“One does not have the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.”
Ah yes. This dumb cliche again. Three ways to shoot it down:
Firstly, if you yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there really is a fire, people are still going to panic and trample each other to death. That's a fault of the construction of the theatre. Not the speaker.
Secondly, Holmes had the absolute nerve to say this when sending to jail a group of socialists handing out leaflets in a language most people in the U.S. couldn't even read (Yiddish) opposing the U.S.'s unjust participation in WW1. If anything, those socialists were the real firefighters, shouting fire when there really was a fire. And were sent to jail for it.
Thirdly, if you really do believe in this cliche, do yourself a favour: do not go up to your government and call for a ban on shouting "fire". Instead, go up to your government, and call for the banning of fire drills. Let's see how far you're committed to this premise. Does anyone remember the scene from the Simpsons, where Mr Burns' fire drill "makes" everyone in the power plant behave like complete idiots ("I think I won, Mr Burns!")? We all know what the point of that gag was.
"Oh, please. These are the same arguments constantly pulled out to justify all sorts of things that the government (and people) would love to force upon others. "Well your decision to [do/not do] X has a possible negative impact on other people in the society you live in." "
That is generally the basis on which we make ethical decisions, yes.
"I also don't forgo wearing a seatbelt, but nonetheless I will stand up for other people's right to not wear their seatbelt if the rare risks associated with them (e.g. being trapped in a burning car) scare them more than the fairly common ones (e.g. being thrown and then crushed by your own car as it continues rolling.)"
The solution to being trapped by the belt during a fire is take a knife, or design the belts so that they cannot possibly be stuck (there are ways). And your body flying around inside the car during a crash does not just endanger yourself, but the people sitting next to you. That is why we have the seatbelt rule.
"Yes, it's theoretically more dangerous for others (if say, you could have kept control of your car but not from underneath its wheel) but freedom is not based upon me getting to say what others do (or vice versa) because of some theoretical/potential risk to me (or your children, or my children) from the choices you are making."
It is, actually. And if the government does NOT get involved where it is due, I consider that an oppression. Not doing anything IS a policy. Bystanderism gets you nowhere. When the government does not enforce vaccinations for children, I consider that an action by the government to infect the public with long forgotten diseases.
Not doing anything has its oppressions. And the short-sightedness that can come from libertarians in particular always fails to see that.
Not only do many folk in society already openly reveal that they pirate many things, sometimes software worth up to thousands of pounds, everybody can see the pointlessness of calling the police, or the rights holders, in order to report this happening..
If it were a laptop worth a few hundred pounds that was stolen, police would be called. However, reveal in front of many people that you downloaded a cracked copy of Photoshop - also worth hundreds - and not only would no police show up, it is highly likely that anybody calling the police to report the theft would themselves be arrested for wasting police time. There is an unspoken rule that everybody knows here: "this is an obvious wild goose chase". If one reports to the rights holders, one will get many rants thrown back about how there are "too many out there to sue", or even "I'm just going to look like a dick if I sue".
That's why nobody reports, and even when there is info obtained (it is not too difficult to see the IP addresses of BitTorrent users), there is something called "I am Spartacus" that always comes into play. Rights holders simply can't get everybody.
I could walk up to the offices of the MPAA, yell to them that I am downloading an MP3 without paying, and they will most likely not do a thing.
A law is only as good as the people who follow it. If the attitude changed and people started respecting copyright more, rights holders wouldn't have such a tough time - but my objection is this: an economic system that calls itself copyright does not have a lot of integrity if it SOLELY depends on the attitudes of the consumer to function instead of the "practical" legal tools it SHOULD be functioning on, since global, god-like policing of property is realistically impossible and easily exploitable. In theory, copyright is supposed to work. In practice, it is laughable as the war on drugs.
An assurance contract is the only way an artist is going to be able to protect his property. Living in this utopian alternative where profits are assumed on trust instead of guaranteed before the creation's existence is, ultimately, damaging to the artist. The artist's faith in copyright is what causes his misery. If he names whatever price he chooses in his assurance contract, he will always be sure. And everyone else would suffer from a free-rider problem.
"Congress recognized that assigning this responsibility to online service providers ill-equipped to execute it would hamper the growth of online commerce. It thus forged a compromise, ensuring that rights-holders would need to initiate takedowns, but would receive expeditious, extralegal relief in response to a complaint without the time and expense of going to court. Some would prefer to unwind the compromise struck in 1998, however, and shift more of the burden of enforcing copyrights to service providers, perhaps through some form of content filtering. "
The root cause of the "safe harbour" responsibility vacuum is a failure to admit that copyright is incompatible with and unenforceable in the real world.
We all know fine well the takedowns are useless if users will reupload - under different IPs, encrypted, internationally, the list goes on. Never mind BitTorrent (I am Spartacus!) , email attachments, Skype file transfer, file "lockers"... basically, the internet.
There are only two options: hold ISPs and websites responsible for the infringing copies their machines at the end of the day produce and bring one of the greatest technological booms since the industrial revolution to its knees, or scrap copyright and try something else. The safe harbours, morphed from a refusal to crush the internet and a refusal to budge from the "infallibility" of copyright, are just the result of nobody wanting to face the fact that copyright is, undeniably, incompatible and at fault. And it shows, due to the ease of coming into contact with any infringing material of our choosing despite the millions (billions?) of takedown requests.
The true intellectual radicals of this debate are Kickstarter and IndieGoGo, and they don't truly realise it yet. To paraphrase LaPlace, in response to those who would ask what role copyright has with assurance contracts in protecting the property of artists, I say "they work without that assumption". They are the greatest, most underrated paywalls of all time. Justified paywalls, that is.
I cannot believe this. What the fuck am I reading?
Is THAT all it takes to capitulate to fascist death threats? A fucking slippery slope of copyright?
And to THINK! All this time these Islamists were pushing for fatwas against Salman Rushdie, boycotts against Denmark, threats against South Park...
Sorry, but I also need to stress this: has anyone else forgotten that the Obama administration caved into election pressure and disgracefully asked Google to take the video down? While Google stood its ground and refused?
But THIS IS WHAT IT TOOK? A fucking delusional economic system with a fucking GAG ORDER TO BOOT?
What the fucking fucking fuck? What the FUCK?
Is there anyone now who will dare say that copyright has no slippery slopes? Is there anyone here who will now seriously claim that "ownership of expression" has any superiority over "freedom of expression"?
What's it going to take? The absurdities are right in front of our noses.
"It's easier to forge a license plate than an IP address."
Yeah. If there's one thing we need more of, it's more campaigning against car organisations that recklessly dish out replacement dynamic license plates for people who get out of their cars and back in again.
"You must be a thief" is the justification for both unjust taxes as an alternative to avoiding the enforcement of utopian copyright while still holding copyright in law (which, by the way, will not target the actual people it is supposed to in the guise of the heavy duty pirates who make tons of money through advertising, because by definition they will not pay a tax on illegal profits - Al Caponism/drug-cartelism in a nutshell) and for Digital Rights Management philosophy that thinks its necessary to break core functionality of your computers and make them more vulnerable to hackers. You must be taxed because "you must be a thief" - your computer must be broken because "you must be a thief".
No. The only way forward is to make your end consumers know that the existence of your creativity depends on their payment, and let the crowd realise they have a responsibility to pay their dues if they want any creativity whatsoever - if they don't pay up, they will not get what they want. Which ultimately means crowdfunding. Amanda Palmer made a terrible mistake in her TED talk by saying that Kickstarter was a way of "letting" people pay for music instead of "making" them pay. To the contrary, crowdfunding websites, like tickets, subscriptions, pre-orders and other assurance contract economies, are the most heavily underrated and underestimated paywalls out there.
There's a terrific irony here that copyright advocates like to praise every form of paywall conceivable except the ones that actually work. Policing every copy through copyright-paywalls is a silly way of going about things when paywalls stand their grounds far better without copyright by forcing payment as a condition of the creation's existence.
Defamation is something that can be answered on its own terms, without the need for copyright. And it is rather simple: include "official" and "unofficial" labelling/signatures on works in a way that is similar to trademarks. The best use of a trademark is defining what is "approved" by a person or business, so they can work just fine here. That way, if people end up listening to some abysmal AMV with Aerosmith music cut up into horrendous pieces and distorted something awful, and that AMV were to have the "unofficial copy of Aerosmith" signature on it, if such an audience goes away thinking that Aerosmith genuinely sounds as horrible as that, that's the audience's problem. No copyright can save artists from audience stupidity like this.
Let me give you an example of why you cannot stop the stupidity. It does not matter how beautifully George Orwell wrote Animal Farm as a means of showing the utopian nature of communism, and crucially it does not matter how Orwell wanted to be seen or heard upon releasing this book: we still got idiots yelling the straw-man that he was an apologist for fascism because he attacked communism. They did not have to infringe on a single copyright to portray Orwell as a crackpot. And hence, that is how his book was treated (and even censored) for a while.
The speech is enough to distort how an artist is "seen by the public", not remixes. If speech cannot do anything to change what an artist actually said in his works, then neither can remixes.
But nobody is dumb enough to suggest that because people might, just MIGHT, go off with an image of their music "sucking so much ass" that they will therefore not make that music.
The better question is this: can anybody name ONE artist who has NOT had the fear of being seen as low quality? Or a fear of simply being perceived in a way in which he would not favour?
And did the punk movement not teach us ANYTHING? Nobody gives a fuck what others think in the end! And people especially do not give a fuck if money and/or moral duty is involved in expressing themselves. In the end, the original works always come through.
Stupid fallacy. I take it we must now also shut down deviantArt for all the horrendous (profitable for deviantArt!) My Little Pony mutations that occur there, or fan-fiction sites in case a mediocre Twilight fan-fic suddenly branches off to become 50 Shades Of Grey after having all the Twilight content removed from it? (you'd have to ban fan-fics even on a non-commercial level on that basis, in case its popularity allows the author of the fan-fic to suddenly change character names and make millions overnight - profound "infringement" without actually infringing, such is the absurdity of copyright philosophy).
People who claim this fallacy also must in turn make the extraordinary claim that internet memes must be stopped if the memes mash up their music in a way they do not approve of. Some of these memes can spread everywhere around the internet within a few hours. Good luck with that.
Ahhh, the EU. Loathed by the Right here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Dialectical flow of cultures between states? Check.
Healthy attitude towards democracy? Check.
Healthy attitude towards human rights? Check.
Stable currency? We are working on that. Soon enough we will learn that each state is better off managing its own state currency, as opposed to an unnecessary accumulation of power under one Eurozone currency. But make no mistake we will learn that mistake and correct ourselves.
Silly UKIP fools, for example, loathe any and all unions except the construct of the UNITED Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Or even worse, equate the European Union with the Soviet Union. OR even worse, decide to pander to the worst forms of nationalism, isolationism and xenophobia whenever their "stable" culture is challenged.
Euroskeptic is actually a good title for anyone to adhere to, however, provided you avoid the mutated meaning of it (Eurohysteria would better describe such a mutation). Because it of course must follow that nothing is sacred, and the EU is no exception. But make no mistake about it: all its faults can be best tackled without having to throw away the good of it.
Facebook indeed can legally choose what opinions ought to stay on their website and what opinions should not stay. So they therefore have a legal basis to take away any talk about Syria it chooses from its property.
But they absolutely have no moral basis to do so. Let that be clear. Morally, it is contemptible.
I don't care if people posting from Syria are supporters of the monster Assad, Al-Qaeda civil-war-hijacking fascists, moderate Muslims or the (always forgotten) secular democratic resistance and socialist democratic resistance.
They have a right to speak their minds. And, extremely crucial: they have a duty to inform us of the events of this tragic civil war that the rest of the world would rather shun away from by any means necessary.
"I can accept that such works may contribute to the wealth of works that help define our culture, but to say that someone makes culture is inapt."
Where else do you think culture comes from?
Look, my reason for banging on about the unresolvable "overlapping of property" that copyright creates, in particular how original art forces derivative artists to give up their rights and ability to bring about new expressions, is because no copyright supporter CAN resolve the paradox of this overlapping. If fools are content with saying that even one second samples of music cannot qualify as fair-use because the musician may have invested the vast majority of his money into that one second, it must then follow that any and all fair-use, and hence free expression, is unjustified. No critic would be able to quote from a movie on the grounds that a penny stolen from a safe is still theft nonetheless, which is an absurd way of thinking about property in this context.
And the reason why I keep banging on about treating intellectual property as a service and not a product is that you don't get the overlap with this lens. Originals and derivatives can then both invest in their works without having to hold each other prisoner.
Well, from Sonic 2 all the way to Sonic and Knuckles, Dr Robotnik's main flying fortress was something that resembled the Death Star and had his glasses and huge moustache built onto it to scale, and it was called the "Death Egg".
And particularly in Sonic 3, Michael Jackson's music and beats can be heard in derived tracks in some zones, most notably in the Ice Cap zone where a track that sounds quite parallel to Smooth Criminal is played.
And Super Sonic's "transformation" is obviously very similar to Goku's Super Saiyan transformation, and the 7 Chaos Emeralds can very well be a liking to the 7 Dragonballs.