"There is no intelligence, artificial or not involved."
First point on the list and the critic is already disqualifying themselves by demonstrating that they don't even understand the notion of intelligence.
You want to put things in perspective? Here:
- They more than tripled their membership in just two months, they're now the 3rd largest party in Sweden and have THE largest youth organization of any party in Sweden
- They went from 0.63% of all votes cast in 2006 to 7.13% in 2009
If those poor boys at the Pirate Bay do get convicted in the end, I'll betcha you're gonna see the real power of the pirates. :)
And BTW, it's not a fair evaluation of the party itself if you keep insisting on the country's low election turnout. It's pretty much the same everywhere, it's not the pirates' fault that people don't vote. Those who don't vote are essentially telling us they want their decisions made for them. So the only ones who really matter politically are those who do vote. No more whining about "3%", it was 7.13% and that's the only number that really matters.
"I'm not dissing anyone, nor do I feel self-righteous toward anyone in this story."
Err, yes you do, but it's so subtle you can't even see it yourself. Calling downloaders "Free" Stuffers implies that they're hell-bent on taking lots of stuff without giving _anything_ in return (hence, Free stuff), whereas I'm quite convinced most of them are actually Easy Stuffers, i.e. they like how easy it is to get the content off the Net and start enjoying it right away, with just a few clicks. This - I say again - in no way entails that they would never agree to use some (equally easy) form of payment, but your (continued) use of the label "Free Stuffers" tells me you think it actually does. Thus, I say you're assuming immoral freeloaderism on their part for no good reason. And when you don't give reasons for a disparaging label, you're just being insulting.
And BTW, one major problem with paying for informational content - I don't know how many people, even economists, realize - is that its price is not guaranteed to be fair by market forces. It's legally protected from the competitive forces that would drive it down, but not against the producer greed that always drives it up. By current laws, informational content is always a monopolistic business: if someone writes a book and sells it for money, you're not allowed to offer another book, 99% identical but with 1% significantly improved and ask for 99% of the price, i.e. content creators are protected from competition, so customers are "protected" from lower (more realistic) prices.
Until this changes, I don't see how any system could work that tries to make paying for content as fast and easy as downloading it is. There has to be a greed-proof system of 100% price fairness or it's never going to be accepted.
Let me get this straight: so you're just going to diss the people at home who aren't interested in economics or politics, who just want to benefit from the huge flux of value that modern technology offers them without having to worry about all the details and implications? What the frack makes you think they'd be opposed to any measures that might make it a fair game (without ruining too much of the easy content-access)? Is it perhaps because you can't feel self-righteous enough if you don't find someone to accuse of "immorality"?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by donjoe.
No intelligence? Really?
"There is no intelligence, artificial or not involved."
First point on the list and the critic is already disqualifying themselves by demonstrating that they don't even understand the notion of intelligence.
Re: Re: Perspective, you say?
I say again: "Do not blame a single party for what is a general socio-political problem, i.e. low participation in elections."
What part of this do you not get?
Perspective, you say?
You want to put things in perspective? Here:
- They more than tripled their membership in just two months, they're now the 3rd largest party in Sweden and have THE largest youth organization of any party in Sweden
- They went from 0.63% of all votes cast in 2006 to 7.13% in 2009
If those poor boys at the Pirate Bay do get convicted in the end, I'll betcha you're gonna see the real power of the pirates. :)
And BTW, it's not a fair evaluation of the party itself if you keep insisting on the country's low election turnout. It's pretty much the same everywhere, it's not the pirates' fault that people don't vote. Those who don't vote are essentially telling us they want their decisions made for them. So the only ones who really matter politically are those who do vote. No more whining about "3%", it was 7.13% and that's the only number that really matters.
Re: Re: Freestuffers my ass.
"I'm not dissing anyone, nor do I feel self-righteous toward anyone in this story."
Err, yes you do, but it's so subtle you can't even see it yourself. Calling downloaders "Free" Stuffers implies that they're hell-bent on taking lots of stuff without giving _anything_ in return (hence, Free stuff), whereas I'm quite convinced most of them are actually Easy Stuffers, i.e. they like how easy it is to get the content off the Net and start enjoying it right away, with just a few clicks. This - I say again - in no way entails that they would never agree to use some (equally easy) form of payment, but your (continued) use of the label "Free Stuffers" tells me you think it actually does. Thus, I say you're assuming immoral freeloaderism on their part for no good reason. And when you don't give reasons for a disparaging label, you're just being insulting.
And BTW, one major problem with paying for informational content - I don't know how many people, even economists, realize - is that its price is not guaranteed to be fair by market forces. It's legally protected from the competitive forces that would drive it down, but not against the producer greed that always drives it up. By current laws, informational content is always a monopolistic business: if someone writes a book and sells it for money, you're not allowed to offer another book, 99% identical but with 1% significantly improved and ask for 99% of the price, i.e. content creators are protected from competition, so customers are "protected" from lower (more realistic) prices.
Until this changes, I don't see how any system could work that tries to make paying for content as fast and easy as downloading it is. There has to be a greed-proof system of 100% price fairness or it's never going to be accepted.
Freestuffers my ass.
BobinBaltimore:
Let me get this straight: so you're just going to diss the people at home who aren't interested in economics or politics, who just want to benefit from the huge flux of value that modern technology offers them without having to worry about all the details and implications? What the frack makes you think they'd be opposed to any measures that might make it a fair game (without ruining too much of the easy content-access)? Is it perhaps because you can't feel self-righteous enough if you don't find someone to accuse of "immorality"?