The only time DRM ever crosses their mind is when they can't do that. This is when people start looking at piracy as an option.
Allow me to expand on your point.
This release of the films on the Internet threatens to destroy 8 years of audience growth and the notion that these film gems are indeed movies.
We can only imagine the horrific fallout if people suddenly had access to the BFG from Doom.
After all, the ghastly result of people going on mass killing sprees with easily-accessible chainsaws (also depicted in Doom), is already unspeakable. Clearly there is a direct causal link between the two. No need for a study.
Excellent! You are thinking like a prosecutor: "Hey! Look, we can charge him with BOTH auto theft and shoplifting... oh and vehicular misappropriation and highway robbery and non-pedestrian pilfering... maximum sentence is 300 years in prison but we can whittle it down to four years in a plea agreement. Look how lenient we're being. I tell ya: doing good feels good."
My apologies in advance for taking one small element out of this article and expanding on it. Yet perhaps it is the crux of the incorrect viewpoints and interpretations behind the outdated view of things.
STEALING = STEALING as you point out, is a tautology.
Let's play around with logic a little.
GRAND THEFT AUTO = STEALING is true.
SHOPLIFTING = STEALING is true.
Therefore GRAND THEFT AUTO = SHOPLIFTING. Uh wait a sec.
You would think that smart people would recognize that STEALING is not in fact always equal to STEALING and if you boil complex issues down to false tautologies, you are going to have unintended consequences that ruin people's lives.
Then of course you can get back to the point that COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT != STEALING or VIOLATING ACCEPTABLE USE POLICIES != STEALING to completely blow up their argument.
(By the way, Toronto's Globe and Mail has fallen so far from its peak as a widely respected source of news and opinion that I am hardly surprised at their clueless stance on this issue.)
Please re-read the comment. My interpretation of it was that the commenter was trying to get us to use examples of speech that we really disagree with... that we personally would love to censor... but in making the argument against censorship that we STILL wouldn't censor.
You introduced an ad hominem criticism of something that I think AGREES with your viewpoint.
Misinterpretation and misunderstandings are MAIN reasons I disagree with censorship. Sometimes (as with the famous Swift piece "A Modest Proposal") horrendous ideas are actually presented as an argument AGAINST those very ideas. Allowing people to discuss and figure out the sarcasm or metaphor or parody is all part of communicating and it simply can't happen if part of the communication is censored.
(Of course, yes, exposing idiots is another reason we don't want censorship.)
Does anyone know if the original movie version also spelled the state Illonois?
Typo or not, the package is pretty awesome indeed.
Samica L. Norman is an anagram of Maniacal Norms.
This kind of craziness is becoming all too normal at the patent office.
Three things every bride thinks about on her wedding day:
The Aisle
The Alter
The Hymn
Aisle, Altar, Hymn. Aisle, Altar, Hymn.
And she proceeds to do so over the rest of the marriage.
I have seen the cyber-enemy and he is us.
I'll repeat a point that I've made before: "You can't go ahead and lump copyright infringement in with theft because someone acquired something that they are not legally entitled to have. That logic makes driving with an expired license the same as grand theft auto, because you are enjoying the use of a vehicle that you are not legally entitled to use."
As much of a pain as the law is sometimes, distinctions and choice of words remain important.
They rely on short memories of the average person. They have to realize that the Internet is like a big memory extender.
Related:
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2012/08/corporations-are-not-people.html
I can't remember which petition originally got me to sign up on Avaaz, but I am now informed at least once a week about the plight of someone somewhere needing a petition to help them out. Many of the issues are heartbreaking and horrifying. But I am somewhat offended by the constant reminders in my inbox of how horrible the world is. I would rather Avaaz just host the petitions and let the individual petition creators try to drum up signatures.
This latest strangeness of asking people about a particular petition seems to solidify my concerns about Avaaz as an organization.
I think leaving the question without the snarky addendum might have been more productive.
It is my understanding that a contract has to involve an exchange of value or be signed under seal. In the case of agreeing to terms of use, there has to be an active sign-up process; you're not bound to the terms by merely "visiting" the site. So the semantics of "using" a site might be at issue here.
Good point. Words matter. However, the story is not just about the error of the ContentID system pulling down material incorrectly... it is also about the willful use of material from "the Internet" whose copyright was "obviously" held by "someone".
When an individual does this to a corporation, the word used to describe the action is "theft". When a big corporate entity does it to an individual, the words used are: "We are big and you are small. You know our lawyers will crush you if you try to seek compensation. Besides, the exposure benefits you. So get over it."
Those code snippets sure look a heck of a lot like the IBM VisualAge C++ library code for exception handling from several years before Java came out with theirs. Okay, the EXACT code would not have existed, but the variable and function names were almost identical... and in those snippets there's not much else that COULD be different. And I bet IBM derived theirs from something else too. Copyright in software code is a very tenuous concept. Dare I say "totally bogus concept"?
"Common people... share information useful to them but harmful to the entrenched players."
I believe Techdirt has a very strong purpose in HELPING the entrenched players figure out new business models. As we've seen... the middleman has a place but as an ENABLER not as a gatekeeper. Techdirt is like a warning beacon for these players... those that fail to heed it will end up smashed on the rocks. But those that see how to BENEFIT from the disruption will come out ahead.
Your actions are self defeating, the literal eating of the golden goose.
Karl's point by point dismantling of the AC's comment may be the best response I have ever read on Techdirt, but I wanted to nitpick the AC's original comment. "Literal" means that there is actually a golden goose and it is actually getting eaten.
Incivility
I don't know. I tend to think that, anonymous or not, if you're going to practice incivility, you can at some point expect an uncivil or even insane response.
If you drive around honking and giving the finger to people all the time and one day you are the victim of road rage -- it doesn't make the road-rager right, but you might want to rethink your behavior nonetheless.