Britain sucks!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Khamul Jan 16, 2012 6:58 PM EDT |
Wow, the British sure are a bunch of wusses. America says "jump", they ask "how high?". One of their subjects does something that's completely legal on British soil, while living in Britain, the American government gets mad (because their corporate puppeteers are mad), demands that he be extradited to America for trial, and they go along with it? Losers. (BTW, I'm an American. I'm sick of all these other countries' governments letting our corrupt government do whatever it wants, instead of standing up to it.) |
| BernardSwiss Jan 16, 2012 8:03 PM EDT |
After the Julian Assange farce, you're still surprised? (I say this with full acknowledgement that the Canadian government appears to be, more or less, about as bad (arguably worse)). |
| tracyanne Jan 16, 2012 8:04 PM EDT |
Australia would bend over just as readily for the Yanks, and in fact has already done so. Remember our "Terrorist" David Hicks. It seems we all still bow down to our Emperial masters. |
| helios Jan 16, 2012 8:45 PM EDT |
I'm not quite sure why the Brits haven't taken to the streets over this. |
| tracyanne Jan 16, 2012 8:52 PM EDT |
By and large they aren't aware of it. I chat with a Pom, and he's pretty political, and he wasn't aware of it. |
| jezuch Jan 17, 2012 2:33 AM EDT |
Is this the first recorded case of a former colony taking over a former overlord? |
| jacog Jan 17, 2012 2:44 AM EDT |
"I'm not quite sure why the Brits haven't taken to the streets over this." I think you have sports and politics mixed up there. |
| helios Jan 17, 2012 7:29 AM EDT |
Jacog, either that or they haven't canceled Misfits out of hand. |
| montezuma Jan 17, 2012 7:57 AM EDT |
Jezuch, Not really. Rome took over Greece. |
| cr Jan 17, 2012 8:13 AM EDT |
Quoting: I think you have sports and politics mixed up there.No, that's the US, where it's Red against Blue, both teams made up solely of professionals, and everybody's too caught up in the ploy-by-ploy to realize how long since either team had a point. |
| helios Jan 17, 2012 9:53 AM EDT |
and everybody's too caught up in the ploy-by-ploy to realize how long since either team had a point.
Either numerically or politically. I'm thinking my expatriated friends in Belize and Honduras had the right idea |
| JaseP Jan 17, 2012 10:05 AM EDT |
Except that they have to live in huts, or work (directly or indirectly) for the drug cartels. |
| helios Jan 17, 2012 10:28 AM EDT |
LOL...nope. Retired on combined income of 60K a year and living like kings. Purchased 3800 sq ft 3 story home for 32K with what equals to 1.5 acres. Aussies for neighbors on one side and Brits on the other. They love it there. |
| dinotrac Jan 17, 2012 10:46 AM EDT |
So -- While folks here are speaking in grade-school macho fantasy terms, has anybody stopped to discover what extradition treaties between the countries require? |
| Khamul Jan 17, 2012 12:42 PM EDT |
Quoting:Jezuch, Not really. Rome took over Greece. Exactly. And look what happened to Rome. |
| Koriel Jan 17, 2012 4:23 PM EDT |
The reason their is not much fuss about it is because he is not going anywhere it will be denied on appeal and Im willing to carve that statement in stone and eat it later if im wrong. A district court is not the bee all and end all of British justice their is a long long long way to go and since he hasn't actually committed a crime in the UK the extradition treaty requires that the crime he committed be a crime in both countries. Hell Gary McKinnon has committed a crime in the UK and US and where is he, oh let me see he's still in the UK appealing yet again. Unlike USA the UK still has a reasonable justice system with a lot of checks and balances and the people in general still trust it to do its job, this guy isn't going anywhere near the USA anytime soon. |
| jdixon Jan 17, 2012 5:06 PM EDT |
> ...it will be denied on appeal... Speak as a US citizen, I hope you're correct. We have no business imposing our laws on British citizens. |
| helios Jan 17, 2012 5:38 PM EDT |
That was my first thought JD....that we're just school yard bullies. I mean, if it REALLY meant something, I could see it but this guy has been culled from the herd of which to be made an example. And trust me, his trial will get massive coverage, along with the obligatory "we are losing jobs because of piracy". The easily-predicted flag-waving and so on. I still hope Brits take to the streets over this. The extradition law Blair agreed to busted the frak out of British Sovereignty from my POV. |
| skelband Jan 17, 2012 6:06 PM EDT |
The extradition treaty issue is just one of the latest in a long line of British cow-towing to the US. I remember Maggie and Reagan in the 80s and all the "special relationship" cr@p that was going around back then. The grovelling by successive UK governments where the US is concerned is embarrassing to be honest. (I'm British BTW, less any of my compatriots start flaming me :D ) |
| BernardSwiss Jan 17, 2012 8:21 PM EDT |
The "special relationship" between the USA and Britain (or Canada) was succinctly illustrated in "Love, Actually". I call it "super-power syndrome"; this slow-developing ailment is an especially tricky and deceptive one. The patient generally resists appropriate and effective treatment because the symptoms are readily confused with signs of robust health -- so although it inevitably lead to a distressing and painful, debilitating outcome, the patient is liable to deliberately pursue remedies that actually aggravate the condition... and even boast about such treatments' apparent success. |
| Khamul Jan 18, 2012 1:28 PM EDT |
Quoting:The "special relationship" between the USA and Britain (or Canada) was succinctly illustrated in "Love, Actually". The idea that some British guy can fly to Milwaukee, go into a random bar, and meet 4 utterly gorgeous chicks who all take him to bed is funny, but about as realistic as the movie "Chronicles of Narnia" with sorcerers and fantastical creatures. I'm not sure how this shows any "special relationship". |
| caitlyn Jan 18, 2012 1:29 PM EDT |
I have never understood, and never will understand, why the geek community loved to defend copyright infringement. Another word for copyright infringement is THEFT. The website in question did not commit theft, it merely instructed people how to do it. Oh, and there is such a thing as international copyright so... I have absolutely no problem with this. |
| skelband Jan 18, 2012 1:36 PM EDT |
@caitlyn: "Another word for copyright infringement is THEFT" You are mistaken. Theft and copyright infringement are entirely different things. One is the permanent removal of someone's property to deny them the use and enjoyment of it. The other is duplication without permission which is a civil offence. There are light years of difference between the two, and if you cannot understand this, then there is no help for you, I'm sorry. |
| Khamul Jan 18, 2012 1:41 PM EDT |
No, "copyright infringement" is also known as "copyright infringement". It's not theft. Theft is when you take something that belongs to someone else, depriving them of their use of it. Let's look at a car analogy. Suppose you see a really nice car pull into the parking lot where you're standing. The owner gets out and you say, "say, that's a really nice car. I want it. Will you give it to me?" The owner tells you to take a hike. So you pull out your handheld replication scanner, and make a scan of the car, so you can go home and feed this into your replicator and make an identical car, and you walk away. Is the owner going to call the police and complain that his car was "stolen"? Sorry, no. How about artwork? You go to Paris, and use your handheld replicator on the Mona Lisa (somehow, your scanner isn't bothered by the glass in front of it), and print out a perfect copy of the Mona Lisa on the spot. Even better, you print out a dozen copies and give them to the other museum visitors standing there. The real Mona Lisa is still in the display case. Are the Louvre police going to arrest you for theft? I don't think so. They can't even bug you about copyright infringement because the painting is too old. Personally, as far as I'm concerned, it's entirely moral to infringe copyright for any works that are older than 14 years old. Copyright was never supposed to be extended past what the Founding Fathers first wrote into law. If 14 years was sufficient for a time in which they only had primitive printing presses and communication was by written letter transported by horse or boat, then it's more than sufficient now, and probably too long in fact. There is nothing morally correct about following a bad law. |
| caitlyn Jan 18, 2012 1:46 PM EDT |
There is no help for me? Translation: if you are of a different opinion you are stupid. Yeah, that's what passes for political debate nowadays. Of course it's theft. You are denying someone of their livelihood. Writers, musicians, and other creative people are entitled to earn a living too, you know. What you are stealing is money that belongs to them. Neither the car analogy nor the Mona Lisa analogy fit at all. Khamul, the Founding Fathers also through slavery was acceptable. Many of them were slave owners. What was right in the 18th century isn't always what is right today. As far as I am concerned your morals are faulty in this case, not the law. There is nothing morally correct about theft. Oh, the sense of entitlement... |
| skelband Jan 18, 2012 1:57 PM EDT |
@Khamul: We have already seen this particular issue relating to copyright and physical items. Cory Doctorow I believe has already explored this issue in one of his works. The advent of 3d printers is starting to have an impact on the way copyright is seen in terms of physical items. On the surface, automatic devices for the creation of 3d objects will be able therefore to replicate and will inevitably come up against those that wish to monopolise certain physical items. Artwork, shells for mobile phones, automotive parts, the list is practically endless. I can see a near future in which the Internet is awash with scanned designs produced from existing items for the use of others to replicate using them. It will be massively disruptive to various industries in ways that are not clear even now. The technology could revolutionise the world but I see problematic issues the like of which we have seen with the video and music industries. By this time, with the internet and digital technology that we have, one should have expected to be able to sit down in front of the computer or the TV and literally be able to watch or listen to anything, by subscribing to a convenient service. It hasn't happened and we are not likely to see it for some time. The problems are not technological ones, just the inability of people and companies to adapt to the new opportunities. We will see the same old prejudices and tired old excuses. |
| skelband Jan 18, 2012 2:00 PM EDT |
@caitlyn: "if you are of a different opinion you are stupid." It's not opinion. You are just plain wrong. Theft is defined in law as something very specific, and copyright infringement is defined in law as something entirely different. One is criminal, one is civil. One involves the removal of something, the other doesn't. I agree that both are "illegal" but the issues surrounding copyright are muddied enough without adding emotive language to confuse the issue further. Oh, and by the way, no-one is "entitled" to earn a living. I thought you had a problem with "entitlement" culture anyway? |
| Khamul Jan 18, 2012 2:40 PM EDT |
@caitlyn: So you think it's "theft" to make a copy of the Mona Lisa, because you're denying Leonardo his livelihood? Or what if you make a copy of a 60-year-old book, whose author is still (barely) alive? Is that wrong too? Is he entitled to making money off something he wrote 6 decades ago? You speak of entitlement, but you seem to have a pretty strong entitlement complex yourself. Why don't my landscapers get paid for the next 60 years for pulling weeds out of my lawn today? What makes the author so special that he deserves this? |
| caitlyn Jan 18, 2012 2:43 PM EDT |
I never argued that copyright should be forever. Please don't put words in my mouth. Copyright does have limitations and works do go into the public domain. There are plenty of great books, old movies, old musical recordings, etc... that are in the public domain and rightfully so. Your Mona Lisa argument is a red herring and you know it. Pulling weeds does not create a lasting work or have lasting value. In the example cited in the article new and current creative works were being copies, a basic fact you seem to be ignoring. |
| Khamul Jan 18, 2012 3:11 PM EDT |
Quoting:I never argued that copyright should be forever. Please don't put words in my mouth. Copyright does have limitations and works do go into the public domain. Wrong, in fact that's a blatant lie. Please name the last work to go into the public domain. Copyright is perpetual. You still haven't answered why you think authors are entitled to making money for something decades after they wrote it. |
| caitlyn Jan 18, 2012 3:15 PM EDT |
You have the nerve to call me a liar! The fact that you are COMPLETELY ignorant of the law doesn't make me a liar: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm |
| Khamul Jan 18, 2012 3:18 PM EDT |
You are a liar. Face it. Every time Steamboat Willy gets close to going into the PD, a new copyright extension comes out. This is so far away from the original copyright terms, which were "limited" (as written in the Constitution) that it's a farce. |
| JaseP Jan 18, 2012 3:19 PM EDT |
Uhm,... Look here: http://www.feedbooks.com/books/recent One notable recent public domain work is "The Great Gatsby." |
| skelband Jan 18, 2012 3:27 PM EDT |
Calm down guys, please! Let's not let this get personal. Copyright does indeed have a limit after which works enter the public domain. We did recently have an issue where copyright was proposed to be extended and we had the thorny issue of works entering the public domain and re-entering copyright again. The issue of copyright length extension is a big problem that needs to be addressed. In my opinion, it is way too long as it is and should be much shorter, but that is just my opinion. |
| caitlyn Jan 18, 2012 3:39 PM EDT |
Khamul, I expected an apology, not a repeated slur. For the benefit of everyone else except the idiot who keeps calling me a liar... do you know why there are so many printed editions of the works of H.G. Wells and Jules Verne? Why you can freely download e-books of their works? Yep, copyright has expired. Ditto for Mark Twain and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Jack London. There used to be no limit on sound recordings, but that has also been changed. Yes, I realize 2067 is a long way off but at least there is no longer such a thing as perpetual copyright in the U.S. There are also old movies and TV programs that are very much in the public domain now. I believe that if anyone creates something, whether it's physical or intellectual, they own it and can do with it as they please. This is why I don't support RMS and the FSF. I don't see proprietary software as immoral and I believe those who write the code and/or their employers should decide what to do with it. The choice to release as FOSS or proprietary is a freedom the FSF would take away. The fact that I now choose to release my code under a license they approve of is MY decision, not theirs. The same applies to books, music and films. I don't lose ownership of my property as I get older and I can bequeath it to my heirs. That's as it should be. There is a recognition in the law that intellectual property is somewhat different and that is why there are and should be copyright limitations. How long they should be is the fair subject of debate but I tend to favor longer rather than shorter. |
| JaseP Jan 18, 2012 3:45 PM EDT |
Just an FYI,... In the case of "Steamboat Willie," you also have to consider Trademark... And I am next to certain that the Walt Disney Co. has trademarked all it's cartoon characters. On the other hand, they don't hold copyright on the (original) classic fairy tales that some of their popular works are based... |
| Khamul Jan 18, 2012 3:53 PM EDT |
Wells and Verne were before Steamboat Willy, [editor: removed for TOS violation] |
| caitlyn Jan 18, 2012 4:13 PM EDT |
Well, perhaps if you apologized for calling me a liar then I wouldn't insult you. I've proven you were wrong by linking the relevant laws. |
| skelband Jan 18, 2012 4:30 PM EDT |
I have some measure of agreement with you caitlyn, but I have to say that there are some serious issues with intellectual property as a concept. Once an idea has been released to the ether, it's replication involves practically no effort or energy these days. Trying to ring-fence something that is purely intellectual is an exercise in futility. It's like trying to catch smoke. It's why we have to have laws to make it work as a concept and also why most people take the law with a pinch of salt. It's also the main reason why the big media companies have such a hard time grappling with the issue. They really don't seem to understand what motivates people to buy things. Most often, copyright and the law has nothing to do with it. What motivates people to buy intellectual goods is either convenience or loyalty, or both. You can see from this where the media companies go wrong. Convenience: DRM makes it harder to consume the property in the way that is most convenient (such as the device of your choice). Platform restrictions also make the good less convenient. They want to stream media from a source which offers choice. This is why Netflix is so successful. It is convenient and affordable, but most important of all it is convenient. Loyalty: If you treat your customers as potential criminals all the time, you lose any kind of brand loyalty. If you go to a rock concert, look at the merchandise stalls and see the amount of money thrown down by fans for t-shirts, CDs, DVDs. Couldn't they just print their own t-shirt, or burn their own CD from a rip? No, they have paid for tickets to see a great show by a band they like and they want to buy their stuff. They key to selling stuff to people is getting to want to buy it from you. The big distraction in all of this is people getting stuff for nothing. That is where the perverse nature of the freeloader argument comes from. What people should be focussed on is how to get people to want to buy your product, not how to stop people getting it for nothing. For the most part, cost is the least important issue for most people that want things. |
| number6x Jan 18, 2012 4:39 PM EDT |
I think everyone here agrees that intellectual property law has gotten out of hand and does more harm than good. If current laws were in effect when Roy and Walt made Steamboat Willie, there would probably not be a Disney company around to donate to so many senator's campaign funds. Remember that Steamboat Willie is a parody of a very popular and successful movie of its day and age, Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill Jr. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0019421/ Although parody is allowed under copyright law it would be much more unlikely for Steamboat Willie to be made today with the current interpretations of the law. There would be lawsuits dooming Walt and Roy's fledgling animation company to never becoming a large corporation. The original versions of Mickey would probably be found to infringe the trademarked style of mice from dozens of other studios who already had mouse characters. If somehow Walt and Roy were to survive the lawsuits from their release of Steamboat Willie, they would probably have a hard time coming up with ideas for movies. Little Mermaid would not be public domain and the same for hunchback of Noter Dame. They would probably get Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty. I still don't understand how Disney ever got away with the Lion King without getting sued. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimba_the_White_Lion |
| tracyanne Jan 18, 2012 5:54 PM EDT |
I forgot about this until today. Australia has already caved and bent over to pick upt the soap for the US, and they did it for the same reasons Britian is likely to. http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/6279323/Adv... Quoting:A convicted Australian file sharer is viewing events in Britain with a sense of foreboding. |
| dinotrac Jan 18, 2012 7:44 PM EDT |
Quoting:Theft and copyright infringement are entirely different things. No, they are not, not entirely. Eating dinner and theft are two different things. Eat dinner at a restaurant and leave without paying for it, you've got theft. Ditto for getting your hair cut and dashing without paying the barber. Or getting a masage. Etc. Infringe a copyright, and you have stolen the copyright holder's right to be compensated for each copy of the work. Might not be worth much, and you might not be willing to pay the price demanded, but...it's worth something. If it were worth nothing, you wouldn't go to the trouble of copying it. |
| tracyanne Jan 18, 2012 8:55 PM EDT |
Thankfully I getto watch as many movies as I like every month, for free. No I don't download "pirated" movies. I, like several hundred people I know of, many personally, get all our movies from a free lending library, same goes for books, and music. Mind you, if I couldn't get them free, most of them i wouldn't bother with. |
| gus3 Jan 18, 2012 9:11 PM EDT |
dinotrac wrote:If it were worth nothing, you wouldn't go to the trouble of copying it.Unless curiosity is the motivation. Until the curiosity is satisfied, worth is an unknown. |
| dinotrac Jan 18, 2012 9:54 PM EDT |
@gus3 -- There is a value in satisfying your curiosity. If there weren't, you wouldn't bother. |
| gus3 Jan 18, 2012 10:00 PM EDT |
Sorry, dino, but I have to disagree. I have a Bill Murray movie, that was a waste of money to buy, and time to watch. That's an hour and 45 minutes of my life that I'll never get back. A friend of mine just got back from overseas. She visited a place where the sanitation rules are much more relaxed than the standards in the USA. She found herself planning every excursion around when and where she would be able to use a restroom. This trip cost her almost five figures in US currency and 24 days of her life, but she'll never get that money back, and by her own admission she has no good stories to tell. Curiosity satisfied in both cases, but it wasn't worth it in either case. |
| jdixon Jan 18, 2012 10:10 PM EDT |
> Copyright does have limitations and works do go into the public domain. Yes, it does. And in the US that's however long Disney says it is. > I still don't understand how Disney ever got away with the Lion King without getting sued. Neither do I. |
| skelband Jan 19, 2012 2:17 AM EDT |
@dinotrac: "Eating dinner and theft are two different things." Sorry, what? So you took the dinner without permission. The original dinner is gone. The Restaurant owner is down one dinner that he wasn't paid for. Something tangible was taken that the restaurant now does not have. With a service like a haircut, there is a contract between the two parties that for the service rendered, payment will be made. This is reasonable in my view. How about I take a picture of said dinner, go away and make my own. Well I *could* have gone into the restaurant and ordered my lunch there, so perhaps I should pay the restauranteur for the lost dinner "opportunity", it's only fair right? Instead, I made my own. I copied his dinner. Perhaps we should have a law that says if you make a meal according to a recipe made by a famous chef, everyone that makes it should pay the chef for the privilege. If you take the idea of copyright out of the traditional areas in which we are used to seeing them, they seem bizarre to the point of perversion. We've all been brainwashed into accepting what has been true for so long so that we don't even question it. It doesn't seem strange that someone can do an afternoon's work and be continually paid for that same afternoon's effort for 60 years or so by law. Sorry, that seems just so wrong to me. |
| tuxchick Jan 19, 2012 3:18 AM EDT |
Quoting: Infringe a copyright, and you have stolen the copyright holder's right to be compensated for each copy of the work. Might not be worth much, and you might not be willing to pay the price demanded, but...it's worth something. If it were worth nothing, you wouldn't go to the trouble of copying it. Exactly, and this is where the 'copyright infringement is not theft' idea goes wrong. Of course it's theft when someone possesses a copy of something they have no right to take. It doesn't matter how many infinite copies are available; the original creator loses income. What this really says is all copyrights should be invalid, and that includes copyleft and FOSS licenses, and that freeloaders are entitled to stuff for free just because they want it. It says that thieving is OK when it's easy to get away with it. The MAFIAA are right that effortless digital copying and distribution are game-changers. I don't see much difference between their loathesome tactics and the belief that freeloading is OK. Both share the same exploitive mindset-- that ripping off creators is acceptable. Skelband is partly right-- "What people should be focussed on is how to get people to want to buy your product, not how to stop people getting it for nothing." That doesn't work with hardcore freeloaders, and what do you do when freeloading becomes the dominant ethos? The debate over how to make these new technologies work for everyone goes nowhere as long as creative artists are shat upon by both the industry bigwigs and their so-called customers. This is a revealing comment: "It doesn't seem strange that someone can do an afternoon's work and be continually paid for that same afternoon's effort for 60 years or so by law." I agree that something like 14 years is more reasonable. I object strenuously to the 'afternoon's work' canard. Thanks a lot, yeah we just let our magic fairies lose while we get pedicures and drink mojitos. Nope, no effort, no talent, no education required. To heck with whatever it is you do too, I'm sure it's just as trivial and unworthy of a paycheck. |
| tuxchick Jan 19, 2012 3:26 AM EDT |
gus3, curiosity was satisfied in both of your examples. Mission accomplished. |
| tracyanne Jan 19, 2012 3:28 AM EDT |
By the definitions going on here, the original owner loses income everytime I watch a Movie or read a book or listen to a Music CD. Why because I don't buy them... but I don't download them (as in "pirate") them either. I get them for free from a free lending library, or from a second hand store (well technically I buy those). One thing that's certain they are not new sales, and neither the artist nor the MPAA members get anything. Did I steal anything? They are certainly lost sales. Mind you if I couldn't buy them so cheap, or watch them for free, I might not bother. |
| tuxchick Jan 19, 2012 3:42 AM EDT |
One more thought-- how the heck much is enough? The world is awash in legitimate free and inexpensive arts, entertainment, education, and knowledge. TV, radio, internet TV and radio, photography, art work, Pandora, Sirius, public libraries, advertiser-supported wares, second-hand shops, independent artists and publishers, the whole world of FOSS, and on and on...what on earth more do you want? Delivered by a liveried butler on a silver platter with a magnum of Dom Perignon and a gourmet breakfast? God's teeth, peeps, there are more free/cheap goodies delivered right into our laps than ever in the history of humanity and it's still not good enough. Copyright law and the antics in the article are completely nuts. But I'm not hearing very many people speaking up in support of creators-- it's all about me me me I want it all for free. A pox on both houses. |
| tracyanne Jan 19, 2012 4:24 AM EDT |
Why one game developer is skipping E3 to start an anti-SOPA crusade http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2012/01/why-one-game-deve... Quoting:I mean, have you ever rented a movie? What do you see? What's your experience when you pop in a DVD or a Blu-Ray? You get a ton of ads up front. It takes you forever to get to the movie. You get advertising in the menus, now. The interface is horrible. I mean, compare that to someone who just downloads a movie from the internet where they have no ads, no BS in front of it, and they just watch the movie! That's what the movie industry should be doing. They should be offering better features and better service to their customers, to really make the case against why you don't want to pirate them. |
| tracyanne Jan 19, 2012 4:43 AM EDT |
Perhaps Carla I can speak on behalf of 2 creators. My son, who is selling his band's music on the internet in the form of DRM free digital downloads. While it's true he's not an American, he's a Kiwi, he disagrees with SOPA and PIPA, and believes that such dracoian legislation may well have detrimental affects on his ability to sell his product internationally... or at least in the US. And myself.. I think it's pretty clear where i stand, on the subject of PIPA and SOPA but I hope to make sales of the music I'm curretly writing and recording, adn I don't want something like SOPA or PIPA making it difficult for me to reach a larger audience. Personally I want to see if I can find more innovative ways to make sales, methods that use the dynamic of the internet. Where do I stand on "piracy" of my music? Personally I would consider it a great compliment that it was considered popular enough that people would go to the trouble of "pirating" it, because if it was that popular then I would be doing very well financially indeed. See also this http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet-reg... |
| helios Jan 19, 2012 4:55 AM EDT |
While there are "free" alternatives to entertainment, ie; television and movies, there are conventional television shows I like. Not many and not often, but enough to garner my attention. Look, I, along with many other people work 12 to 14 hour days. I rarely find myself parked in front of the TV when the things I want to watch are on and I don't have access to DVR. So, yes, I am a visitor to one of those "rogue" websites that stream recently-aired TV programs. If they are so concerned about these television shows being "pirated", then they should offer them as a pay for play option a day or two after they originally air. I would gladly pay 1.50 to watch Supernatural at 3 in the morning when I cannot sleep or at 10 PM when I get home and have eaten dinner. But no, doing so would interfere with their DVD sales at the end of the season. So I have no guilt over watching a few tv shows offshore. I don't download or share them, I simply consume them commercial-free and go on about my business. If the **aa's would update their business models, it might work wonders for their bottom line. |
| jacog Jan 19, 2012 5:00 AM EDT |
While I think copyright holders are going through some daft and overblown measures to try and curb piracy, mostly to the determent of the customers who do pay, I think most people who actively pirate and defend it are just cheap freeloaders. Common arguments/excuses: "This stuff is rubbish, I wouldn't pay for it anyway" - It's the worst one, because if it's so bad, why watch it at all? "They have too much money already!" - This is equally silly. Yeah, big Hollywood studios/software publishers might. But you find these same people quite happy to pirate small independent productions. "It's not theft, they don't lose a sale." (not referring people who buy second hand / borrow) - Yeah, and the captain of the Costa Concordia "slipped and fell into a lifeboat". That said, I wish movie/music/software/book publishers would just give it up. All their attempts at introducing draconian laws and manipulating the system so that they can rule with an iron fist are only hurting legitimate consumers. So in summary: Content publishers and their stupid "anti-piracy" measures: Slap on the head for you! People who happily freeload and see no value in the things they consume for free: Slap on the head for you! Homey the clown is coming for you! |
| gus3 Jan 19, 2012 8:13 AM EDT |
Suing because a web site "might be facilitating piracy" is like the estate of Georg Friederich Handel suing because the first four notes of "Yes, We Have No Bananas" might have been swiped from the Hallelujah Chorus. And if you don't believe me, remember that the SCO suit was based on about as much "evidence." There are monied interests who would shut down Linux using these tools, if they could. Heck, why stop at Linux, when they could choke off the entire Internet? |
| helios Jan 19, 2012 9:52 AM EDT |
I think what is getting lost in all of this is that the US Congress is willing to hand over such immense power to the entertainment industry. I'm not much of a historian, but I'd be willing to bet that there are not many examples in recent history where a non governmental entity was given so much power over a governed population. |
| jacog Jan 19, 2012 9:52 AM EDT |
My biggest SOPA/PIPA fear is nutters like Rupert Murdoch who believe that search engines are infringing copyright because they index site content. |
| helios Jan 19, 2012 10:01 AM EDT |
Word |
| JaseP Jan 19, 2012 10:07 AM EDT |
I gotta agree with Dino on this thing... There is value in that lousy Bill Murray movie,... Maybe not to you, but to someone else. And that's the whole point of a monetary exchange system. The reason we have currency, is because people value different things differently. The monetary system evens out the bumps. It also allows for a delay in the exchange, the ability to speculate and invest in endeavors of others, without direct contribution, etc. Otherwise, we would simply exchange goods and services, in a barter culture. We would also be hard pressed to get ourselves out of the stone age (or maybe bronze age). Just because you get buyer's remorse, doesn't mean there wasn't a value exchanged. Plus, we have a legal system available to reverse the transaction, if you feel strongly enough that you were cheated, it's worth your trouble, and you can convince others (a court and/or a jury) that your position is reasonable and worthy of action. A bigger threat than this (ridiculous) extradition, is the recent US Supreme Court decision, allowing Congress to re-copyright previously public domain works... I better hold onto my public domain copies of HG Wells's "The Shape of Things to Come," or I may not be able to get another. While I understand a balancing test between treaties and public rights, I don't agree with this decision. It smacks of a law in ex post facto. And it's a smack that leaves a nasty mark. |
| JaseP Jan 19, 2012 10:40 AM EDT |
Oh,... and do not confuse my post above as me being, in any way whatsoever, in support of SOPA or Protect IP. There are better ways to enforce copyright than to limit free expression, and break a working infrastructure system. And, there are less draconian measures than ridiculous statutory damages and pursuing illegal content consumers as if they were traffickers. And those, let alone limit free speech and illegalize a method of permitting interoperability or content shifting (i.e.: multimedia servers with legally purchased media content for private consumption), which, to me is to permit the public to be virtual hostages to content providers. The content providers definitely need to update their business models to meet the current technology, and the ease of duplication. They expect to charge DVD prices for online movies, where the value has been decreased by the ease of creating a virtually unlimited supply. The law of supply and demand demands a lower price point. A better, and yet ironically historic, model would be to use patrons to fund the production and give compensation. Instead of using Kings, Lords, etc. as patrons, it would be advertisers, like Coca-Cola, McDonalds, GE, Toyota, etc. You would make copies available for a low cost ($1 to $2, or less), but begin each copy with a sponsorship statement, include an intermission highlighting it (after all, at home, everyone uses the pause button to get up and take care of natural functions), and keep it well enough embedded into the content that it is more convenient to leave it in then to remove it. Plus, you also have the practice of ubiquitous product placement within the media content. |
| dinotrac Jan 19, 2012 10:40 AM EDT |
@JaseP -- Yup. Makes me scratch my head. How can PD suddenly be not PD? Haven't read the decision yet, so maybe there are some limitations -- like the ability to copyright a specific presentation or form, but....jeez. As to all the rest, many of the posters here are doing exactly what the entertainment industry wants them to do: allowing the legitimacy of getting paid for the work you do and the value you create to get tangled up in the issue of oppressive and rights-trampling enforcement. The real issue is not whether Hollywood has a right to get paid. It's whether their right trumps our rights. Nobody has a carte blanche to make money no matter what they do. We don't allow people to make money by shooting human targets with live ammunition. If Hollywood can't make money from digital materials without trampling the collective individual rights of the population, then maybe they should be looking for another way to make money. |
| dinotrac Jan 19, 2012 10:44 AM EDT |
@JaseP -- One of the ironies is that the whole idea of copyright was to make materials available to the public. Not only do they go to the public domain when the copyrights expire (though that is starting to look like it will never again happen), it provided a mechanism by which content creators could get paid a copy at a time, allowing them to get paid by and their works disseminated to the public. |
| jdixon Jan 19, 2012 11:14 AM EDT |
> If Hollywood can't make money from digital materials without trampling the collective individual rights of the population, then maybe they should be looking for another way to make money. There you go being reasonable again, Dino. :) The problem is that the collective individual rights of the population don't suit the desires of the politicians currently in office. The "rights" of Hollywood to make money do, for the reasons I noted above. Barring a massive change in their attitudes (there are admittedly some faint signs this may be happening), I don't see the situation improving any time soon. In the meantime, I simply boycott the "entertainment" industry to the greatest extent possible. With a few notable exceptions I don't watch television anymore, I don't go to the movies, and I don't buy new CD's/DVD's. I do listen to the radio, but that's only when I'm in my car, and a good chunk of that time it's some type of commentary or sports. Hollywood isn't making much money from me. In fact, given their spending to try to convince me to buy their products, I'm probably a net loss. |
| skelband Jan 19, 2012 12:43 PM EDT |
@tuxchick: "To heck with whatever it is you do too, I'm sure it's just as trivial and unworthy of a paycheck." Heh, what I do is valuable but I only expect to get paid for it once. |
| skelband Jan 19, 2012 12:51 PM EDT |
These discussions about copyright always end up the same: I don't know why we keep baiting each other :D And where's Bob anyway? He usually has something to say on the subject. |
| dinotrac Jan 19, 2012 3:59 PM EDT |
@skelband - Ahhh,....NOW I get it! It seems, isn't that you object to creators getting paid for their work. You just to hate that ordinary people might be able to see/read/listen to it! Or so it would seem from your argument, because, frankly, if creators were always to be paid "just once" for their work, most of us couldn't afford it. I know I can't come up with the millions to make a mainstream movie. I certainly can't pay a talented author enough to write a book for me. It's not that you're anti-property, it's that you're just opposed to non-wealthy people having access to culture. Very different thing. |
| skelband Jan 19, 2012 4:30 PM EDT |
You might say the same about any company that makes money from open source software. Red Hat is the proof that you don't need company secrets or copyright to build a business. The difference is that people pay Red Hat for their time and their expertise on a one-to-one basis. I'm not anti-property. I'm not against people making money. I'm not against people getting paid multiple times for the same thing if people want to do this. I object to the very concept of a law enshrining this with legal penalties. As I said before, people pay for stuff because they want to, not because they have to by law. Those that don't, couldn't give a rat's arse about the law. Those that do, pay because they perceive a benefit to doing so. The only remaining issue is that of, "how do I know if the person/company I'm buying I'm buying this good from is who I think it is?" Trademark law was created for just this purpose and is a very necessary and legitimate piece of law. Our local cinema recently opened a new VIP lounge. The seats are expensive, but it is posh and you can pick the seat you want, and they don't have any problems getting people in. If piracy was such a big problem, why are cinemas seeing such a big resurgance? |
| dinotrac Jan 19, 2012 5:03 PM EDT |
@skelband - You are just plain wrong. There are many different kinds of acts defined as theft, from burglarizing homes to embezzling pensions, to walking out without paying the barber who cut your hair. |
| tracyanne Jan 19, 2012 5:05 PM EDT |
Quoting:Red Hat is the proof that you don't need company secrets or copyright to build a business. Red Hat's Business is built around copyright. The GPL is solidly based on the principle of copyright. |
| dinotrac Jan 19, 2012 5:06 PM EDT |
@skelband 1-Quoting:Heh, what I do is valuable but I only expect to get paid for it once. @skelband 2 - Quoting:I'm not against people getting paid multiple times for the same thing if people want to do this. It's pretty easy to argue when you don't care what you say. |
| tracyanne Jan 19, 2012 5:16 PM EDT |
what helios said.Quoting:I think what is getting lost in all of this is that the US Congress is willing to hand over such immense power to the entertainment industry. This is what everyone is losing sight of, here. It's not the dubious ethics of "piracy", or wether content creators deserve to paid, that matter right now. The real question is wether a small group of corporations/people should be given so much power. Everything else, wether filesharing ("piracy") is unethical/theft/something far worse is irrelevent, wether content creator deserver to be paid is irrelevent. What we need to be concentrating on is wether it's even remotely reasonable to cede that much power to a group that probably should not have that much power, in the first place, and who are certainly going to abuse that power in the second place. |
| dinotrac Jan 19, 2012 5:44 PM EDT |
@ta - Yeah. In fact it is a point of consternation. The people arguing against the legitimacy of copyright only strengthen the position of those who want to trample all over us. |
| skelband Jan 19, 2012 5:59 PM EDT |
@dinotrac: "The people arguing against the legitimacy of copyright only strengthen the position of those who want to trample all over us." In what way? |
| gus3 Jan 19, 2012 6:09 PM EDT |
"The legitimacy of copyright" is not the same as "copyright as she is currently spoke." The latter has bastardized the former, to the point of rendering it useless, onerous, and pointless. |
| skelband Jan 19, 2012 6:16 PM EDT |
@dinotrac: "You are just plain wrong." I don't understand your opinion on this. I thought you had some legal background. Perhaps you can update me on this as I do not. The distinction is pretty clear in law I think. For theft, you have to remove something that leaves the original owner without it, or without the use of it. For copyright infringement, you are (among other things) restricted from replicating something that another has a monopoly over. Money has actually got very little to do with it in terms of what the law states. It just happens to be the most salient point as far as most copyright holders are concerned. As such, it is a regressive piece of legislation that discourages the dissemination of culture. There are many other ways in which art and culture can be sponsored. Kickstarter, for one. I contribute to projects that I appreciate on there. I am one of many sponsors of the Blender Foundation's latest project, Project Mango by preordering their DVD. The problem with rejecting copyright is that society has become so dependent on it as a mechanism, we just can't envisage a social order without it. Copyright promotes lazy and unimaginative thinking in terms of the way people promote themselves and engage with their "customers". Instead of seeking sponsorship from people to fund their work, we have this make it, then force everyone to buy it with the threat of law idea through middlemen. The fact that the middlemen media companies think that they are having a hard time of it (and I don't believe a word of it) is that they don't have a relationship with their customers, no brand loyalty, no added value. So we get them trying to push through these atrocious laws because they know no better. |
| caitlyn Jan 20, 2012 12:34 AM EDT |
Quoting:Exactly, and this is where the 'copyright infringement is not theft' idea goes wrong. Of course it's theft when someone possesses a copy of something they have no right to take. It doesn't matter how many infinite copies are available; the original creator loses income. What this really says is all copyrights should be invalid, and that includes copyleft and FOSS licenses, and that freeloaders are entitled to stuff for free just because they want it. It says that thieving is OK when it's easy to get away with it.Thank you, Carla! At least someone else sees that content stealing, which is what piracy is, amounts to theft. The problem with SOPA and PIPA is not that they target internet pirates. I have no problem with that. The issue is that they give media companies the ability to block access to sites with no due process and no recourse. It's a huge power grab and Congress should never in a million years even have considered it. What happened today with Megaupload shows clearly that we don't need new laws to stop pirating and that the laws we have are scary enough if applied too broadly. |
| JaseP Jan 20, 2012 10:16 AM EDT |
@ caitlyn: Bingo!!! You hit the nail right on the head. If the DoJ & their FBI lap dogs can seize MegaUpload's domain, and issue indictments against foreign nationals under existing law, we certainly need no new ones. Although, in the other thread on the board dealing with this similar topic, I said that the delays on SOPA & Protect IP introduce the opportunity to inject into the legislation, some protections that WE want,... Like permanent DMCA exceptions, damage limitations, patent enforcement exceptions, etc. But, the biggest downside to this recent turn of events is three fold; 1) The USA is reaching it's big, long, "ugly American" hand across the seas again, 2) This action serves as a spit in the face of the SOPA protesters & 3) Anonymous has butted into the whole thing, attacking the DoJ's, White House's and Universal Media Group's websites, which is sure to cost the SOPA protests a little goodwill with the "law and order" types. So it may be time to politely remind the Anonymous folks that their attention was appreciated, but that the rest of us "have this" now,...and they can lay off. |
| caitlyn Jan 20, 2012 12:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:I think what is getting lost in all of this is that the US Congress is willing to hand over such immense power to the entertainment industry. I'm not much of a historian, but I'd be willing to bet that there are not many examples in recent history where a non governmental entity was given so much power over a governed population. Well said. Thanks, Ken, for hitting the nail so squarely on the head. In addition, as I said in my last comment, if you read SOPA and PIPA, there is no recourse and no due process. Someone accused of piracy would have fewer rights than accused murderers. That, in a nutshell, is why I am so very opposed to SOPA and PIPA. It isn't that Congress can't or shouldn't legislate to create effective law enforcement against piracy. SOPA and PIPA, as many articles have shown, will never be effective from a technical standpoint and the assault on civil rights and civil liberties in unprecedented. Quoting:By the definitions going on here, the original owner loses income everytime I watch a Movie or read a book or listen to a Music CD. Why because I don't buy them... but I don't download them (as in "pirate") them either. Those are legal activities defined as fair use under current law, as they should be. Surely, tracyanne, you can see the difference between that and copying for mass distribution. Quoting:If the DoJ & their FBI lap dogs can seize MegaUpload's domain, and issue indictments against foreign nationals under existing law, we certainly need no new ones I'm not losing any sleep over MegaUpload. They stupidly chose to have servers hosting large quantities of pirated material in the United States. They handed the DoJ and the FBI their case on a silver platter. The overseas enforcement is no different from any other international law enforcement cooperation. If those same servers were in Hong Kong the most DoJ and the FBI could have done was seize the domain name, as they did with kickasstorrents.com. They are still around, as kat.ph, much to the chagrin of the entertainment industry. With servers overseas U.S. law enforcement lacked the jurisdiction to really go after them. I'm sorry, there is no defense against stupidity. I've seen two lines of defense on MegaUpload. The first is that they hosted legal content. Of course they did. Nobody in their right mind would claim otherwise. They also hosted huge amounts of illegal content. The second is that we somehow have a "right to share". Sure we do, if the material is released under a Creative Commons or similar license or is in the public domain. We don't have any right to massively distribute copyrighted works, which is what MegaUpload and similar sites do. Quoting:The USA is reaching it's big, long, "ugly American" hand across the seas again, In precisely the same way any country can do when a foreign national violates their laws on their soil and then goes to another country. Perceptions and opinions voiced in the foreign press can't be a primary concern here. Quoting:This action serves as a spit in the face of the SOPA protesters While helping the anti-SOPA cause. The Obama administration has claimed that SOPA and PIPA are unnecessary because current law is more than adequate. They've now demonstrated that in a very real way and have given the opponents on Capitol Hill all the ammunition they need. Quoting:Anonymous has butted into the whole thing, attacking the DoJ's, White House's and Universal Media Group's websites, which is sure to cost the SOPA protests a little goodwill with the "law and order" types. Not just "law and order" types. Anonymous is generally seen in a very negative light in this country. Of course, one could argue that corporate media have the same interests as the MPAA and the RIAA and that, of course, is true. They still help shape mass public opinion. Quoting:So it may be time to politely remind the Anonymous folks that their attention was appreciated, but that the rest of us "have this" now,...and they can lay off. I completely agree, JaseP, but somehow I don't see that happening. Like I said before, skelband's argument that copyright is too long is a legitimate issue open for debate. If there was some sort of grassroots movement to change the law I'd certainly consider supporting it if it was reasonable. Changing the law through public discourse and the legislative process is part of living in a fee country. Ignoring the law and doing whatever the heck you want is not. |
| skelband Jan 20, 2012 12:53 PM EDT |
@caitlyn: "Ignoring the law and doing whatever the heck you want is not." Large-scale law breaking is usually a good sign that there is not wide support for a law and it should be reviewed. Like cannabis and pornography laws, if there is not grassroots support for it, then it is doomed to failure. We are governed by consent after all, or at least that is how it is supposed to work. Of course it is complicated by the general dislike for the *length* of copyright and I suspect that a lot of people that like copyright as a concept are uneasy about that part of it. It is interesting that I saw a reference to the Megaupload case in the papers this morning that stated that there was support from a large number of content providers for the site, but I don't know any more than that. Anyone have any links about that? |
| JaseP Jan 20, 2012 1:01 PM EDT |
@caitlyn: Don't confuse the DoJ acting on a legal basis with the political nature of this prosecution. It's a question of timing. It sends a deep, loud, and stinging message to people concerned with the Gov't acting as the "Gestapo" for the xxAAs to bring down these indictments THE DAY AFTER the SOPA protests. This is the only reason that I feel Anonymous may have a political point. The only problem with sympathizing with them is that they've used so many illegal methods to get their point across. But don't fool yourself, Anonymous is gaining sympathetic support among the more radical elements of the rights advocate set. And some political school's of thought hold out that at a certain point, a people's only means of taking back control from a tyranical gov't is to rise up with illegal action, as a form of self defense of their liberties. I'm not convinced we are there yet, as a society,... but it certainly seems like we're heading down that slippery slope. Don't forget that it was acts that could be considered illegal and the reprisals from them that sparked the American Revolution (Boston Tea Party, etc.). The Declaration of Independence aludes to "Certain Inalienable Rights," which include a people's right of self defense against an unlawful gov't. The "inalienable" part means that nobody, not even a court of law, can take them away. Because, at the most fundamental level, the people can always rise up violently and take back that which was taken from them, or at least make their despot "masters" pay in kind, no matter the system which took the rights away. Some folks believe we're there already (I am not one of them). |
| skelband Jan 20, 2012 1:23 PM EDT |
@JaseP: There is something frighteningly familiar in what you say. I won't say any more for fear of a TOS violation :D |
| Fettoosh Jan 20, 2012 1:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:There is something frighteningly familiar in what you say. I do watch and keep up with the latest news including from international sources, the pot is pretty close to boiling. |
| caitlyn Jan 20, 2012 2:56 PM EDT |
Comparing anything the American government does with the Gestapo is incredibly offensive to me as the daughter of two Holocaust survivors. If and when the U.S. government engages in genocide then you'll have a point with your comparison to the Nazis. Not before. Oh, and regarding radicals, I have as much use for them as I do for Anonymous. The American people are not ready for a revolution over much bigger issues (i.e. economic inequality or the corrupting influence of big money in politics) so they certainly are not going to revolt over a website being pulled down. |
| jdixon Jan 20, 2012 5:12 PM EDT |
> If and when the U.S. government engages in genocide then you'll have a point with your comparison to the Nazis. Not before. Not to make light of the point, Caitlyn, but it could be argued that they already have with respect the the American Indian tribes. That's old history at this point, but... Our government is not inherently any more virtuous than any other. It was it's limited powers and the checks and balances on those powers which made it what it was. |
| tracyanne Jan 20, 2012 5:18 PM EDT |
caitlyn. Quoting:Those are legal activities defined as fair use under current law, as they should be. Surely, tracyanne, you can see the difference between that and copying for mass distribution. I was mearly pointing out there are lots of legal ways in which creators don't get paid. I suspect the MPAA and RIAA don't like those either. The other reason for posting that is to demonstrate one of the reasons why "piracy" is not the debilitating drain on income the corporates would have us believe. There are probably more of the box office failures included in free lending libraries and other legal medium sharing/trading methods (every town and city I've been to has shops selling/trading such copyrighted materia, and then people share with friends, and I suspect the same would apply in the US), given that "piracy" tends to only be of the box office hits. see http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet-reg... PLEASE NOTE. This is in no way an attempt to excuse "piracy", just an attempt to point out that piracy is unlikely to have any more significant impact on the corporate bottom line than the legal ways in which they don't get paid. In other words my opinion is (with appologies) "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." |
| tracyanne Jan 20, 2012 5:28 PM EDT |
Quoting:Comparing anything the American government does with the Gestapo is incredibly offensive to me as the daughter of two Holocaust survivors. I'm sorry, I don't buy the I might insult a survivor of abc or xyz, and therefore can't point out that the precursors to something similar might be going on right now, thing. He who ignores (or in this case can't, for fear of insulting someone, draw the parrallels) history, is doomed to repeat it. |
| caitlyn Jan 20, 2012 5:33 PM EDT |
Yes, tracyanne, you can be as insulting and insensitive as you want. The idea that anything the U.S. government is doing parallels Nazi Germany at this point is ridiculous to the point of insanity. |
| dinotrac Jan 20, 2012 5:36 PM EDT |
@caitlyn -- Shame on you. America-hatred exercised at every opportunity is the 21st century way to prove how intellectual you are without having to waste time thinking about it. |
| skelband Jan 20, 2012 5:42 PM EDT |
@caitlyn: The Nazis did an awful lot more than kill Jews. They burned books. They suppressed dissension using laws that they created to support their distorted vision. They lived the life of Reilly while others starved. They told people what they had to believe and what they must never utter. Kind of like religion really. You might find the comparison offensive, but a part of it is valid. Few in Germany saw what was coming before it was too late, but the signs were there for anyone that cared to look. On the other point about revolution. I agree with you at one level. However, there are a number of different issues that are riling the American people all at the same time. Draconian laws, "terrorist" legislation used for anything *but* terrorism, jail without trial, economic disaster which the government seems powerless to do anything about, copyright-themed disasters the like of which we have seen recently, scandals involving politicians, corruption at a level that beggars belief. Personally, I don't think the American people en masse would stomach revolution at the moment, but the tension is ratcheting up month by month. Consider this: the "Occupy" movement was a significant fly in the ointment of many politicians, but those demonstrations where led by those more eager than most to do something real to make a difference. For each one of them, there are thousands of others just as angry, but sitting in their armchairs not ready to make that kind of commitment....yet. You only need a small groundswell to the tipping point and you get what happened in Egypt and Libya. They just had less to lose. |
| tracyanne Jan 20, 2012 5:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:Yes, tracyanne, you can be as insulting and insensitive as you want. The idea that anything the U.S. government is doing parallels Nazi Germany at this point is ridiculous to the point of insanity. To discuss why you are wrong would definately breach the terms of use on this board. But lets get one thing clear, if you expect me to pussy foot around a subject that is important, for fear of appearing insensitive, or that I might cause insult to someone, well forget it. If the subject can't be discussed fully and openly, and all the parrallels drawn, then it's too late. |
| skelband Jan 20, 2012 6:14 PM EDT |
@ta: "To discuss why you are wrong would definately breach the terms of use on this board." Yes, agreed, we're kinda getting off the subject a bit here :D Although admittedly it is hard to discuss copyright without laws, and therefore politics. |
| JaseP Jan 20, 2012 6:34 PM EDT |
The Nazis also imprisoned (and killed) Freemasons (I am one) in their concentration camps, political dissidents, etc. The Gestapo was a large and varied operation, only a small part of their operations dealt with the Jewish population. The techniques they used were such that they slowly turned up the fire, like the addage about boiling a frog alive. It was one slow erosion of people's rights, one after another, that allowed them to commit atrocities. My point in using the term as an adjective was to make that very point. As an American, I see my rights slowly eroding around me... It's systemic. It's also little things, one at a time,... like privacy rights, freedom to chose to use or not use certain products, political correctness, zero tolerance in schools, registrations for this or that, needing licenses for that thing or the other, etc. The open source community suffers from this all the time. I'm often ridiculed by friends, family & coworkers for my software choice. I'm sure many of you are as well,... unless you work in a server room. Because open source users want freedom, they are made to suffer at the hands of the masses, like at minority. Because open source as a choice cannot be seen on the outside, like skin color, and has no ethnic origin, it's OK for people to ridicule... Or is it?!?! You see, all of this is part of the same thing,... Internet freedom,... Open Source Software,... Software patents,... Forced compliance in file formats,... Attacks on fair use,... Freedom to exchange information (file sharing),... Taking property without due process,... All if it. Because, if you let it go at one right, or the next, or the one after that, then, what happens is that by the time you wake up to what's going on,... you don't have enough rights left over to protect the others. An then, it's too late. So, I'm sorry if your family suffered during WWII, but I don't want mine to suffer during WWIII, or whatever this is going to become, if left unchecked. So, I learn from history, and use an offensive, but aptly descriptive term. Maybe, because I've done so, it might make you passionate enough to stand up, take notice and do something about it. Or, if not you, someone else. Again, sorry you didn't like my comparison, or my terms. And sorry that someone close to you had suffered in the past. But I stand by my use of the language, because I don't want anyone to suffer in the future. Those that would seize totalitarian power always exist. Just because America is a terrific country, doesn't mean it can't become a terrible, and terrifying one... |
| dinotrac Jan 20, 2012 6:56 PM EDT |
@JaseP -- The comparison breaks down in one fundamental way: Nazi Germany was not the result of slow erosion -- it was a determined imposition of will, deceit, and murder. Come to think of it -- not too different from the Bolshevik revolution in Russian, or most "people's" revolutions. The very drip-drip-drip erosion of our rights is, I believe, a testament to the fallacy of the comparison. Terrible things are done when we're not looking, or not comparing the body of the bill with the high-sounding title, but...when roused, the people still matter here. In the end, things tend to right themselves. Not as quickly or as surely as we would right, but rather like a thermostat that wavers between a little too hot and a little too cold, but keeps a straight trend line. |
| JaseP Jan 20, 2012 7:16 PM EDT |
@ Dino: And you don't think the erosion of rights in the USA isn't being directed?!?! I do. I don't think it's being done by a particular political party, but rather being directed by corporate interests. So you swap labels around, and instead of it being, "party member," it's "corporate share holder." Instead of it being ***insert minority description here***, it's "pirate" or "copyright infringer." But it's the same thing,... It's just harder to spot the bad guys, because they don't wear uniforms. |
| dinotrac Jan 20, 2012 8:57 PM EDT |
@JaseP -- I said nothing of the sort, but... It is not the sort of brazen grab (with murder and acclamation) that took place in Nazi Germany, specifically because the US is not Nazi Germany. It might venture a little in that direction on occasion, and venture a little away on occasion, but...the difference matters. A lot. |
| caitlyn Jan 20, 2012 9:05 PM EDT |
Quoting:So you swap labels around, and instead of it being, "party member," it's "corporate share holder." Instead of it being ***insert minority description here***, it's "pirate" or "copyright infringer." But it's the same thing,... It's just harder to spot the bad guys, because they don't wear uniforms. I don't see the prosecution of criminals as the same as denial of civil rights, sorry. Like I said earlier, the pirates are thieves. I'm all for prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law as it exists today. Oh, and yes, that includes MegaUpload. By your definition, JaseP, that makes me a Nazi. Nice. |
| tracyanne Jan 20, 2012 10:31 PM EDT |
The problem with calling people pirates, is that definition, as used, especially by the Media companies, is way too wide. See http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=1047&... In another thread, a Pom is being called a Pirate and a Criminal, and stands a chance of being deportred to the US to face criminal charges, why? because he had links to sites that might actually have been participating in Copyright infringement. The danger is not that reasonable, possibly even good, laws are being used to prosecute alleged Copyright infringers, but that potentially bad laws might get passed, all in the name of stopping something that can already be prosecuted with existing laws. In the name of protecting a special interest group and that group's income. The road to hell, it is said, is paved with good intentions. However I doubt that these special interest groups are actually proposing these laws with the best of intentions, i also doubt that the legislators who are supporting them are doing so with the best of intentions either. |
| gus3 Jan 20, 2012 10:37 PM EDT |
"In another thread"? |
| tracyanne Jan 20, 2012 11:26 PM EDT |
sorry gus, this thread. been going so long I thought i was another thread. |
| JaseP Jan 22, 2012 9:39 PM EDT |
@caitlyn: Am I calling you a Nazi?!?! Nothing of the kind... But the Nazis duped a lot of people,... And it looks like the xxAA has you duped. Maybe MegaUpload deserves to be in court,... But CRIMINAL court,?!?! For a graphic designer from the former Chech Republic?!?! K'mon!!!! The DoJ & their FBI lapdogs are running everyone up the flag pole that they can get their hands on... MegaUpload may be in severe violation of copyright on many media titles, and may cater to the pirate set. But to prosecute minor corporate officials for an offense directed by the corporate leadership is offensive to the principles of Justice!!! Corporations exist to provide insulation to the individuals associated with it. To pierce to corporate veil, the state needs to have more than just violations... I just don't see that on every level of who was indicted. And don't even get me started with the concept of having the DoJ being the strong arm behind what is essentially a private cause of action... Does the used car industry use the state to enforce auto loans at a criminal level?!?! And don't assume that this "media pirate" label will be left at those (despicable types) who pirate movies & songs... It will quickly be applied to those who offer up codecs for interoperability, for those who ship an OS that has features they managed to patent that have been in operating systems from time immemorial. Mark my words. The war is coming. Don't be an unwitting sympathizer. |
| Koriel Jan 22, 2012 10:55 PM EDT |
I suspect I would also be in the firing line for making an app that makes bypassing geoblocks easy, just another tickmark in my seriously consider going back to my home country column. Im not a criminal or pirate but i'm feeling increasingly uneasy living in this country as oppression seems to be the name of the game here. |
| Khamul Jan 22, 2012 11:04 PM EDT |
Koriel wrote:Im not a criminal or pirate but i'm feeling increasingly uneasy living in this country as oppression seems to be the name of the game here. I wonder how Canada would compare. Vancouver's looking like a really nice place to move to. Lots of tech jobs, strong movie/TV industry that makes much better stuff than Hollywood, great climate, and friendly people unlike most of the Ugly Americans south of the border. |
| Koriel Jan 22, 2012 11:31 PM EDT |
Oh don't get me wrong I have nothing against Americans, just their so called democracy which really isn't and that most of them don't even realise it, im not sure why they even bother voting it doesn't actually seem to change anything probably because the corporations are running the show or maybe im just too cynical. Not that my country is much better but our justice system and the European commission and courts manage to reign in the worst excesses of our governments and is one of my major worries about the efforts in my home country to try and leave Europe as once that brake is gone im not sure the justice system on its own could hold these idiot politicians back. I'm married to an American but I would feel a lot safer back in my home country and I now understand why a lot of European software developers won't even set foot in this country which I originally thought was daft but now i've been living here for quite some time, that viewpoint is now perfectly understandable. |
| BernardSwiss Jan 22, 2012 11:46 PM EDT |
Canada appears to be following the American example. The current "administration" appears to even be enthusiastic about this, restrained primarily by the necessity of moving slowly enough to not raise coordinated opposition. Canada is, for example, the only G20 country to have not extracted its incarcerated nationals from Guantanamo -- despite the highly dubious case against the under-aged, alleged "illegal combatant" would have qualified as a "child-soldier" in any other case. |
| JaseP Jan 22, 2012 11:59 PM EDT |
You mean that Canada is a sovereign country in its own right?!?! I thought it was just a sovereign US territory to the North of the continental US... Or maybe it just plays one on TV... |
| dinotrac Jan 23, 2012 7:08 AM EDT |
@JaseP -- Canadians are crafty and clever folk, despite their love for chasing big round hunks of stone down the ice with a broom. The reality is that there has not been an actual United States of America since the War of 1812, during which repeated efforts to invade Canada were repulsed. Eventually, those wily northern foxes seized control of the United States without telling anyone -- preferring to let the United States play public "bad cop" to their charming Canadian ways. They get the best the United States has to offer, we get the "export" versions of Canadian beer. They get Barbra Streisand, Bonnie Raitt, and Aretha. We get Celine Dion. It's nefarious, eh? |
| gus3 Jan 23, 2012 7:38 AM EDT |
Well, it's been a couple hundred years, so... Let's try again! |
| helios Jan 23, 2012 8:48 AM EDT |
No gus...let's don't. No one deserves Celine Dion. Some transgressions are unforgivable. |
| JaseP Jan 23, 2012 9:45 AM EDT |
@Dino... So that's why Canadians call Canadian Bacon, "back-bacon," but Americans don't call American cheese, "back-cheese?" All a plot to undermine us from up above us?!?! |
| jdixon Jan 23, 2012 9:46 AM EDT |
> We get Celine Dion. Well, we also got Anne Murray. I guess that counts for something. |
| montezuma Jan 23, 2012 11:44 AM EDT |
Maybe I am late to the party! I invoke Godwin's Law.... |
| JaseP Jan 23, 2012 12:05 PM EDT |
Does Godwin's law have a Canadian corollary??? |
| dinotrac Jan 23, 2012 12:09 PM EDT |
@JaseP -- Yes, but the result requires that you drink some 50 and do a little curling. |
| montezuma Jan 23, 2012 1:09 PM EDT |
Curling >>> Spinning Dino |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!