Everything is an uproar here at the moment. Mr Johnson just got subjected to a monstrous put-down, therefore helping to ruin the country for nothing. Corbyn thought it'd be a good idea to mention Israel and ISIS in the same breath at a counter antisemitism rally whilst a Labour MP is accused of Zionist treachery right in front of him.
As a Scot up here who wants both unions to live I LITERALLY CANNOT EVEN RIGHT NOW.
Saying this will infuriate copyright advocates but it is the truth: this ban is what you really need to do to stay consistent with copyright mentality.
Because what is the difference between sending a copy over the internet of a work, and making a copy of the work via the beams of light that bounce off a pre-owned paper? In both cases one physical good (whether that's paper or electricity) has ended up producing two copies with one copy in one mind each. If "pay-per-view" demands all the Digital "Rights" "Management" in the world, the logic must also extend to Physical "Rights" "Management".
And why shouldn't there be a big padlock that snaps shut your newspaper at unauthorised moments? You might make an infringing copy for all we know! If you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear! Because the burden of proof is on you to prove innocence! Those beams of light that bounce from the paper and hit somebody else's eyes except yours are facilitating piracy!
HOW WILL PAPERS EVER MAKE MONEY AS LONG AS THIS BLATANT THEFT GOES ON? PHYSICAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT NOW! PRM! PRM!
Oh... what's that? Oh? People still pay for papers even though everyone can wait for everyone else to buy and then free-ride?!? Whereas our "game theory" analogy says this should be impossible?! People still pay despite 0% enforcement against second-hand readers?!
Well... uh... that's still because of copyright law ya know!!!
The whole point about journalism is that it doesn't require your respect. Or anyone else's.
I've also noticed "journalism" is now more and more becoming a synonym for anyone who has an opinion of any kind. Just replace the word "Gawker" in your comment with the word "Deepthroat" and you've got every single Nixon lover (yes, they still do exist) an excuse to crush every single paper's reporting of the corruption on the grounds they don't "respect" it. Further still, replace it with the word "Daily Mail", "Guardian", etc.
People here are not going to respect your comment. Should you shut up? No.
And though I think the jury were in the right to award Hogan damages, I can still say all of the above without hesitation.
Contrary to what a lot of folk have been saying on Twitter, Orwell did not in fact say "journalism is printing what someone else does not want to hear, everything else is PR". Though the sentiment is true enough (just don't follow it up with screams of "BIAS!" and then demand the sacking of X number of TV reporters from the BBC and ITV, as these fools from where I am in the UK were doing. The shit-for-brain fuckers had no idea how profane they were being when they were doing that).
It should be noted that when an injunction had been put on Gawker to take down the video, they did, but then merely linked to another video site hosting it instead.
If the logic stands, surely that video site must have been sued by Hogan too. But it wasn't. In other words Gawker have got the "leaker" role here and that is why they must bear the legal burden, not the folk echoing what was leaked e.g. the video site.
If Gawker had a source who provided them with the tape, they could have said they weren't the leaker but merely the echo. Though that would mean having to defend the identity of the source against a possible legal demand to reveal it. None of that happened. It could have also been possible that Gawker were actually the folk who got a hold of the tape without a middleman, considering how they didn't even attempt to pass the buck.
It needs reminding that the hackers of the iCloud celebrity photos were rightfully punished, though folk reposting them on Reddit were not. I don't think a free expression claim is warranted when hackers were trespassing onto property like that. Given the unexplained nature of how Gawker came into possession of that tape (they may have indeed trespassed Hogan's property to get it themselves for all we know), the judgement for damages was probably justified.
Though it sucks. Every instinct in me tells me that gutter press is the FIRST area to defend against censorship precisely because of the huge hate it generates. Hate is fine, gutter press gonna gutter. Censorship is not. If I can defend the rights of Holocaust deniers to speak their minds, and I do justly, I can certainly defend it for sharticles these tabloids put out.
A person who deeply, deeply offends everyone on the internet requires EXTRA protection for free expression, not less. Because it still benefits us. If it is true that knowledge is power, then knowledge of what is false is just as liberating as knowledge of what is true. Every time you hear disgusting, revolting opinions the more you know how low humanity can sink. It's important, otherwise you won't know what to do when confronted with lynch mobs of racist hate peddlers marching on the doors of a minority because you weren't given the space to get angry about the bile building up beforehand. Know thy enemy. You can't do that if you shut them up. Beautiful flowers cannot live without being dependent on pollen-carrying stinging pests.
Here, an anus-inverted tabloid has self-destructed in a manner similar to News of the World here in the U.K., preventing us the right to know about how nasty and cold-hearted an opinion can be. A man has also been the victim of revenge porn but walked away with, what he'd consider, not enough compensation. A billionaire Silicon Valley tycoon walks away with a smile on his face knowing that folk who are nowhere near as rich as him will never have the same kind of financially-backed justice if they ever end up as revenge-porn victims, who he probably couldn't care less about - he will continue to be rich and not stand by his supposed principles, on the basis that revenge can solve anything.
I should point out a correction, Mike. This isn't a superinjunction, it's an injunction. A superinjunction is when you can't even mention the injunction exists without being in contempt of court, which is illiberal because it essentially means secret courts. Though a regular injunction you can say that the injunction exists, which is why papers are allowed to talk about the injunction in England and Wales without actually mentioning the names, and they have done so. See the Daily Mail's "The Law Is An Ass!"
Here in Scotland I could probably name the names without legal trouble. However if I were to step across the border only a couple hundred miles away I probably could not. And I'm not sure if it counts if a copy of my message would be read in HTML in England despite me posting from Scotland to an American server.
I do have some sympathy with my opponents here. If some poor woman were photographed nude without her permission and that image went viral across multiple sites globally, she'd be pretty pissed, and she would be a bit disgusted at folk who try to mock her resisting it as creating a "Streisand Effect", as if she were to blame for everybody else's violation of her privacy, which is what "fighting it makes it stronger" can only mean in this case. The thing about the Streisand Effect is that it only gets you so far morally. It can lead to victim blaming.
And my opponents could also say that it is possible to beat the Streisand Effect by citing the example of the naming of the identities of the killers of James Bulger. This had gone a bit "viral", but then the names had indeed still been removed at every instance in the end.
Though I fear the above example was only due to luck and the example above that no doubt due to the ignorance of porn viewers when determining if each and every nude image is consensual or not. There was more interest here in the UK about the James Bulger killers' identities than say in the US because it was a UK story at its origin, and not as many were spreading the identities because many others objected to it, which may have made it easier for the police to stop.
It's a bit scary to think that law has lost its competency here, and that no amount of law can stop memetic information if it's up against millions willing to resist it. If the law does appear to succeed in putting it down, is that because the law's force was strong, or because the people simply chose not to make the content viral? That's a critical question, because if law is all in the mind anyway and authority is an illusion just like free will is, it would make sense that the latter bit of the answer would be right. We all, in the end, decide if laws should be followed or not, and papers called "laws" are inanimate objects that only mean something if we choose to act in favour of them. Law comes from Order, not the other way around.
That's pretty disturbing, so it is possible that memes can't be stopped by law online - and I really do mean meme in the Dawkins sense of the word: natural selection of expressions. So how do we deal with the nasty stuff?
I think we need to start considering focusing all the justice of civil compensation and prosecutions etc, if there is a case of course, on the "point of the leak", not on folk who simply echo the leak. So if Hulk Hogan wants compensation for an act of revenge porn (I don't know the full details but I assume it must have been revenge porn, I don't think he would have won if he himself published it), he'd have to take it to Gawker or even the person who sent it to Gawker, not everyone else reporting on the story. Otherwise you get farces where because of international servers anyone can find out the UK injunction names but cannot talk about it between them in certain regional parts of the Union. And I'm sure you can still find the Hulk Hogan sex tape somewhere. If you worked hard enough, the killers of James Bulger too.
One exception to this might be child rape images, where those who echo them must also be punished. Though I think that works because the "Is it consensual? How am I meant to know?" line of thinking doesn't hold up since a child cannot consent whatsoever. And the presumption must be made that those who possess such images must also have knowledge of and history with child rape criminal gangs who profit from the slavery, so it is easily justified to say why law must fight against it. And it succeeds very well because the majority will report and fight against child rapists, not spread evil images.
...so again, law only "works" because the masses follow it.
Therefore, in regards to the stuff where you've got to stop the point of the leaks, we may have to simply face the fact that we're in an age where you can't just walk up to printing-press bottlenecks anymore and put a hold on them. You're up against a massive ball of rubberbands the moment something leaks, and even if you get 99% of them that 1% still lingers waiting to instantly turn into the big ball again (I'm sure there's a better metaphor... probably the ProtoPets from Ratchet and Clank 2). So in this day and age, it makes more sense to focus all your justice on those who take something out of your private sphere initially into the public sphere without permission. Because chasing the echoes is only going to be horrible and ugly.
I know what'll stop piracy! The Stop All Piracy Act! And don't worry artists, this law will continue indefinitely, or in other words it'll never stop!
But seriously, we're not talking with rational people here. Just imagine debating against a crazy wing of libertarianism demanding a "JPEG standard" to replace our fiat currencies: there's a point where you just have to accept no amount of reason will do.
Even the gold standard enthusiasts would know it was time to give up if research into technology lead to discoveries where you could suddenly download gold at the click of a mouse.
A law that forbids a work from being expressed in another language if the "property" holder chooses is an assault on freedom of expression.
A law that forces historians who speak other languages to only do their research through secondary sources as a result of deliberate language barriers is an assault on freedom of expression.
Because as Christopher Hitchens once rightly said, freedom of expression is not just about the right of someone to speak, but it is also the right of everybody to read and listen.
Shutting off books with artificial language barriers is isolationaism, anti-free trade and anti-globalisation (yes, globalisation is a good thing and this is one reason why). Democracy and pluralism IS up for export to all of civilisation in the face of dictatorship and authoritarianism. The best way of doing this is to make all literature available in all languages so those who want to retaliate and rebel against their unelected leaders know how and why to do so. Copyright stands in the way of that with its language barriers.
Or tries to, rather. Thankfully because copyright is unenforceable we can tell such a law to go to hell and translate however we please, even if it is somewhat underground. It should be morally self-evident to everyone that copyright is a farce and would be very ugly if it really did have the power it wishes to have. But no, we'd rather get hysterics such as "Google must have Content-ID on its Google-translate program!!!" before people will ever realise this.
Let me repeat once again: there's a reason why a JPEG dollar would be laughed away as a medium of legal tender. There's a reason why libertarians call for a gold-standard instead of a salt-standard. There's a reason why Bill Hicks' joke "Dirt For Sale" in Sane Man is funnier than it seems: Creating scarcity from abundancy doesn't work and never will.
If you want to protect your property - or labour, rather - name your price on Patreon, however high you want that price to be. It really is that simple, and there's no contradiction in rights either.
You would think that with a procedure that notices a website to take down content, that they would actually go to the website itself and send that notice to take down the content. That way it becomes irrelevant if Google links to it or not since there's no longer any content to direct to.
But no, apparently we need to keep on whacking the mole that simply tells people that site and the content is there instead of the content itself, as if that will somehow magically make everyone forget that it's there.
When I say "The Pirate Bay" I've just linked someone to the Pirate Bay. Because then they'll go research the site, it's domain name, etc etc. Which is no different from an actual URL or a URL to a URL, because a URL is just words and letters too.
The logical conclusion of this is that everybody should be forbidden from talking about the Pirate Bay whatsoever. Because to talk about it is to link someone to it.
It is also worth remembering that when it comes to issues of "freebooting" on Facebook, the complaints are in the opposite direction: that Facebook hides links to pirated content too well. After all, artists must be able to see where the piracy is happening! As they say.
And it all comes from folk who still haven't done a thing about the Pirate Bay after 15 odd years. They are beyond serious consideration.
The gold shirt or medals or transporter by themselves do not necessarily constitute appropriation - but in its entirety this is essentially what the movie is. It is an appropriation of Star Trek without permission or paying royalties. This is the very essence of what copyright was designed to prevent.
You know what I always say to somebody who claims to be against cultural "appropriation", whether it be in the form of portraying/sampling everything from rap music to Japanese Kimono? It's this: when you protest something like this, deciding what is "culturally appropriate" is the very thing you are trying to do, not them.
I don't find it a coincidence that copyright's core mantra dating all the way back to its conception in the 1600s has very much in common with the petty social justice warrior movements of today, plaguing the minds of the naive and turning many decent folk away from universities. And not just that. Back in the 50's and 60's communists like Sam Aaronovitch protested the capitalist "appropriation" of American comics seeping their way into British cultural life in place of what should have been purist socialist ideology. In other words, unauthorised forms of culture were to be resisted simply for being alien, in place of more appropriate appropriation.
There is a reason why those of us aligned with Thomas Paine, 18th century liberal radicalism and freedom of expression are good at seeing through these things. Though I do wish most on my side would see the connection with the problems of copyright's right to decide what culture is "appropriate" too.
It goes right back. When things like the Inquisition and the Dark Ages were afoot every bit of blasphemy could be pinpointed as an equivalent of morons killing each other based on what was culturally appropriate for Jesus and the like. I came to realise that whenever I criticised this solipsistic concept of ownership of expression instead of freedom of expression in copyright circles, I often found I would say copyright believers were in effect wanting blasphemy laws protecting their work from being defamed, wich in any other context would be seen for the transparent prior-restraint tripe that it is, which would logically extend to silencing critics of the work too since they too could sway the culture in the direction outside of the artist's "permission". Yet copyright squares the circle and pretends that the logic doesn't extend that far for a reason I've yet to hear. I was not, and am not, wrong to make this comparison.
It's not an encryption issue, because the brute-forcing bit is easy. It's a hacking issue because the software/hardware is forbidding the speedy process of it. The FBI want Apple to tinker with their source code essentially.
Though I keep stressing the warrant was granted here. It's not comparible to unwarranted, mass unconstitutional spying. If it were, by definition Apple would be asked to do it secretly anyway.
Law enforcement asking for a key to a house does not mean we should all be afraid of our locks on the count of the possibility that law enforcement could be forcing all keymakers to keep copies of keys in secret, as a result of that one house "hacking".
"The government can't be trusted" is an argument you could make against any security breach, even so much as walking through a criminal's front door rendering all doors untrustworthy.