I didn't intend to turn this into a debate on drug laws, I just wanted to compare the obvious parallel of turning a sickness (drug addiction) into a crime with turning the fundamental process of the internet (making copies) into one.
I am not usually pessimistic. But I can see how the government's War on File Sharing will continue down the same path as the War on Drugs.
The two are very similar in terms of ignorance of reality, twisted philosophy and general hypocrisy.
The War on Drugs has cost billions of dollars, ruined millions of lives and contributed to severe erosion of Constitutional liberty and loss of respect for government and the police.
It's also turned drug production and sales into a hugely profitable business and then turned that business over to terrorist cartels and warlords.
Given that, it doesn't take a large stretch of the imagination to see the War on File Sharing turning into an amazing bonanza for a few special interests, further limiting the rights of "normal" citizens and pushing large portions of the tech and innovation industries onto foreign shores.
What is deeply frustrating about all this is that the solution is rather simple.
The entertainment industry does not have a "right" to make money from any particular technology.
If they are losing the amount of money that they claim, then the simple answer is to abandon the technologies that are costing them money.
Stop releasing digital content!
Then it can't be pirated.
Restrict all movies to theaters, all music to live performances and low-quality FM broadcasts.
Problem solved.
It's not wireless, for Chrissakes.
It's a series of airborne tubes.
What is wrong with people?
It's inarguable that Maisel wouldn't have /anything/ to work with except for the prior efforts of Davis.
See how that works?
Given all the anti-consumer activity from both Microsoft and Sony lately, I find it hard to understand why anyone would buy anything from either of these companies.
They took it down because it would make people realize how spectacularly un-funny the original Peanuts dialog was.
?The statute of limitations,? he said, ?is three years for copyright infringement.?
What is it for fraud?
Years ago, I knew at least two dozen phone numbers.
Now I would be hard-pressed to recall five.
But I probably know at least two dozen passwords.
Imagine walking into a cafe, browsing someone else?s iTunes library, asking them for one of their albums, and getting it via AirDrop
Isn't this known as "squirting"?
But that's only true if they don't hear what we say, and don't realize that we are talking about ways to make money
Even more to the point: You do not have a fundamental right to make money. If you can't make money from recordings, don't make recordings.
"Someone, somewhere, used the internet to commit a crime!"
"We must outlaw the internet!"
Back in 2002, a guy with a popular blog fought the monster and won.
Curiously, all references to the incident have been scrubbed from the site, but Google remembers all
I love the bank notes that are created by the Bank of Canada (BoC). In fact, I consider myself to be one of their biggest fans. Even though the BoC will try to stop me if I try to make my own copies of their bills, they should really be flattered.
Thank you for your submission.
Call us back when you can make copies gold or oil.
But... when dealing with something like this, where the FBI is sending execution commands to millions of PCs, you have to assume that sooner or later, something bad is going to happen.
Would ... you like ... to play a ... game?
I could swear, "Winklevi" should be spelled "Winklevii"
.
I NYT noticed that you NYT kept using NYT in your NYT post.
How many NYT times do you NYT think you can use NYT on your site before NYT sends you an NYT cease and NYT desist, NYT trademark dilution NYT nastygram?
Re: Re: Re: Feh
I want to restate this for clarity:
There is a distinct parallel between criminalizing a sickness (drug addiction) and criminalizing the fundamental process of the internet (making copies).