Like the Iraqi WMD's, how waterboarding isn't "really" torture, the specious "enemy combatant" designation, with allows the Department of (In)Justice to get around the whole "Geneva conventions" thing.....that kinda cover it?
1. How do we "stop" corporations out-right buying what passes for "government" in the wake of the Citizens United supreme court decision?
2. How do we "stop" the use of (nominally) "private" corporate-mercenary outfits like Blackwater --- or whatever the hell it calls itself, now -- to aid in our latest military-industrial quagmire over in Iraq?
3. For that matter, how do we "stop" invasions based on false pretenses (such as Iraq), in the first place?
THAT's what makes the whole "work to get the law changed", bullshit so terrifyingly wrong-minded: the notion that "We, the subjects" actually *do* have anything other than a completely false and masturbatory "participation" in the poltical system to which we are subject.
You think "the vote" counts? Not so long as the Electoral college can cast the "deciding" vote -- or they can just screw with the recounts long enough for the Supreme court to step in and DECLARE the winner.
1. By getting their cronies in government to put stupid/evil shit like this on the books, they're going to make the entire notion of copyright look even *more* like the cultural cancer that it already is. Runaway term extensions are bad enough, but turning the issue of "copyright" into an excuse for *increasing* the "digital divide" isn't going to go over well at all.
They are "failing to adapt", in the same way as Southern planters "failed to adapt" to abolitionists, and the Roman Catholic church "failed to adapt" to the rise of Protestantism (which was and remains, from their point of view, nothing more than mass "heresy", beyond their ability to crush.)
Y'know, personally, I'm really tired of this "Electronic Wild West" mindfuck they're trying to put over on us. The *real* intention behind that is to sell us the idea of an Orwell-style "Ministry of Information", on the (specious) premise that they're "protecting" us from: porn, kiddie porn, "hate speech", online "piracy", etc. etc.
Fuck that. (This is also one of the reasons I don't shy away from using what *some* might view as "profane" or "vulgar" language -- once they sell you on the notion that some forms of censorship --- *EVEN* "self"-censorship -- are "good", it's a really small step from there, to unleashing the forces of Bowdlerization.
FAC (the "Featured artists coalition) did exactly that kind of dance, which is one reason (of many) that I stopped contributing to p2pnet.
Billy Bragg kept claiming that his organization had taken some kind of really big stand "against the corporate lobbyists and labels", even though they had voted in support of 3-strikes legislation (which the corporate megaliths also support).
Where was his "big stand", you might ask?
Well, while the LABELS' LOBBYISTS wanted 3-strikes and then DISCONNECTION, FAC "only" advocated 3-strikes, and THROTTLING (on the specious notion that radically slowing-down the "offender's" Internet connections would somehow make them "less" of an enemy of corporate lobbyists pimping for draconian bullshit.)
The sad part is (as we all know by now) corporate lobbyists get *whatever they want*, irrespective of whatever delusions "we, the subjects" may still cherish, in regard to "the popular will".
The reason for the similarity is, quite simply, because it's ONE person.
He/she has admitted to using sock-puppet accounts previously (most recently "The Anti-Mike"). Masnick is pretty sure it's the same person as "Weird Harold".
Do a search, the results will probably interest you.
The primary reason there's only *one* big-media apologist troll who has to create the illusion of massive support by way of sock-puppet accounts, is because nobody in their right mind could actually take the position of "bend over and take it from your corporate overlords/their cronies in government", so consistently, and retain any self-respect whatsoever.
Really obvious tip-off: his asinine little tantrum over the purportedly *vast* difference between posting ANonymously, vs. posting PSEUDonymously. (Hint: *BOTH* are primarily motivated by a desire to obscure your "real" identity.
Sometimes, there are very valid reasons for doing so. Other times, the motivation is cowardice, or the desire to play mind-games.
It's probably just "TAMhole" fucking with us again. He's already admitted to creating numerous sock-puppet accounts for just that reason, and, if you read his drivel, it bears a strong resemblance to his idiocy.
TAM's "responses" usually consisted of:
1. Dismissing whatever he was replying to on the grounds that it "isn't really that bad" (whatever "it" happens to be -- from runaway copyright term extension, to re-monopolizing formerly "Public Domain" content, etc.)
2. Dissmissing it on the grounds that "it's not really that bad".
3. Dismissing it on the basis of his copy of "Heechee Rendezvous".
4. Weird non-sequiturs about hamburgers, imaginary dogs, etc.
5. "Watch your language!" --- (Last resort of a whiny little pussy, BTW!) :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The DVD Magically Appears
1. That's where the *mass* aspect of MASS civil disobedience comes in. Make it prohibitively expensive, time-consuming, intrusive, and downright onerous in general for those "in power" to actually enforce the "laws" bought by their corporate cronies.
2. As to 'consequences", where the fuck are the "consequences" for the multinational corporate megaliths buying 11 copy"right" term extensions over the last thirty years (much less, their cronies in government?)
I don't see *any* evidence of you "obey the law *because* it's the law" types *EVER* actually addressing the fact that the "consequences" go BOTH ways.
Should those *forced* into the Warsaw Ghetto (and the death-camps that followed) simply, placidly fallen into line and been "law-abiding" *because* it was "the law?"
Sometimes the worst "consequences" arise, simply from OBEDIENCE TO "THE LAW" ITSELF. That's how oppressive regimes continue to function -- not merely by terrorizing the recalcitrant among their subjects, but *more* by training those subjects in the belief that uncomplaining subjugation is a virtue.
Of course, it's not surprising that a rabid "law = virtue" type such as yourself would ALSO be an apologist for copyright "law".
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The DVD Magically Appears
1. If you "don't expect anyone here to get the little joke", then why bother using a "clever" handle? Is it some kind of weird, inside-joke between you and the voices in your head, or what?
(Or -- and this is actually quite plausible, given recent events here on Techdirt -- are "you" merely another of "The sockpuppeting troll formerly known as TAM"'s sock-puppet ID's? There's something about the mix of inane quibbling, deliberate "misunderstanding" of the article to which you're replying, and self-congratulation about the fact that you're a "law-abiding" type of person who impulse-buys DVD's at Costco, and would *never* complain about stuff like being forced to sit through trailers and previews and crap -- EVEN AFTER HAVING "bought" the DVD itself!
I mean seriously....is that you, TAM? Haven't seen much of you lately. Did you have an accident with that "morning cofee", or just get frustrated at your own inability to spel "Metallica", and smash your keyboard?
It's a basic fact that the *worst* aspects of every political regime can only continue because the vast majority of the populace don't stand up against such things --- EVEN IF doing so involves "breaking the law".
According to the Chinese government, the Tien-an-Men Square protesters were engaging in "illegal" activity. So was anybody involved with the abolitionist or "Underground Railroad" movements that helped runaway slaves escape. (hell, that has a lot of parallels to the copyright thing, because slave-"owners" were always bitching about how anti-slavery folks were "depriving them of their property", etc.
Anybody who thinks being "law-abiding" is, in and of itself, a mark of virtue, is nothing but an enabler of the *worst* aspects of whatever political regime he or she happens to live under.
So, what you're saying is: you don't even specifically "decide" to buy DVD's, you just buy them when you're "out for other things?"
Damn, an actual, self-identified "impulse buyer". I suppose you also buy DVD's of films you've never seen before (either at the theater, on TV, or rented from a video store)?
Your attempt to refute the blindingly-obvious facts pointed out by the article was pretty shaky. Your understanding of how to use BitTorrent was even worse. But the fact that you seem to actually take pride in being the sort of totally thoughtless "consumer" who doesn't even *think* about what he/she buys, and just gets stuff on impulse....wow.
This is where the whole "mass civil disobedience" thing comes in:
In reality, it's only a "law" to the extent that it can be enforced. The multinational corporate megaliths absolutely *love* the idiotic little drones who actually take pride in being "law abiding", irrespective of the *content* of any particular law.
And, ultimately, that's the problem. Laws "criminalizing" homosexuality only "worked" to the extent that gay people failed to stand up, and fight back. (Look it up: The Stonewall riots.)
So if you're stupid enough to take pride in mindlessly complying with any and all "laws", then I'll say it again: you *deserve* to have multinational corporate megaliths/government functionaries exert draconian control over any and every aspect of your existence, because you ALLOW them to do so, without protesting, fighting back, or monkeywrenching the system itself into oblivion.
Pointing them to anything related to the song "Happy Birthday to you".
The fact that the (corporate) "rights-holders" have periodically attempted to shake down children's birthday parties for the unauthorized "public performances" that typically go on there, is enough to open up discussion over what originally "justified" copyright in the first place -- let alone, what the corporate lobbyists have turned it into.
the Pro-monopoly folks are cutting their own throats.
The argument that respect for "the law" simply *because* it is "the law", is evil. Apartheid in South Africa, the institution of Race-based chattel slavery here in the U.S., laws against "miscegenation" (so-called "Race-mixing"), various nations' historical persecution of religious minorities for "heresy" or "blasphemy"....the list goes on.
"Law" is *NEVER* respectable *in and of itself*, but only inasmuch as the *conduct* that such "laws" attempt to compel/prevent, is worthy of respect.
As for the "delusional self-rationalization" thing goes: it's worked pretty well for the copyright-lobby, with all the term-extensions they've managed to bribe over the last thirty years or more.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Even without the revised graph....
It also depends on *how much* of that "price per song" actually goes to somebody deserving of it:
In terms of any label affiliated with the RIAA or any of the other international equivalents (BREIN, IFPI, etc.), that means: virtually none of it. Same with the "collection" agencies like Soundexchange, etc.
There is *far* too much corporate overhead and manufactured hype (not to mention "celebrity" narcissism) to make "buying" (or rather, "licensing") their corporate drivel worthwhile *from them*.
(Personally, I've *always* been an inveterate scumbag, in that I grew up using one of copyright's biggest "loopholes" -- the first-sale doctrine. I get good prices (1000 33 rpm vinyl/5 bucks), semi-random box of CD's/tapes = 1 dollar, etc.). The best part is that the multinational corporate shit-stains behind the RIAA's reign of terror didn't make a *dime* off me.
Plus, I've found huge swaths of stuff that I would have never found, otherwise. I've never been the kind of idiotic lemming to just placidly buy something because "everybody else is doing it".
I'm also smart enough to know how to get a good deal out of the aforementioned stupid lemmings who think they're being "cutting edge" by dumping all their vinyl because the format itself is supposedly "obsolete". (Hint: unless the stuff has been fairly-extensively "remastered", even the digitized versions you get on CD's are usually only at "tape quality", if that makes any sense.
Even if they *do* manage to somehow ram their draconian bullshit down the collective cultural throat, I still have something like 20,000 albums, tapes, reels, etc. to dip into whenever I get bored.
Another way to look at it, is that failure to "pay for" the privilege of IP monopolies by allowing stuff to enter the Public Domain, is *infinitely* more like "theft" than ANY form of copying could ever be.
Simple: If I *copy* a file, there are now TWO files. You have lost NOTHING, to the extent that the "original" file still exists.
However, twenty years (let's say) of copyright term extension means:
1. Many potential uses of the formerly-monopolized content simply won't happen, because the potential users can't pay what you'll want to extort from them.
2. Such uses of the monopolized content as *do* happen, will cause the cultural "product" using them to be more expensive.
3. Probably the greatest (unacknowledged) cost of copyright itself (and any term extension thereof), is that it deforms the way art and culture are created, and fosters a viewpoint that creative folks are "owed" something in perpetuity (or as close to it as they can get), by the very public whose domain their IP privileges encroach upon.
This notion is self-evidently absurd to the extent that, for example, musicians learned by playing *other* musician's songs (even in private, in their bedroom).
Remember, folks, the "rights-holders" to the song "Happy Birthday to you" actually assert that singing this (arguably traditional) birthday-song at a child's birthday party constitutes a "public performance", and thus, that they are "owed" royalties for it.
Intellectual "property" is by definition, theft from the Public Domain. That's why it's called the "copyright bargain". Any attempt to deny this fact, is dishonest in the extreme.
IP apologists love to do specious comparisons between intellectual "objects" and physical objects ("you wouldn't steal a car...etc"). What he's doing, is basically taking them at their word, by illustrating the real consequences of applying the (nonsensical) thinking used to justify "Intellectual property" to another realm of equally-creative activity -- the supply/manufacturing chain involved in manufacturing a hammer.