters" with their negativity towards any kind of communications technology can only throw a Luddite tantrum at such a technological advancement.