Piracy

[Serge]

i don't think piracy act could be successively used for censorship of free speech tho.

By suppressing "piracy", you are suppressing free speach. The same ISP measures meant to restrict my ability to .torrent a copy of "The Hurt Locker" also inhibits my ability to .torrent the latest freebsd DVD. Pirated content can always be disguised as free speech simply by employing encryption. Encryption that is employed by "legitimate" games to hide how the server communication protocol works.

I am not even sure Piracy is distinct from free speech from  a social point of view. Since copyright was invented about 400 years ago, copyright terms have been extended from 14 years (renewable) to life of the author + 70 years in some jurisdictions. Now, the average person does not have a reasonable expectation that they will be able to (legally) freely copy a fixation they purchased within their lifetime, or even before the fixation degrades. Copyright was originally designed to give the original authors a chance to sell cheap plentiful copies before everybody else does. Nowdays, producing a cheap copy of a Public Domain work is copyrightable since copyright now lasts so long that the original has degraded to the point of requiring restoration.

Rogers violating internet rules, CRTC says
Games being degraded by bittorrent throttling.

European Parliament Legalized Censorship in Europe Today; Pirate Rep Voted Against
European Parliament agrees to Internet Censorship in principle in order to stop child porn. Since child porn is so evil, nobody can reveiw the back-list for correctness.

create something and watch the whole world rip it, monetize it without paying you for it and then try justifying their stealing of your work as a form of free speech.

[1715064776]

1715064776

[1715064776]

1715064776

[1715064776]

1715064776

[1715064776]

1715064776

[MoonShadow]

create something and watch the whole world rip it, monetize it without paying you for it and then try justifying their stealing of your work as a form of free speech.

http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/copying_is_not_theft

[Serge]

i guess i have to spell it out what i mean by "stealing"

stealing copyright holder's ability to rightfully benefit of of their creation  by freely distributing that creation for all to see/use for free while many times monetizing that traffic by means of advertising other not so ethical sponsors who support piracy.

[Serge]

create something and watch the whole world rip it, monetize it without paying you for it and then try justifying their stealing of your work as a form of free speech.

http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/copying_is_not_theft

copying and distributing work without copyright holder permission doesn't make it right even if it's technically not stealing.

[MoonShadow]

create something and watch the whole world rip it, monetize it without paying you for it and then try justifying their stealing of your work as a form of free speech.

http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/copying_is_not_theft

copying and distributing work without copyright holder permission doesn't make it right even if it's technically not stealing.

Doesn't make it wrong either.

It's not 'technically' anything.  Copying is not theft.  It might be infringement, but then the question becomes "infringement of what?"  Infringement of a government enforced monopoly on the dissimination of useful information.  That's what it boils down to. 

[Serge]

Pirates can try to justify content theft how ever they like, i call it as i see it.  I hope the law will catch up to those who participate in mass distribution of unauthorized content.

[MoonShadow]

The laws of economics are not going to be kind to your desires.

[Serge]

enjoy seeding ripped dvds while you can, your time is coming to an end.  then cry about your limited free speech in a form of stealing others work. and hope you won't end up serving time.

[elggawf]

elggawf, "officer" was as jokingly as yours "you pirate, you", thought you'd catch it.

It wasn't really joking - I was pointing out you're a hypocrite. Like almost every other person I've met that white-knights movie studios about piracy, you're a pirate too when it suits you. You're just butthurt others are having fun (as for many crews it's not about money at all) and while yes, it's against the law, the fact is that the intellectual property market is going to have to change how it operates in order to make money. Observe things like Netflix, Steam, and the HumbleBundles. Most people pirate because it's convenient or because something is only slightly out of their price range. Give 'em a good deal and/or make it convenient, and they'll stop. Some people are going to pirate no matter what, and those people aren't really lost sales because you were never going to make a sale.

Youtube takes proactive approach in preventing copyright infringement especially recurring cases, it is fully compliant with DMCA, some other sites use DMCA save harbor to shield piracy, it is a loophole, they remove content on DMCA notices but then it re-appears later and copyright holder needs to send new DMCA letter, new content appears, new sites which need to be monitor appear. freely distributing copyrighted material goes against creators and producers, it economically degrades investment into creativity.

YouTube only removes material that matches filters for material that's already been reported. That's as proactive as you can get, seriously. There's been numerous cases of an artist giving away their work for free, who's been shut down by an ISP that's so shit-scared of the DMCA, when it's their bloody work. No infringement is taking place, but some douchebag ISPs try to be "proactive" when the important part is that through DMCA safe-harbor they don't have to be. It's not a loophole, it's there for a reason - ISPs should not have to take guesses at what constitutes infringement, they should wait on the copyright holder (or someone legally authorized to act thereof) to make a statement under penalty of perjury that it's infringement.

Nice weasel words: what "some other sites" are you referring to? Many, many sites don't use algorithms to scan content, but they do hash-match to at least make sure the exact same file doesn't get uploaded again.

Finally, there's virtually no repeatable proof that it "economically degrades investment into creativity". Movies keep breaking box office records despite the fact that people are going to the movie theaters less often, Netflix is doing great, Steam is doing great, and there's been repeated observances that piracy may actually help sales (though they're often quite flimsy).

This has nothing to do with free speech, you are free to express yourself however you like, without using other copyrighted material - it hurts most through massive distribution networks where anyone can d/l or watch anything for free at anytime - it is nice idea, but someone has to pay for it.

Bullshit, it has everything to do with free speech because the DMCA is already abused to curb free speech and to curb legitimate competition. Most successful ISPs are quite adept and fast at dealing with takedown notices, but don't have any idea what to do with a counternotice on a fake claim. They don't bother checking the DMCA notice comes from an actual person, and legitimate content owners have a really hard time getting their content put back online when some interested 3rd party arranges a bogus takedown.

If you don't think that newer, more draconian laws, with less safeguards are going to make that worse (and as noted above, without any real implications to real pirates), then please don't breed.

Sort of, i don't agree how laws work at times like in case with DMCA, ask any producer and they will tell you it's BS. I recognize there is an issue with sheer amount of piracy on the web. Many people involved with production, their associates and their families are affected by it. people do it because it seems they can without any repercussion.

Again, as stated above, many content providers are figuring out there's ways to work around piracy and turn some of those into actual sales. Again, as stated above, some of those people pirate simply because they can and it's easy and no matter what the price they were never going to pay for it anyway. I personally have had some of my creative work taken and used by a for-profit entity, and once I figured out the correct process for a DMCA takedown, it was removed promptly and the site in question now prevents any matching images from being uploaded again.

Finally, again, pirates are going to keep doing it without any repercussions regardless, these laws are just going to fuck people like you and me.

[Serge]

eggawf,
my hypocrisy   lies in terms if that was really punishable i wouldn't have that avatar in the first place - if i knew if it would lend me in jail or with a fine. that's the point that piracy is so huge today, everyone does it because there is no repercussion. I at least recognize that it is an issue in today's world - massive distribution of content that is not authorized for such distribution.

I also find it ironic you started checking out my stuff to see if and where i was at fault, as a policeman, when it suited you and your argument. hypocritical much? when it suits you - others should play fair, when it doesn't everyone free to steal stuff left and right.

at least we both agree that DMCA in it's current state is BS although for different reasons, and they all are valid reasons.

> Again, as stated above, many content providers are figuring out there's ways to work around piracy and turn some of those into actual sales.

would they start doing it if there was no piracy?  why don't companies that produce anything go free route from the get go, why don't they just release stuff on torrents and save a bunch on hosting bandwidth. who will pay for resources to be able to produce anything if final product is free - you don't see conflict there?

I know some producers monetizing on free distribution, but that is not an excuse for stealing in the first place, isn't?  you create something - it is your business whether you want to give away for free or sell it. anyone else shouldn't be able to dictate you to go free route or any other way just because everyone loves free stuff and much less steal ('copy' as some of you like to make it sound like) your work.

[elggawf]

my hypocrisy   lies in terms if that was really punishable i wouldn't have that avatar in the first place - if i knew if it would lend me in jail or with a fine. that's the point that piracy is so huge today, everyone does it because there is no repercussion. I at least recognize that it is an issue in today's world - massive distribution of content that is not authorized for such distribution.

So you're only doing it because there's no repercussions, even though hot-linking a file is arguably worse than vanilla copyright infringement because while infringement isn't necessarily a lost sale, hot-linking always costs bandwidth.

You're the best kind of hypocrite!

I also find it ironic you started checking out my stuff to see if and where i was at fault, as a policeman, when it suited you and your argument. hypocritical much? when it suits you - others should play fair, when it doesn't everyone free to steal stuff left and right.

I didn't "check out [your] stuff", I just noticed your avatar had a copyright on it and then decided to go see what the terms of the copyright was. It took all of 30 seconds and it was hardly police-level detective work. I don't consider it hypocritical because I'm only pointing out what a dick thing it is to do, I'm not even telling you not to do it - much less arguing in favor of draconian laws to stop you doing it.

would they start doing it if there was no piracy?  why don't companies that produce anything go free route from the get go, why don't they just release stuff on torrents and save a bunch on hosting bandwidth. who will pay for resources to be able to produce anything if final product is free - you don't see conflict there?

I know some producers monetizing on free distribution, but that is not an excuse for stealing in the first place, isn't?  you create something - it is your business whether you want to give away for free or sell it. anyone else shouldn't be able to dictate you to go free route or any other way just because everyone loves free stuff and much less steal ('copy' as some of you like to make it sound like) your work.

First, stop calling it "stealing" - it's not theft it's infringement. Second, who gives a fuck what companies would do if there was no piracy? You're in BitcoinTalk of all places, arguing against companies doing what the market demands.

Third, lots of people make a living from shit they give away for free. Of course I agree with you that should be their choice, but you're totally dodging the crux of my argument here. I'm not arguing that piracy is right, just or good - I'm arguing that these laws will not stop piracy, but they will fuck over a whole bunch of innocent people. Just like DRM, DMCA, and everything else that came before them.

Here's a good example: consider the various games with always-on DRM. If you get disconnected from the internet, you can't play the game you paid money to license. If I pirate it, I'm still playing even while the whole neighbourhood's internet is dark. Do you think that equates more sales? Consider DVDs, where you've got between 30 seconds and 5 minutes of typically un-skippable FBI warnings and trailers that the legitimate purchaser (term used loosely, as I acknowledge you're only purchasing a license, you don't own shit) must sit through, while the pirate... if the uploader left the FBI warnings in ironically, are typically skippable so you can get straight to the movie.

The solution is adjusting your business to the whims of the market, not demanding the government fix the market for you (which again, the crux of my argument is that government action to curb piracy is wholly ineffective and does more damage than good).

[Serge]

stealing is stealing even if it is a digital good.

if you got something for free that is not free - you stole it. you stole it 100x, 1000x ... more if you seeded it for others to steal or own a site that enables it while claiming you are not responsible for what is going on your site while being well aware what is going on there.

[Serge]

i don't support draconian/unfair laws.
although if there was mass killings on streets you can bet there would be draconian laws in place to deal with it. and there would be innocent people affected by such laws too.

[elggawf]

stealing is stealing even if it is a digital good.

if you got something for free that is not free - you stole it. you stole it 100x, 1000x ... more if you seeded it for others to steal or own a site that enables it while claiming you are not responsible for what is going on your site while being well aware what is going on there.

It's stealing if I grab code from somewhere and delete it when I'm done. It's theft of service if I make use of a service without paying. It's copyright infringement if I make copies of something and give it away.

Not only will you refuse to quit calling it stealing, you equate it with killings in the streets. \o/

I think we're done here.

[Serge]

stealing is stealing even if it is a digital good.

if you got something for free that is not free - you stole it. you stole it 100x, 1000x ... more if you seeded it for others to steal or own a site that enables it while claiming you are not responsible for what is going on your site while being well aware what is going on there.

It's stealing if I grab code from somewhere and delete it when I'm done. It's theft of service if I make use of a service without paying. It's copyright infringement if I make copies of something and give it away.

Not only will you refuse to quit calling it stealing, you equate it with killings in the streets. \o/

I think we're done here.

i'm not equating content theft to killing, i'm saying in cases of massive crimes there will be draconian laws set in place and that will affect innocent people in some way shape or form.

court of law can threat content theft as copyright infringement, i call it as i see it - theft. you don't steal anything physically you simply refuse to pay what it costs, doesn't make it right.

[Serge]

hypothetical digital product X retail cost $10
license to distribute it $10,000

a pirate doesn't steal it, he/she conveniently copies it for his/her personal or other use by doing so, stealing worth of $10 earnings from people who created and distribute product X
now, that pirate decides to conveniently participate in free distribution of said product to the masses on the net, conveniently stealing $10,000 worth of distribution license fee earnings. multiply it by others who use and share that product

if you think that product isn't worth its asking price simply don't use it, or create something and offer it at your own rates that you deem to be fair or give away for free since you like free so much and paying all production, pre-production, post-production and marketing expenses yourself.
don't put blame on me that i call pirates thieves because they can't afford something they want and arguing that what they do is not stealing because its a copy.

[zer0]

Everytime I pirate wareZ I'm pirating software/music/movies that I wouldn't otherwise purchase anyways, so no theoretical lost revenue is had from me.

If I like the music I'll go see the artist because they make direct revenue from concerts. Music sales completely go to the label unless they have at least 3 releases out already then maybe they'll get a small share. Bands live off touring and merch. As for movies, I'll pay to see it if I'm interested otherwise I'll pirate it out of curiosity/boredom. Either way I'd never hand over $15 to Michael Bay anyways so he doesn't lose out when I rip his stuff, basically I end up losing for wasting my precious time on earth witnessing his cinematic abortions.

BSD doesn't charge money, so I don't buy any software. Games I pirated for personal use over the years I can count on one hand, and all were shit pretty much anyways which reinforced my preference of being able to evaluate a full unrestricted copy before I had over $100+

There is no billion dollar pirate industry. When I was Razor1911 back in 1993 none of us made any money we did it solely for phony scene rep and for access to ridiculously overpriced software and basically this hasn't changed. In fact I paid something like $195/mth at the time in fees to run a shitty front end mailer to trade/sync files with my piracy downlinks out of my own pocket.

[Explodicle]

Q: Why is it piracy to copy something for decades, but completely OK one day all of a sudden?

A: Because the expiration date is completely arbitrary, set by a bunch of corrupt millionaire "representatives".

Human rights do not work that way!

[Serge]

Few questions for Serge:

If I pirate something that I had no intention in buying in the first place, is that still theft? The copyright owner is not missing any revenue from me.

I'm subscribed to HBO but I don't feel like watching Boardwalk Empire on Sunday night, so instead I pirate it Monday morning and watch it on my computer. Is that theft?

I buy an Xbox game and make a backup just in case. After some months the original disc is unreadable so I start playing with the backup. Is that stealing?

I just recorded some songs that were playing in the radio and now I can listen to them unlimited times for free. Am I a dirty thief?

Are you saying it is ok to take/copy something of value for free without having intention of ever paying for it and then distributing it to others without intention of ever paying for distribution license? - this is not even ok if you have such 'intentions' for the future.
if you have no intention of paying don't try justify using that product for free because it is technically not stealing but a simple harmless copy.  it is not right.
Let me ask you this is it ok to go to restaurant or store and taking something with having no intention of ever paying for it?
Would you put in your signature that you are a pirate and proud of it?

re HBO: call them and ask how they feel about it.  my understanding courts have agreed that you can make personal backups for yourself, would HBO approve you distributing their shows via torrents or filesharers, or tubes for the whole world to see for free? probably not.  But feel free to call them and verify as I'm not HBO spokesperson.

Xbox, - as stated above personal backups are fine, mass distribution - i don't think so.

radio: same case - you can tape them for your own personal use. broadcasting all over the net - i don't think radio station will approve, but do call them and verify.

if all these companies were fine with mass free distribution/broadcasting they would do that themselves - don't you think so?

[Serge]

you guys who say you had no intentions of ever paying for it but feel fine taking it for free since it is not lost sale - are contradicting yourselves

you want it but don't want to pay for it and since you can take it for free somewhere else of course intention of ever paying for it magically disappears.

you would do the same thing in a heart-beat if you could apply same 'logic' to iphones, cars and any other tangibles IF you could get away with it.

if you had no means taking it for free, many of those sales would not be lost sales and some would never purchase it in the first place. so if you have no intention of paying for it don't look for means getting it for free, but no, you want it, just with no intention of paying for it. LOL

[johnj]

create something and watch the whole world rip it, monetize it without paying you for it and then try justifying their stealing of your work as a form of free speech.

It seems the issue isn't piracy itself, it's lack of compensation for the creator.  I think people who pirate agree.  Most of the cost goes to the distributor and licence fees.

Take Steam for example.  They're able to offer incredible deals, taking smaller cuts on a much MUCH higher volume. Somtimes 40x higher volume gross revenue.  (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/10/24/less-is-more-gabe-newell-on-game-pricing/). Even the current HumbleBundle (http://www.humblebundle.com/) has over $600,000 towards it, when if people were as greedy as the anti-piracy folk make them out to be, it'd be $0.  People want to pay a reasonable price for things.

The middleman wants to pin the higher prices on the 'loss' from pirates, when it's the other way around.

Get the middleman in check and you'll see increased profits for the creator as well as wider distribution of the content, and you can even keep all the red tape of licensing. The end-user will always go the path of least resistance.

[kiyote]

I'm not Serge, but I like putting in my two cents, so here we go. 

If I pirate something that I had no intention in buying in the first place, is that still theft? The copyright owner is not missing any revenue from me.

It's not theft, but it's still copyright infringement.  It's like saying stealing a Maserati isn't theft because you couldn't afford one anyway.  Not losing revenue doesn't change what it is, just arguably changes the damages. 

I'm subscribed to HBO but I don't feel like watching Boardwalk Empire on Sunday night, so instead I pirate it Monday morning and watch it on my computer. Is that theft?

The Betamax case, which states viewers are allowed to time-shift their television watching, puts you into a legal grey area, as it would the website hosting the file.  The person who uploaded it would have been breaking copyright law.   

If you owned the DVD, and were ripping it to watch on your computer/iPad, you would be breaking the law under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act due to the fact you were circumventing copyright protection, despite the fact that you were covered by Fair Use.  (I agree, this is asinine).

I buy an Xbox game and make a backup just in case. After some months the original disc is unreadable so I start playing with the backup. Is that stealing?

This is allowed under Fair Use.

I just recorded some songs that were playing in the radio and now I can listen to them unlimited times for free. Am I a dirty thief?

Believe it or not, this is one of those cases that's never been judged.  A company was sued by the entertainment industry over this, but the company's legal fees caused it to go bankrupt before a decision was made, so who knows how this could go?  Overall, it seems like the record industry really doesn't care that much.

On a side note, copyright was created originally as a legal agreement between the government and content creators, saying that if you agree to make stuff, we'll give you control over that stuff for a limited period of time.  After that period of time is up, it passes into the public domain, which means anyone can riff off of it, and create their own material based off of it.  But companies and estates have pushed copyright to become so ridiculously long, it essentially excludes anyone from ever being able to use anyone else's work without paying for it because copyright now goes on for essentially forever, here in the States.

This video is very interesting:  http://youtu.be/tk862BbjWx4

[zer0]

Let me ask you this is it ok to go to restaurant or store and taking something with having no intention of ever paying for it?

Piracy = Copy
Your hypothetical situation is invalid.

Here's one for you, suppose there's a medication patented by a large Pharma corp that's too expensive for countries to afford? Suppose China, India and Cuba 'pirate' the formula and make inexpensive clone generics saving millions of people's lives. Would you still be against piracy?

This is what 'Intellectual Copyright' has given humanity:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/04/microsoft-motorola-android-patent-lawsuit

A confusing web of endless lawsuits as corporations fight for control of everything

[kiyote]

Let me ask you this is it ok to go to restaurant or store and taking something with having no intention of ever paying for it?

Piracy = Copy
Your hypothetical situation is invalid.

Here's one for you, suppose there's a medication patented by a large Pharma corp that's too expensive for countries to afford? Suppose China, India and Cuba 'pirate' the formula and make inexpensive clone generics saving millions of people's lives. Would you still be against piracy?

This is what 'Intellectual Copyright' has given humanity:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/04/microsoft-motorola-android-patent-lawsuit

A confusing web of endless lawsuits as corporations fight for control of everything

There's two things at work here, and they're not necessarily the same thing:  what's legal and what's ethical.  In your drug example, China, India or Cuba mass producing a drug that's too expensive for them to buy may be the ethical thing to do, but it's still breaking international patent law.

To give you a flip example from the business world, I'll give you a case study from the startup Callpod and their dealings with Target:  Callpod produces a universal charging device called Chargepod, which has become a big hit.  Attempting to increase distribution, Callpod seeks a deal with Target in order to nationally distribute the Chargepod, but the deal hits a snag, but eight months later, a clone of the product, being produced by Target themselves, appears in their stores.  Callpod, which was smart enough to file a number of patents on the Chargepod technology, sues Target, who never had any real desire to sell the original Chargepod in their stores, and wins damages.

Target behaved illegally and maybe immorally in this case, but every move they did was the right move from the business perspective.  They knew that startup companies aren't usually the best at defending cases of patent infringement.  Most of the time, they don't pursue any civil suits, and if they do, they hire inexperienced lawyer friends who get beat in court.  In this case, Target was wrong, but more often than not, they would be able be able to sell the product without having to pay any of the licensing fees or any negative repercussions.  And even in this case where there were repercussions, they weren't enough to damage, or even noticeably dent Targets earnings.

When you download files off the internet, you're behaving like Target:  you may have virtually no chance of getting caught, and are gaining access to tools you wouldn't otherwise, but it's still copyright infringement.  Spare us the rationalizations, and have the balls to admit that you're doing something illegal, even if you won't get caught.

[Vanderbleek]

I think copyright law as it is now is ridiculous, but I also think everyone's going about "fighting the power" the wrong way. If their copyright is causing you problems, make something better, and release it under the public domain (or whatever license you prefer). Write a better book, code a better game, direct a better movie, and release them all with no copyright protection. "Be the change you wish to see in the world."

Essentially: make copyright obsolete.

[RandyFolds]

if you got something for free that is not free - you stole it.

Are you retarded? I went and panned gold today. I got a couple grams. It's near $2k an ounce. It was free. Did I steal it from the ground?

[phillipsjk]

i don't think piracy act could be successively used for censorship of free speech tho.

By suppressing "piracy", you are suppressing free speach. The same ISP measures meant to restrict my ability to .torrent a copy of "The Hurt Locker" also inhibits my ability to .torrent the latest freebsd DVD. Pirated content can always be disguised as free speech simply by employing encryption. Encryption that is employed by "legitimate" games to hide how the server communication protocol works.

I am not even sure Piracy is distinct from free speech from  a social point of view. Since copyright was invented about 400 years ago, copyright terms have been extended from 14 years (renewable) to life of the author + 70 years in some jurisdictions. Now, the average person does not have a reasonable expectation that they will be able to (legally) freely copy a fixation they purchased within their lifetime, or even before the fixation degrades. Copyright was originally designed to give the original authors a chance to sell cheap plentiful copies before everybody else does. Nowdays, producing a cheap copy of a Public Domain work is copyrightable since copyright now lasts so long that the original has degraded to the point of requiring restoration.

Rogers violating internet rules, CRTC says
Games being degraded by bittorrent throttling.

European Parliament Legalized Censorship in Europe Today; Pirate Rep Voted Against
European Parliament agrees to Internet Censorship in principle in order to stop child porn. Since child porn is so evil, nobody can reveiw the back-list for correctness.

create something and watch the whole world rip it, monetize it without paying you for it and then try justifying their stealing of your work as a form of free speech.

I was not aware on this thread, and responded in the original thread instead.

Your conclusions are based on crass assumptions. I am a member of the Pirate Party of Canada; not because I "pirate" commercial/proprietary works, but because I love Free (as in freedom) and Open Source Software. I have stopped buying most shrink-wrapped software and shiny optical disks with music and video over DRM concerns. I see "Intellectual Property" issues as human rights issues. Copyright, trademark, patent, etc, law is being used to trample (physical) property rights, the right to an education, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, etc.

PS: You can pay for FOSS software: it is free as in freedom, not price. In fact, I think the OpenBSD project strongly encourages you to pay for the software.

[kokjo]

Serge: STFU and let the market talk!

[payb.tc]

i guess i have to spell it out what i mean by "stealing"

stealing copyright holder's ability to rightfully benefit of of their creation

why do you feel that copyright holders automatically have a right to benefit from their creation?

what if i create the digital equivalent of a steaming pile of turd, and then i copyright it?

how do i then have a right to benefit from my creation?

[kokjo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA - jack black talking about piracy.

please notice, that he is talking about incitement. what he says boils down to: no money -> no music.
THIS IS WRONG! because a real artist does care about his/hers art, not his wallet.

an artist should in my opinion, do it for the art, not the profit. of course the artist should be rewarded for his work.
an musician should hold concerts. but his record music, should be free.
i have a problem with paying for some that could easily be copied.
but i have no problem with going to a concert with a band. (except that im a rather poor student).

a concert can not be copied!

[NghtRppr]

create something and watch the whole world rip it, monetize it without paying you for it and then try justifying their stealing of your work as a form of free speech.

I've netted a million dollars from the sale of intellectual property, have you? I doubt it. I'm still against intellectual property rights even though I have every incentive to be pro-IP. Why? Because intellectual property rights are immoral. I have no right to kick down doors, arrest people, force them to pay fines at gunpoint, all just because they used their computers to communicate information in a way that disrupts my revenue stream. If the entire world pirates my software, that's the greatest thing that could ever happen to me. I'll get job offers, ad revenue, speaking engagements, paid support requests, consultant offers, donations, etc, etc, etc. Being popular is almost never a curse. It's when people don't want to obtain your work no matter how low the price is, that's when you should worry. I'm speaking from experience. I love my 2010 Lexus RX350 but not enough to suggest that we lock people in cages or threaten them just so I can keep driving it.

[kiyote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA - jack black talking about piracy.

please notice, that he is talking about incitement. what he says boils down to: no money -> no music.
THIS IS WRONG! because a real artist does care about his/hers art, not his wallet.

an artist should in my opinion, do it for the art, not the profit. of course the artist should be rewarded for his work.
an musician should hold concerts. but his record music, should be free.
i have a problem with paying for some that could easily be copied.
but i have no problem with going to a concert with a band. (except that im a rather poor student).

a concert can not be copied!

Okay, this is bullshit.  I'm a comedian and a comedy writer, and know a lot of actors and musicians, and they all want to get paid, because although they are doing what they love, at the end of the day, they still need to eat.

I personally creative commons everything I write, but that's because I have a career outside of writing, and I don't plan on making money off of it or doing it as my full time job.  But most of my friends have to work at shit jobs like waiting tables and clerks at law offices just to make ends meet, so they can do the thing that they love.

And you say, "Musicians should just do concerts!"  Concerts are one of the most grueling things a musician can do, months away from friends and family, traveling from unknown place to unknown place, and guess what?  Musicians already do them!  It's how they make ends meet to begin making their next album.

Your entitled attitude is astounding.  Maybe its because you're looking at that small percentage of musicians and actors who make a lot of money, and are forgetting about that 99.99% of them that are just figuring out how to get enough money to buy a few packs of ramen to eat. 

I will admit, I pirate a fair amount of stuff, but I also budget a certain amount of money each month to go back and buy the albums I like and will re-listen to.  If you're broke, I get it, I've been there, and it didn't stop me from downloading music, but quit with the entitlement shit.  It makes you look like an asshole.

[kokjo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA - jack black talking about piracy.

please notice, that he is talking about incitement. what he says boils down to: no money -> no music.
THIS IS WRONG! because a real artist does care about his/hers art, not his wallet.

an artist should in my opinion, do it for the art, not the profit. of course the artist should be rewarded for his work.
an musician should hold concerts. but his record music, should be free.
i have a problem with paying for some that could easily be copied.
but i have no problem with going to a concert with a band. (except that im a rather poor student).

a concert can not be copied!

Okay, this is bullshit.  I'm a comedian and a comedy writer, and know a lot of actors and musicians, and they all want to get paid, because although they are doing what they love, at the end of the day, they still need to eat.

I personally creative commons everything I write, but that's because I have a career outside of writing, and I don't plan on making money off of it or doing it as my full time job.  But most of my friends have to work at shit jobs like waiting tables and clerks at law offices just to make ends meet, so they can do the thing that they love.

And you say, "Musicians should just do concerts!"  Concerts are one of the most grueling things a musician can do, months away from friends and family, traveling from unknown place to unknown place, and guess what?  Musicians already do them!  It's how they make ends meet to begin making their next album.

Your entitled attitude is astounding.  Maybe its because you're looking at that small percentage of musicians and actors who make a lot of money, and are forgetting about that 99.99% of them that are just figuring out how to get enough money to buy a few packs of ramen to eat. 

I will admit, I pirate a fair amount of stuff, but I also budget a certain amount of money each month to go back and buy the albums I like and will re-listen to.  If you're broke, I get it, I've been there, and it didn't stop me from downloading music, but quit with the entitlement shit.  It makes you look like an asshole.

dude! i play classical guitar, im not doing it for the money! im doing it for the music, because i think its fun!
the 99.99% aren't getting anything anyway.

im not talking about a world tourney. play for your community, play for fun, not money.

(i am the 99%, fuck you im know what im talking about.)

[Serge]

if you got something for free that is not free - you stole it.

Are you retarded? I went and panned gold today. I got a couple grams. It's near $2k an ounce. It was free. Did I steal it from the ground?

retardation is your natural state.

[Serge]

guys supporting piracy, go pirate open source all you want if you like free so much - i won't say a word.   don't use any copyrighted material if you have no desire to pay for it - it is not made for you.

[johnj]

guys supporting piracy, go pirate open source all you want if you like free so much - i won't say a word.   don't use any copyrighted material if you have no desire to pay for it - it is not made for you.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm currently downloading over 9000 pieces of copyrighted material, and after I'm done I'm going to kick a puppy.

[Serge]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA - jack black talking about piracy.

please notice, that he is talking about incitement. what he says boils down to: no money -> no music.
THIS IS WRONG! because a real artist does care about his/hers art, not his wallet.

an artist should in my opinion, do it for the art, not the profit. of course the artist should be rewarded for his work.
an musician should hold concerts. but his record music, should be free.
i have a problem with paying for some that could easily be copied.
but i have no problem with going to a concert with a band. (except that im a rather poor student).

a concert can not be copied!

stop stealing music from not real artists, the real artist will hand it off to you for free! what's the problem?

[kokjo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA - jack black talking about piracy.

please notice, that he is talking about incitement. what he says boils down to: no money -> no music.
THIS IS WRONG! because a real artist does care about his/hers art, not his wallet.

an artist should in my opinion, do it for the art, not the profit. of course the artist should be rewarded for his work.
an musician should hold concerts. but his record music, should be free.
i have a problem with paying for some that could easily be copied.
but i have no problem with going to a concert with a band. (except that im a rather poor student).

a concert can not be copied!

stop stealing music from not real artists, the real artist will hand it off to you for free! what's the problem?

that unreal artists also plays well.

let me ask you a question:

would you copy a car, if you could? and all it took, was a little bandwidth. would you?

[Serge]

let me ask you a question:

would you copy a car, if you could? and all it took, was a little bandwidth. would you?

i said it earlier in the thread if pirates had ability to do same thing (taking/using/stealing/copying w/o permission) to tangibles like smartphones, cars and anything else, without repercussion they would do it in a heart-beat. you don't have to be Nostradamus to realize it.

[kokjo]

let me ask you a question:

would you copy a car, if you could? and all it took, was a little bandwidth. would you?

i said it earlier in the thread if pirates had ability to do same thing (taking/using/stealing/copying w/o permission) to tangibles like smartphones, cars and anything else, without repercussion they would do it in a heart-beat. you don't have to be Nostradamus to realize it.

would you do it? the question was not: "would I do it?", because i already know that answer.

[Serge]

let me ask you a question:

would you copy a car, if you could? and all it took, was a little bandwidth. would you?

i said it earlier in the thread if pirates had ability to do same thing (taking/using/stealing/copying w/o permission) to tangibles like smartphones, cars and anything else, without repercussion they would do it in a heart-beat. you don't have to be Nostradamus to realize it.

would you do it? the question was not: "would I do it?", because i already know that answer.

i'll retract "pirates" from above comment.

most people would take something if it was free for taking, less people would do it illegally if they knew they could get away with it - and if others see that nothing bad happens to them more would join them in such activity.

if people were ending up in jail for copyright infringement, there would be significantly less piracy going on.  Since there are very little repercussions, a lot of people got used to the idea of free taking something that's not free and now feel self-entitled that world should hand them everything for free conveniently on the plate.

[kokjo]

let me ask you a question:

would you copy a car, if you could? and all it took, was a little bandwidth. would you?

i said it earlier in the thread if pirates had ability to do same thing (taking/using/stealing/copying w/o permission) to tangibles like smartphones, cars and anything else, without repercussion they would do it in a heart-beat. you don't have to be Nostradamus to realize it.

would you do it? the question was not: "would I do it?", because i already know that answer.

i'll retract "pirates" from above comment.

most people would take something if it was free for taking, less people would do it illegally if they knew they could get away with it - and if others see that nothing bad happens to them more would join them in such activity.

if people were ending up in jail for copyright infringement, there would be significantly less piracy going on.  Since there are very little repercussions, a lot of people got used to the idea of free taking something that's not free and now feel self-entitled that world should hand them everything for free conveniently on the plate.

in the case of the copied car, no one would lose anything.

[Serge]

in the case of the copied car, no one would lose anything.

if i set a price on a copy, i won't be happy you acquiring it for free and it is not legal. arguing copy doesn't hurt anyone is BS in this case - you don't agree to my terms you are free not to use it. looking for ways around it to use for free is simply wrong.

[paraipan]

guys supporting piracy, go pirate open source all you want if you like free so much - i won't say a word.   don't use any copyrighted material if you have no desire to pay for it - it is not made for you.

add value to every "copy", you can't expect to sell worthless copies of your work for ever and get on with your life, we live in a finite world, trying to sell or barter infinite stuff for finite ones doesn't work, you're creating money out of nothing without cost !
yeah agree with you that the starting idea it's yours but try to sell worthless replicas ad infinitum... ppl are not stupid you know

internet it's living the post scarcity age, you can't mix our real material world with it, ever

[kokjo]

in the case of the copied car, no one would lose anything.

if i set a price on a copy, i won't be happy you acquiring it for free and it is not legal. arguing copy doesn't hurt anyone is BS in this case - you don't agree to my terms you are free not to use it. looking for ways around it to use for free is simply wrong.

i have not signed any contract ever when i have buyed a cd. -> no terms apply.

[Serge]

guys supporting piracy, go pirate open source all you want if you like free so much - i won't say a word.   don't use any copyrighted material if you have no desire to pay for it - it is not made for you.

add value to every "copy", you can't expect to sell worthless copies of your work for ever and get on with your life, we live in a finite world, trying to sell or barter infinite stuff for finite ones doesn't work, you're creating money out of nothing without cost !
yeah agree with you that the starting idea it's yours but try to sell worthless replicas ad infinitum... ppl are not stupid you know

internet it's living the post scarcity age, you can't mix our real material world with it, ever

if a copy worthless to you why are you looking for it in the first place ? LOL

[johnj]

if a copy worthless to you why are you looking for it in the first place ? LOL

If it's worthless, why are you getting so butthurt if someone takes it?

LOL 

[Serge]

in the case of the copied car, no one would lose anything.

if i set a price on a copy, i won't be happy you acquiring it for free and it is not legal. arguing copy doesn't hurt anyone is BS in this case - you don't agree to my terms you are free not to use it. looking for ways around it to use for free is simply wrong.

i have not signed any contract ever when i have buyed a cd. -> no terms apply.

you bought copyrighted work and should know what you can and cannot do with it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

no one will give you right to distribute more copies though at the cost of a single CD, no one sane =)

[Serge]

if a copy worthless to you why are you looking for it in the first place ? LOL

If it's worthless, why are you getting so butthurt if someone takes it?

LOL 

I DID NOT CLAIM WORTHLESS , ask another user why he goes to darknets for hunt of worthless in his view material.

[paraipan]

if a copy worthless to you why are you looking for it in the first place ? LOL

If it's worthless, why are you getting so butthurt if someone takes it?

LOL  

worthless because everyone has the same thing, why bother paying you when when i can "borrow" from my family or friends. Add value to every copy and you will see ppl donate or pay to have them. I will never tell my mom, dad or brother to go buy it's own movie, mp3, ever.

You can't make me  

STFU with your "laws", find a way to monetize on your creations if you're so smart

[johnj]

if a copy worthless to you why are you looking for it in the first place ? LOL

If it's worthless, why are you getting so butthurt if someone takes it?

LOL 

I DID NOT CLAIM WORTHLESS , ask another user why he goes to darknets for hunt of worthless in his view material.

Then if you think it's worth something, you should understand why people pirate it.

D-uhh

 

[Serge]

if a copy worthless to you why are you looking for it in the first place ? LOL

If it's worthless, why are you getting so butthurt if someone takes it?

LOL  

worthless because everyone has the same thing, why bother paying you when when i can "borrow" from my family or friends. Add value to every copy and you will see ppl donate or pay to have them. I will never tell my mom, dad or brother to go buy it's own movie, mp3, ever. You can't make me  

try running real business with real expenses on donations. report back when succeeded.

[paraipan]

if a copy worthless to you why are you looking for it in the first place ? LOL

If it's worthless, why are you getting so butthurt if someone takes it?

LOL  

worthless because everyone has the same thing, why bother paying you when when i can "borrow" from my family or friends. Add value to every copy and you will see ppl donate or pay to have them. I will never tell my mom, dad or brother to go buy it's own movie, mp3, ever. You can't make me  

try running real business with real expenses on donations. report back when succeeded.

i will and will try not to use our flawed banking system in the process, i will stick with bitcoin

[Serge]

if a copy worthless to you why are you looking for it in the first place ? LOL

If it's worthless, why are you getting so butthurt if someone takes it?

LOL 

I DID NOT CLAIM WORTHLESS , ask another user why he goes to darknets for hunt of worthless in his view material.

Then if you think it's worth something, you should understand why people pirate it.

D-uhh

 

i understand fully why people steal stuff when there is a very little chance of being caught .  obviously not over worthless stuff, but something they can't afford while thinking they are entitled to have it for free

[paraipan]

if a copy worthless to you why are you looking for it in the first place ? LOL

If it's worthless, why are you getting so butthurt if someone takes it?

LOL  

I DID NOT CLAIM WORTHLESS , ask another user why he goes to darknets for hunt of worthless in his view material.

Then if you think it's worth something, you should understand why people pirate it.

D-uhh

 

i understand fully why people steal stuff when there is a very little chance of being caught .  obviously not over worthless stuff, but something they can't afford while thinking they are entitled to have it for free

carry on with your meaningless arguments, you could be on the establishment payroll if you ask me, tell your bosses they will never monetize on human communication like they did with on our physical work. You release your work to the public, we recognize you as the creator and will forever remember your name, get over with. If you actually make quality intellectual work everyone will send funds your way and be able to carry on with your work, that simple

[Serge]

if a copy worthless to you why are you looking for it in the first place ? LOL

If it's worthless, why are you getting so butthurt if someone takes it?

LOL  

I DID NOT CLAIM WORTHLESS , ask another user why he goes to darknets for hunt of worthless in his view material.

Then if you think it's worth something, you should understand why people pirate it.

D-uhh

 

i understand fully why people steal stuff when there is a very little chance of being caught .  obviously not over worthless stuff, but something they can't afford while thinking they are entitled to have it for free

carry on with your meaningless arguments, you could be on the establishment payroll if you ask me, tell your bosses they will never monetize on human communication like they did with on our physical work. You release your work to the public, we recognize you as the creator and will forever remember your name, get over with. If you actually make quality intellectual work everyone will send funds your way and be able to carry on with your work, that simple

communism works great on paper. good luck with it!

[paraipan]

if a copy worthless to you why are you looking for it in the first place ? LOL

If it's worthless, why are you getting so butthurt if someone takes it?

LOL  

I DID NOT CLAIM WORTHLESS , ask another user why he goes to darknets for hunt of worthless in his view material.

Then if you think it's worth something, you should understand why people pirate it.

D-uhh

 

i understand fully why people steal stuff when there is a very little chance of being caught .  obviously not over worthless stuff, but something they can't afford while thinking they are entitled to have it for free

carry on with your meaningless arguments, you could be on the establishment payroll if you ask me, tell your bosses they will never monetize on human communication like they did with on our physical work. You release your work to the public, we recognize you as the creator and will forever remember your name, get over with. If you actually make quality intellectual work everyone will send funds your way and be able to carry on with your work, that simple

communism works great on paper

why you derail the topic ? all ppl are shit scared, indoctrinated, about communism to research on their own what was about anyway

Can you make o joke, sing a song or entertain us somehow ... ? maybe i will send some coins your way if you're good at it 

[Serge]

if a copy worthless to you why are you looking for it in the first place ? LOL

If it's worthless, why are you getting so butthurt if someone takes it?

LOL  

I DID NOT CLAIM WORTHLESS , ask another user why he goes to darknets for hunt of worthless in his view material.

Then if you think it's worth something, you should understand why people pirate it.

D-uhh

 

i understand fully why people steal stuff when there is a very little chance of being caught .  obviously not over worthless stuff, but something they can't afford while thinking they are entitled to have it for free

carry on with your meaningless arguments, you could be on the establishment payroll if you ask me, tell your bosses they will never monetize on human communication like they did with on our physical work. You release your work to the public, we recognize you as the creator and will forever remember your name, get over with. If you actually make quality intellectual work everyone will send funds your way and be able to carry on with your work, that simple

communism works great on paper

why you derail the topic ? all ppl are shit scared, indoctrinated, about communism to research on their own what was about anyway

Can you make o joke, sing a song or entertain us somehow ... ? maybe i will send some coins your way if you're good at it  

unlike yours my life does not depend on donations

Quick get back on topic! those crazy police mods will ban us for life for a derailment!

[bitlane]

Can you make o joke, sing a song or entertain us somehow ... ?

If he does, can we make copies of the performance ?

[paraipan]

if a copy worthless to you why are you looking for it in the first place ? LOL

If it's worthless, why are you getting so butthurt if someone takes it?

LOL  

I DID NOT CLAIM WORTHLESS , ask another user why he goes to darknets for hunt of worthless in his view material.

Then if you think it's worth something, you should understand why people pirate it.

D-uhh

 

i understand fully why people steal stuff when there is a very little chance of being caught .  obviously not over worthless stuff, but something they can't afford while thinking they are entitled to have it for free

carry on with your meaningless arguments, you could be on the establishment payroll if you ask me, tell your bosses they will never monetize on human communication like they did with on our physical work. You release your work to the public, we recognize you as the creator and will forever remember your name, get over with. If you actually make quality intellectual work everyone will send funds your way and be able to carry on with your work, that simple

communism works great on paper

why you derail the topic ? all ppl are shit scared, indoctrinated, about communism to research on their own what was about anyway

Can you make o joke, sing a song or entertain us somehow ... ? maybe i will send some coins your way if you're good at it 

unlike yours my life does not depend on donations

then go, do what you're good at, and quit talking things you don't understand...

[Serge]

then go, do what you're good at, and quit talking things you don't understand...

continue try justifying stealing copies of work of others.  it's rather amusing although highly pathetic at the same time.

[johnj]

then go, do what you're good at, and quit talking things you don't understand...

continue try justifying stealing copies of work of others.  it's rather amusing

Well gee serge, we couldn't do it w/o folks like you!

A+, wonderful service, would use pirate again.

[paraipan]

then go, do what you're good at, and quit talking things you don't understand...

continue try justifying stealing copies of work of others.  it's rather amusing

man, you don't get it do you...
who paid your schooling ? we all did, but you know that already...
what did you, supposedly, learn in your whole life ? a big part of all human knowledge, you obviously did not...
what you give us in return ? your intellectual "creations" based on our previous knowledge...
see where I'm getting at ?  

you can't build an "industry" on that and even try monetize the communications channel, discs, tape, mp3, whatever

[bitlane]

Perhaps it's time for our ISPs to dish out a few $$ back to the Establishment...similar to the Blank CD Tax ? (without raising our already high prices in the process.....lol)

Piracy, although free in concept, can in fact cost quite a bit to the person benefitting from it.

I personally pay about $150/month for a 100Mbit Unlimited Bandwidth/Unmonitored Internet Account, so even though it affords me the luxury of a few 1080p Bluray Rips per day......how are they FREE in the end ?

[Serge]

then go, do what you're good at, and quit talking things you don't understand...

continue try justifying stealing copies of work of others.  it's rather amusing

man, you don't get it do you...
who paid your schooling ? we all did, but you know that already...
what did you, supposedly, learn in your whole life ? a big part of all human knowledge, you obviously did not...
what you give us in return ? your intellectual "creations" based on our previous knowledge...
see where I'm getting at ?  

do I owe you anything? your self-entitlement doesn't know borders, does it? =)

[paraipan]

then go, do what you're good at, and quit talking things you don't understand...

continue try justifying stealing copies of work of others.  it's rather amusing

man, you don't get it do you...
who paid your schooling ? we all did, but you know that already...
what did you, supposedly, learn in your whole life ? a big part of all human knowledge, you obviously did not...
what you give us in return ? your intellectual "creations" based on our previous knowledge...
see where I'm getting at ?  

do I owe you anything? your self-entitlement doesn't know borders, does it? =)

you ow me nothing, you owe us a good laugh and a thread title change into something that doesn't put a "patch" on all of us arrr

[RandyFolds]

[Serge]

Perhaps it's time for our ISPs to dish out a few $$ back to the Establishment...similar to the Blank CD Tax ? (without raising our already high prices in the process.....lol)

Piracy, although free in concept, can in fact cost quite a bit to the person benefitting from it.

I personally pay about $150/month for a 100Mbit Unlimited Bandwidth/Unmonitored Internet Account, so even though it affords me the luxury of a few 1080p Bluray Rips per day......how are they FREE in the end ?

How does the cost of ISP benefit creator of the Blueray though ?

[paraipan]

Perhaps it's time for our ISPs to dish out a few $$ back to the Establishment...similar to the Blank CD Tax ? (without raising our already high prices in the process.....lol)

Piracy, although free in concept, can in fact cost quite a bit to the person benefitting from it.

I personally pay about $150/month for a 100Mbit Unlimited Bandwidth/Unmonitored Internet Account, so even though it affords me the luxury of a few 1080p Bluray Rips per day......how are they FREE in the end ?

+1 bitlane

lol @RandyFolds pirates indeed

[bitlane]

How does the cost of ISP benefit creator of the Blueray though ?

How does the cost of a blank CD benefit the musicians that get a 'tax' from it ?......ARE YOU KIDDING ?

[bitlane]

[paraipan]

[kiyote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA - jack black talking about piracy.

please notice, that he is talking about incitement. what he says boils down to: no money -> no music.
THIS IS WRONG! because a real artist does care about his/hers art, not his wallet.

an artist should in my opinion, do it for the art, not the profit. of course the artist should be rewarded for his work.
an musician should hold concerts. but his record music, should be free.
i have a problem with paying for some that could easily be copied.
but i have no problem with going to a concert with a band. (except that im a rather poor student).

a concert can not be copied!

Okay, this is bullshit.  I'm a comedian and a comedy writer, and know a lot of actors and musicians, and they all want to get paid, because although they are doing what they love, at the end of the day, they still need to eat.

I personally creative commons everything I write, but that's because I have a career outside of writing, and I don't plan on making money off of it or doing it as my full time job.  But most of my friends have to work at shit jobs like waiting tables and clerks at law offices just to make ends meet, so they can do the thing that they love.

And you say, "Musicians should just do concerts!"  Concerts are one of the most grueling things a musician can do, months away from friends and family, traveling from unknown place to unknown place, and guess what?  Musicians already do them!  It's how they make ends meet to begin making their next album.

Your entitled attitude is astounding.  Maybe its because you're looking at that small percentage of musicians and actors who make a lot of money, and are forgetting about that 99.99% of them that are just figuring out how to get enough money to buy a few packs of ramen to eat. 

I will admit, I pirate a fair amount of stuff, but I also budget a certain amount of money each month to go back and buy the albums I like and will re-listen to.  If you're broke, I get it, I've been there, and it didn't stop me from downloading music, but quit with the entitlement shit.  It makes you look like an asshole.

dude! i play classical guitar, im not doing it for the money! im doing it for the music, because i think its fun!
the 99.99% aren't getting anything anyway.

im not talking about a world tourney. play for your community, play for fun, not money.

(i am the 99%, fuck you im know what im talking about.)

That's great, you have a hobby.

But you're condemning the vast majority of musicians from making a career of playing music.  They will always need to do something else.  No one becomes a musician for the money, just like no one becomes a teacher for the money either, but bills still need to get paid, and you're not only leeching off of the artists' hard work, but also claim that you're morally right to leech off of them, and are trying to encourage others to do the same.

Way to be an asshat. 

[payb.tc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA - jack black talking about piracy.

please notice, that he is talking about incitement. what he says boils down to: no money -> no music.
THIS IS WRONG! because a real artist does care about his/hers art, not his wallet.

an artist should in my opinion, do it for the art, not the profit. of course the artist should be rewarded for his work.
an musician should hold concerts. but his record music, should be free.
i have a problem with paying for some that could easily be copied.
but i have no problem with going to a concert with a band. (except that im a rather poor student).

a concert can not be copied!

Okay, this is bullshit.  I'm a comedian and a comedy writer, and know a lot of actors and musicians, and they all want to get paid, because although they are doing what they love, at the end of the day, they still need to eat.

I personally creative commons everything I write, but that's because I have a career outside of writing, and I don't plan on making money off of it or doing it as my full time job.  But most of my friends have to work at shit jobs like waiting tables and clerks at law offices just to make ends meet, so they can do the thing that they love.

And you say, "Musicians should just do concerts!"  Concerts are one of the most grueling things a musician can do, months away from friends and family, traveling from unknown place to unknown place, and guess what?  Musicians already do them!  It's how they make ends meet to begin making their next album.

Your entitled attitude is astounding.  Maybe its because you're looking at that small percentage of musicians and actors who make a lot of money, and are forgetting about that 99.99% of them that are just figuring out how to get enough money to buy a few packs of ramen to eat.  

I will admit, I pirate a fair amount of stuff, but I also budget a certain amount of money each month to go back and buy the albums I like and will re-listen to.  If you're broke, I get it, I've been there, and it didn't stop me from downloading music, but quit with the entitlement shit.  It makes you look like an asshole.

this claim assumes people should have a right to make money from doing what they love instead of working 9-5 in a job they hate just like the rest of us. what makes musicians so special that they are exempt from the rat race?

i love romantic dinners and long walks on the beach. should i quit my job and start whinging about payment for it?

[payb.tc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA - jack black talking about piracy.

please notice, that he is talking about incitement. what he says boils down to: no money -> no music.
THIS IS WRONG! because a real artist does care about his/hers art, not his wallet.

an artist should in my opinion, do it for the art, not the profit. of course the artist should be rewarded for his work.
an musician should hold concerts. but his record music, should be free.
i have a problem with paying for some that could easily be copied.
but i have no problem with going to a concert with a band. (except that im a rather poor student).

a concert can not be copied!

Okay, this is bullshit.  I'm a comedian and a comedy writer, and know a lot of actors and musicians, and they all want to get paid, because although they are doing what they love, at the end of the day, they still need to eat.

I personally creative commons everything I write, but that's because I have a career outside of writing, and I don't plan on making money off of it or doing it as my full time job.  But most of my friends have to work at shit jobs like waiting tables and clerks at law offices just to make ends meet, so they can do the thing that they love.

And you say, "Musicians should just do concerts!"  Concerts are one of the most grueling things a musician can do, months away from friends and family, traveling from unknown place to unknown place, and guess what?  Musicians already do them!  It's how they make ends meet to begin making their next album.

Your entitled attitude is astounding.  Maybe its because you're looking at that small percentage of musicians and actors who make a lot of money, and are forgetting about that 99.99% of them that are just figuring out how to get enough money to buy a few packs of ramen to eat. 

I will admit, I pirate a fair amount of stuff, but I also budget a certain amount of money each month to go back and buy the albums I like and will re-listen to.  If you're broke, I get it, I've been there, and it didn't stop me from downloading music, but quit with the entitlement shit.  It makes you look like an asshole.

dude! i play classical guitar, im not doing it for the money! im doing it for the music, because i think its fun!
the 99.99% aren't getting anything anyway.

im not talking about a world tourney. play for your community, play for fun, not money.

(i am the 99%, fuck you im know what im talking about.)

That's great, you have a hobby.

But you're condemning the vast majority of musicians from making a career of playing music.  They will always need to do something else.  No one becomes a musician for the money, just like no one becomes a teacher for the money either, but bills still need to get paid, and you're not only leeching off of the artists' hard work, but also claim that you're morally right to leech off of them, and are trying to encourage others to do the same.

Way to be an asshat. 

tough shit. 99% of the rest of us have to do something else (other than what they're passionate about), why not musicians?

[RandyFolds]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA - jack black talking about piracy.

please notice, that he is talking about incitement. what he says boils down to: no money -> no music.
THIS IS WRONG! because a real artist does care about his/hers art, not his wallet.

an artist should in my opinion, do it for the art, not the profit. of course the artist should be rewarded for his work.
an musician should hold concerts. but his record music, should be free.
i have a problem with paying for some that could easily be copied.
but i have no problem with going to a concert with a band. (except that im a rather poor student).

a concert can not be copied!

Okay, this is bullshit.  I'm a comedian and a comedy writer, and know a lot of actors and musicians, and they all want to get paid, because although they are doing what they love, at the end of the day, they still need to eat.

I personally creative commons everything I write, but that's because I have a career outside of writing, and I don't plan on making money off of it or doing it as my full time job.  But most of my friends have to work at shit jobs like waiting tables and clerks at law offices just to make ends meet, so they can do the thing that they love.

And you say, "Musicians should just do concerts!"  Concerts are one of the most grueling things a musician can do, months away from friends and family, traveling from unknown place to unknown place, and guess what?  Musicians already do them!  It's how they make ends meet to begin making their next album.

Your entitled attitude is astounding.  Maybe its because you're looking at that small percentage of musicians and actors who make a lot of money, and are forgetting about that 99.99% of them that are just figuring out how to get enough money to buy a few packs of ramen to eat. 

I will admit, I pirate a fair amount of stuff, but I also budget a certain amount of money each month to go back and buy the albums I like and will re-listen to.  If you're broke, I get it, I've been there, and it didn't stop me from downloading music, but quit with the entitlement shit.  It makes you look like an asshole.

dude! i play classical guitar, im not doing it for the money! im doing it for the music, because i think its fun!
the 99.99% aren't getting anything anyway.

im not talking about a world tourney. play for your community, play for fun, not money.

(i am the 99%, fuck you im know what im talking about.)

That's great, you have a hobby.

But you're condemning the vast majority of musicians from making a career of playing music.  They will always need to do something else.  No one becomes a musician for the money, just like no one becomes a teacher for the money either, but bills still need to get paid, and you're not only leeching off of the artists' hard work, but also claim that you're morally right to leech off of them, and are trying to encourage others to do the same.

Way to be an asshat. 

tough shit. 99% of the rest of us have to do something else (other than what they're passionate about), why not musicians?

this times a million.

[kiyote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA - jack black talking about piracy.

please notice, that he is talking about incitement. what he says boils down to: no money -> no music.
THIS IS WRONG! because a real artist does care about his/hers art, not his wallet.

an artist should in my opinion, do it for the art, not the profit. of course the artist should be rewarded for his work.
an musician should hold concerts. but his record music, should be free.
i have a problem with paying for some that could easily be copied.
but i have no problem with going to a concert with a band. (except that im a rather poor student).

a concert can not be copied!

Okay, this is bullshit.  I'm a comedian and a comedy writer, and know a lot of actors and musicians, and they all want to get paid, because although they are doing what they love, at the end of the day, they still need to eat.

I personally creative commons everything I write, but that's because I have a career outside of writing, and I don't plan on making money off of it or doing it as my full time job.  But most of my friends have to work at shit jobs like waiting tables and clerks at law offices just to make ends meet, so they can do the thing that they love.

And you say, "Musicians should just do concerts!"  Concerts are one of the most grueling things a musician can do, months away from friends and family, traveling from unknown place to unknown place, and guess what?  Musicians already do them!  It's how they make ends meet to begin making their next album.

Your entitled attitude is astounding.  Maybe its because you're looking at that small percentage of musicians and actors who make a lot of money, and are forgetting about that 99.99% of them that are just figuring out how to get enough money to buy a few packs of ramen to eat. 

I will admit, I pirate a fair amount of stuff, but I also budget a certain amount of money each month to go back and buy the albums I like and will re-listen to.  If you're broke, I get it, I've been there, and it didn't stop me from downloading music, but quit with the entitlement shit.  It makes you look like an asshole.

dude! i play classical guitar, im not doing it for the money! im doing it for the music, because i think its fun!
the 99.99% aren't getting anything anyway.

im not talking about a world tourney. play for your community, play for fun, not money.

(i am the 99%, fuck you im know what im talking about.)

That's great, you have a hobby.

But you're condemning the vast majority of musicians from making a career of playing music.  They will always need to do something else.  No one becomes a musician for the money, just like no one becomes a teacher for the money either, but bills still need to get paid, and you're not only leeching off of the artists' hard work, but also claim that you're morally right to leech off of them, and are trying to encourage others to do the same.

Way to be an asshat. 

tough shit. 99% of the rest of us have to do something else (other than what they're passionate about), why not musicians?

this times a million.

Okay, I get your argument now:  because you haven't found a way to get compensation for doing the things you love, you've gained the right to take from those who have. 

[phillipsjk]

guys supporting piracy, go pirate open source all you want if you like free so much - i won't say a word.   don't use any copyrighted material if you have no desire to pay for it - it is not made for you.

Here you fail to understand how FOSS software works. It is still under copyright. In fact, in many jurisdictions, copyright is automatic and the author is not able to renounce the copyright. In order to grant more freedoms than is traditionsally available under copyright law, the author releases the work under a license giving additional permission. One of the simplests licenses is the WTFPL.

One important thing to understand about permissive licenses is that if you disregard the license (for whatever reason), copyright law still applies with exemptions such "fair use" in the united states or "fair dealing" in commonwealth countries. IMO, the default copyright license still applies for proprietary software as well, even (especially) if you disregard the EULA. Since FOSS lincenses rely on copyright law, It is possible to pirate FOSS software. Typically, that involves distributing derivative works without releasing the source code.

On thing to watch out for is that some EULAs appear to be patent, rather than copyright licenses. One example of this is the Windows 7 EULA. It claims you agree to the license "by using the computer." Copyright laws  does not have this power, but stronger  patent law does. For example independent development is not a defence in patent disputes unless you can prove prior-art. Even if you can prove prior art, you are still liable for damages since granted patents enjoy a presumption of validity. For sufficiently complex software, it is probably trivial to get it to perform some kind of patented series of steps during its operation. In fact software patents are getting so ubiquitous, it is hard to write software avoiding them. To be safe, you would have to restrict yourself to 20 year old techniques.

The "would you copy a car" will be come a big issue in the comming century. The arguments for and against on both sides are exactly the same as for other things under copyright/patents/trademarks/integrated circuit topologies/ or database rights. Schlock Mercenary explains the end-game.

Back to the point:
People are social creatures. It is not enough to use some random peice of software, or watch some unknown movie. Due to network effects, we are generally expected to all use the same (proprietary) software, watch some portion of pop-culture, have a familiarity with the bible since it is referenced so often by other works, etc.

Copyright expires for a reason. As do patents. Trademarks don't expire because they exist for a different purpose: to prevent confusion in the marketplace.

I was serious when I said that ISP restrictions on copying restrict my ability to copy even if I have permission from the copyright holder. If you use certain protocols like bittorrent, you are presumed to be infringing copyright, despite the substantial non-infringing uses. When the ISP imposes bandwidth caps to get you to buy their "tripple play" (Internet, TV, Phone) bundle, it restricts my ability to author alternate Gnu/Lunix distros or participate in the Open Street Map project. Most residential ISPs restrict servers; meaning they are only selling you half an Internet connection (the IP protocol is inherently Peer to Peer). When I was shopping for a webhost, I was dismayed to learn that many of them are even more restrictive than ISPs (often exerting editorial control over your site).

Edit: Added Schlock Mercenary link, other minor corrections.

[RandyFolds]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA - jack black talking about piracy.

please notice, that he is talking about incitement. what he says boils down to: no money -> no music.
THIS IS WRONG! because a real artist does care about his/hers art, not his wallet.

an artist should in my opinion, do it for the art, not the profit. of course the artist should be rewarded for his work.
an musician should hold concerts. but his record music, should be free.
i have a problem with paying for some that could easily be copied.
but i have no problem with going to a concert with a band. (except that im a rather poor student).

a concert can not be copied!

Okay, this is bullshit.  I'm a comedian and a comedy writer, and know a lot of actors and musicians, and they all want to get paid, because although they are doing what they love, at the end of the day, they still need to eat.

I personally creative commons everything I write, but that's because I have a career outside of writing, and I don't plan on making money off of it or doing it as my full time job.  But most of my friends have to work at shit jobs like waiting tables and clerks at law offices just to make ends meet, so they can do the thing that they love.

And you say, "Musicians should just do concerts!"  Concerts are one of the most grueling things a musician can do, months away from friends and family, traveling from unknown place to unknown place, and guess what?  Musicians already do them!  It's how they make ends meet to begin making their next album.

Your entitled attitude is astounding.  Maybe its because you're looking at that small percentage of musicians and actors who make a lot of money, and are forgetting about that 99.99% of them that are just figuring out how to get enough money to buy a few packs of ramen to eat. 

I will admit, I pirate a fair amount of stuff, but I also budget a certain amount of money each month to go back and buy the albums I like and will re-listen to.  If you're broke, I get it, I've been there, and it didn't stop me from downloading music, but quit with the entitlement shit.  It makes you look like an asshole.

dude! i play classical guitar, im not doing it for the money! im doing it for the music, because i think its fun!
the 99.99% aren't getting anything anyway.

im not talking about a world tourney. play for your community, play for fun, not money.

(i am the 99%, fuck you im know what im talking about.)

That's great, you have a hobby.

But you're condemning the vast majority of musicians from making a career of playing music.  They will always need to do something else.  No one becomes a musician for the money, just like no one becomes a teacher for the money either, but bills still need to get paid, and you're not only leeching off of the artists' hard work, but also claim that you're morally right to leech off of them, and are trying to encourage others to do the same.

Way to be an asshat. 

tough shit. 99% of the rest of us have to do something else (other than what they're passionate about), why not musicians?

this times a million.

Okay, I get your argument now:  because you haven't found a way to get compensation for doing the things you love, you've gained the right to take from those who have. 

Yeah, that's what we're implying.

Read the thread.

[Rassah]

I know a lot of artists who draw really well, and put their stuff up online for free. They then take comision requests that they charge money for which they use to live off of. The free art is an advertisement; a demonstration of their skill. The custom job is what they get paid for.  Musicians can, and often do, get paid the same way. They give their music out for free to advertise their skill, a radio station can "hire" their skill if it's good enough, then the radio station pays them to keep producing music while advertising supports them playing it to everyone else for free. Likewise, I keep hearing that big name musicians make mst of their money from actually doing work at concerts as opposed to CD sales.

Here's a question though. If someone was selling me a car, and telling me how it has really nice features, is very reliable, and is a lot of fun to drive, but not allowing me to see it, then when I pay, say, $20,000 for it (average car price), it turns out to be an old, beat up, stripped down piece of crap that only goes straight forward and barely moves, is it fair that I am not allowed to return it, and the sales guy is legally allowed to get away with it?

[Explodicle]

Really what we need is some way for common people to compensate artists easily instead of relying on lawyers and middlemen. Like if artists could include a tiny address within the song metadata, and people could send a payment to that address with no involvement from a record company, the credit card companies, or the banks. 

Whenever one of my favorite artists releases an album for tips, I always pay. I just don't want insane prices, DRM, and to pay executives to tell us how damaging piracy is. If I could just use an app to donate proportionately to who I listen to, all the better. People now consume art so constantly, from anywhere, and there are so many more people, that this might even work better for artists than making the illegal version superior and treating us like garbage.

Does anyone currently offer legal (in the USA) donation-based music and accept Bitcoin? We could actually help solve this problem.

[speeder]

I try to make games.

I agree with copyright laws... To some extent.



Someone asked here: Why musicians are "entitled" to be musicians and not have a crap job?

Well, copyright was invented, to solve this, in fact, the first copyright law was a text that stated on it that it was a contract:

Artist and scientist would work full time as artist and scientist, thus making more work for society.

Society would pay that people back.



So, I want to make games... but right now, noone want to pay me for that, so I have another job, and it is so time consuming that I stopped making games. Who loses? Well, everyone. Me, that make no games, and players, that have none of my games to play.

Copyright was SUPPOSED to be a win-win thing, unfortunately, corporations (always them...) screwed things up, specially by making the copyright be author life + lots of time.

Tell me, will Disney (the guy, not the company) create more stuff with the current copyright law? Well... NO, HE IS DEAD.

Or, will Tolkien write more? NO, HE IS FUCKING DEAD.


DEAD PEOPLE DO NOT CREATE.

So, WHY THE HELL COPYRIGHT LASTS WELL AFTER THEY DIE?



That is to start.



So, I think copyright has a good essence, but a really evil implementation. (also the same goes for other IP laws, like patents... software patenting, seriously? Or trademark... with trademark trolls that trademark a common word and whatnot... Although the trademark law is the less broken of those laws, and work fairly well).

[kiyote]

I know a lot of artists who draw really well, and put their stuff up online for free. They then take comision requests that they charge money for which they use to live off of. The free art is an advertisement; a demonstration of their skill. The custom job is what they get paid for.  Musicians can, and often do, get paid the same way. They give their music out for free to advertise their skill, a radio station can "hire" their skill if it's good enough, then the radio station pays them to keep producing music while advertising supports them playing it to everyone else for free. Likewise, I keep hearing that big name musicians make mst of their money from actually doing work at concerts as opposed to CD sales.

Here's a question though. If someone was selling me a car, and telling me how it has really nice features, is very reliable, and is a lot of fun to drive, but not allowing me to see it, then when I pay, say, $20,000 for it (average car price), it turns out to be an old, beat up, stripped down piece of crap that only goes straight forward and barely moves, is it fair that I am not allowed to return it, and the sales guy is legally allowed to get away with it?

People have the right to utilize their copyrights however they want, and that includes releasing it into the public domain, or under creative commons.  But if they want to control the copyright a little tighter and release it only to people who pay them, like in your commission example, that is also their right, and not yours to just take it.

[kiyote]

I try to make games.

I agree with copyright laws... To some extent.



Someone asked here: Why musicians are "entitled" to be musicians and not have a crap job?

Well, copyright was invented, to solve this, in fact, the first copyright law was a text that stated on it that it was a contract:

Artist and scientist would work full time as artist and scientist, thus making more work for society.

Society would pay that people back.



So, I want to make games... but right now, noone want to pay me for that, so I have another job, and it is so time consuming that I stopped making games. Who loses? Well, everyone. Me, that make no games, and players, that have none of my games to play.

Copyright was SUPPOSED to be a win-win thing, unfortunately, corporations (always them...) screwed things up, specially by making the copyright be author life + lots of time.

Tell me, will Disney (the guy, not the company) create more stuff with the current copyright law? Well... NO, HE IS DEAD.

Or, will Tolkien write more? NO, HE IS FUCKING DEAD.


DEAD PEOPLE DO NOT CREATE.

So, WHY THE HELL COPYRIGHT LASTS WELL AFTER THEY DIE?



That is to start.



So, I think copyright has a good essence, but a really evil implementation. (also the same goes for other IP laws, like patents... software patenting, seriously? Or trademark... with trademark trolls that trademark a common word and whatnot... Although the trademark law is the less broken of those laws, and work fairly well).

I agree all the way.  The issue is that estates of dead creators have kept pushing for longer and longer copyright periods so they can keep profiting off of the deceased creator's work, but all that is is a form of leeching.

[Serge]

People have the right to utilize their copyrights however they want, and that includes releasing it into the public domain, or under creative commons.  But if they want to control the copyright a little tighter and release it only to people who pay them, like in your commission example, that is also their right, and not yours to just take it.

well said.

[Explodicle]

People have the right to utilize their copyrights however they want, and that includes releasing it into the public domain, or under creative commons.  But if they want to control the copyright a little tighter and release it only to people who pay them, like in your commission example, that is also their right, and not yours to just take it.

Pirates are not advocating we "just take" private information. If the commissioner for some reason now chooses to make his property publicly visible, that doesn't include anyone else in the original agreement.

[kokjo]

People have the right to utilize their copyrights however they want,

i disagree.

[Rassah]

Here's a question though. If someone was selling me a car, and telling me how it has really nice features, is very reliable, and is a lot of fun to drive, but not allowing me to see it, then when I pay, say, $20,000 for it (average car price), it turns out to be an old, beat up, stripped down piece of crap that only goes straight forward and barely moves, is it fair that I am not allowed to return it, and the sales guy is legally allowed to get away with it?

My point with this is that intellectual property is the only type of product that once you absorb, can not be returned, and only one that can not be described objectively. Once you've read a book or heard a song, you can't pull it back out of your eyes and ears and return it like you can with physical goods. And once you have read a book, even if for free, there is no reason to acquire it any more, other than for reference, since you already know what it's like. You also can't describe it, especially with more objective terms, and instead have to rely on opinions. So while someone can falsely advertise how great a car is, if it's broken and sucks, and that's easily provable,  I can return it and demand my money back. With intellectual property, if someone falsely advertizes a great movie or song, by simply experiencing it I have already absorbed it and can't undo the experience, and it sucking can only be a matter of opinion, since others might like it. So, with intellectual "property" I am not even subject to the same set of rules for property exchange as I am to real property.
(Which is why I often ignore the rules, experience the "property" first, and pay for an actual product if it doesn't "suck" and is something I'd like to own)

[paraipan]

my personal opinion is... our actual system is purposely flawed to hinder creativity.
The OP commented some pages back on some 10.000 dollars in fees that must be payed by the artists before producing a disc. Where are those money going ? Why they impose them on the artists ? Why the real artists only get a small percentage on the sales ? Lots more unanswered questions...

The thing is in this times will be very difficult to monetize on the distribution channel, so the real artists would have to find some ways to do it by cutting the "middle man" in the process and let people see in advance what are they paying for if they want to make a living on their creations too.

edit: man i wish jamendo accepted bitcoins

[kiyote]

People have the right to utilize their copyrights however they want,

i disagree.

Well, then you're wrong.  Another person's copyrights don't belong to you.  You can try to convince them to let you use it, but in the end, it's their decision to make.

[kiyote]

my personal opinion is... our actual system is purposely flawed to hinder creativity.
The OP commented some pages back on some 10.000 dollars in fees that must be payed by the artists before producing a disc. Where are those money going ? Why they impose them on the artists ? Why the real artists only get a small percentage on the sales ? Lots more unanswered questions...

The thing is in this times will be very difficult to monetize on the distribution channel, so the real artists would have to find some ways to do it by cutting the "middle man" in the process and let people see in advance what are they paying for if they want to make a living on their creations too.

Those recording fees are a hold over from the days when recording music wasn't so ridiculously cheap and easy.  Now anyone can record an album in their bedroom with a laptop with Garage Band and release it via iTunes. 

Even fifteen years ago, in order to record music of any quality at all, you needed a recording studio with expensive equipment, people trained in using that equipment, ties with manufacturers who could produce records/CDs, marketers and advertisers, distribution networks, shipping costs, etc, all of which don't exist anymore, no matter what the RIAA wants you to believe. 

This is why the last decade has been the rise of the indie musician: they don't need to sell their copyrights to the record companies anymore, because they can do the job of the record companies themselves for a lot cheaper, and arguably better.

[Explodicle]

People have the right to utilize their copyrights however they want,

i disagree.

Well, then you're wrong.  Another person's copyrights don't belong to you.  You can try to convince them to let you use it, but in the end, it's their decision to make.

Where do you think rights come from?

[Rassah]

People have the right to utilize their copyrights however they want,

i disagree.

Well, then you're wrong.  Another person's copyrights don't belong to you.  You can try to convince them to let you use it, but in the end, it's their decision to make.

Where do you think rights come from?

That's a stupid question to ask those people. Only because after 100+ pages on another thread it's been pretty thoroughly established that they don't understand what rights are, let alone where they come from.

[kiyote]

People have the right to utilize their copyrights however they want,

i disagree.

Well, then you're wrong.  Another person's copyrights don't belong to you.  You can try to convince them to let you use it, but in the end, it's their decision to make.

Where do you think rights come from?

That's a stupid question to ask those people. Only because after 100+ pages on another thread it's been pretty thoroughly established that they don't understand what rights are, let alone where they come from.

What's a right:

"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. "

Or, the specific type of right to our case, the "Claim Right":

"A claim right is a right which entails that another person has a duty to the right-holder. Somebody else must do or refrain from doing something to or for the claim holder, such as perform a service or supply a product for him or her; that is, he or she has a claim to that service or product (another term is thing in action). In logic, this idea can be expressed as: "Person A has a claim that person B do something if and only if B has a duty to A to do that something." Every claim-right entails that some other duty-bearer must do some duty for the claim to be satisfied. This duty can be to act or to refrain from acting.
...
If a person has a claim right against someone else, then that other person's liberty is limited. For example, a person has a liberty right to walk down a sidewalk and can decide freely whether or not to do so, since there is no obligation either to do so or to refrain from doing so. But pedestrians may have an obligation not to walk on certain lands, such as other people's private property, to which those other people have a claim right."

Where rights come from:

"Politics plays an important role in developing or recognizing the above rights, and the discussion about which behaviors are included as "rights" is an ongoing political topic of importance."

And the specific claim right of Copyrights within the United States:

"Copyright law in the United States is part of federal law, and is authorized by the U.S. Constitution. The power to enact copyright law is granted in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, also known as the Copyright Clause, which states:

    The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

[ALPHA.]

I own my computer and the electricity that flows through it. I care not if it resembles the matter or energy of another; it is mine. There may be many like it but it is mine. It is in my domain and within my control. I will use it as I please regardless of any ownership claimed by others. My physical property right supersedes. I shall shape it, modify it and utilize it as I please. You shall have no say over its use.

That's what I have to say to intellectual property rights and the like.

[Rassah]

Summarized:

What's a right:

"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles ...  the fundamental normative rules ... according to some..."

Or, the specific type of right to our case, the "Claim Right":

"Person A has a claim that person B do something if and only if B has a duty to A to do that something."
...
If a person has a claim right against someone else, then that other person's liberty is limited. ... such as [walking on] other people's private property"

Where rights come from:

"Politics ... discussion about ... "rights" is ongoing...."

And the specific claim right of Copyrights within the United States:

"Copyright law ... part of federal law, and is authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

    The Congress shall have Power ... by securing for limited Times ... Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Or "it's this or that, maybe having to do with politics, and discussion is ongoing, but we think it comes from law or Constitution."

As I said, no understanding of what rights are or where they come from. Or rather, believe rights are things just generally agreed on based on the whims of contemporary culture, and which we commit to paper.

[ALPHA.]

Empirically, rights can only be enforced by the blood and sweat of others. You can only lay your claim to yourself and others by the potential of force; the fear of losing life itself along with its products.

[kiyote]

I own my computer and the electricity that flows through it. I care not if it resembles the matter or energy of another; it is mine. There may be many like it but it is mine. It is in my domain and within my control. I will use it as I please regardless of any ownership claimed by others. My physical property right supersedes. I shall shape it, modify it and utilize it as I please. You shall have no say over its use.

That's what I have to say to intellectual property rights and the like.

That's fair.  Not giving a shit about infringing on other people's ownership is actually a lot more refreshing than the belief that it's your right to be given that ownership.

[Rassah]

I own my computer and the electricity that flows through it. I care not if it resembles the matter or energy of another; it is mine. There may be many like it but it is mine. It is in my domain and within my control. I will use it as I please regardless of any ownership claimed by others. My physical property right supersedes. I shall shape it, modify it and utilize it as I please. You shall have no say over its use.

That's what I have to say to intellectual property rights and the like.

That's fair.  Not giving a shit about infringing on other people's ownership is actually a lot more refreshing than the belief that it's your right to be given that ownership.

It just hit me. Why would pro-copyright people claim that pirates want to take ownership of other peoples' IP (you're not the first) if pirates don't believe in the concept of intellectual property in the first place?

[ALPHA.]

I own my computer and the electricity that flows through it. I care not if it resembles the matter or energy of another; it is mine. There may be many like it but it is mine. It is in my domain and within my control. I will use it as I please regardless of any ownership claimed by others. My physical property right supersedes. I shall shape it, modify it and utilize it as I please. You shall have no say over its use.

That's what I have to say to intellectual property rights and the like.

That's fair.  Not giving a shit about infringing on other people's ownership is actually a lot more refreshing than the belief that it's your right to be given that ownership.

Their supposed ownership holds no authority over me. It holds as much authority as your preference not to have other men dream of fornicating with your wife in their sleep. Your whole idea of a right is just a mere emotional whim. It has no standing on its own. The soil will not be tilled, the cows will not graze sustainably just because you prefer it.

Feel free to force others to your whim; however, whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed.

[kiyote]

Summarized:

What's a right:

"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles ...  the fundamental normative rules ... according to some..."

Or, the specific type of right to our case, the "Claim Right":

"Person A has a claim that person B do something if and only if B has a duty to A to do that something."
...
If a person has a claim right against someone else, then that other person's liberty is limited. ... such as [walking on] other people's private property"

Where rights come from:

"Politics ... discussion about ... "rights" is ongoing...."

And the specific claim right of Copyrights within the United States:

"Copyright law ... part of federal law, and is authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

    The Congress shall have Power ... by securing for limited Times ... Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Or "it's this or that, maybe having to do with politics, and discussion is ongoing, but we think it comes from law or Constitution."

As I said, no understanding of what rights are or where they come from. Or rather, believe rights are things just generally agreed on based on the whims of contemporary culture, and which we commit to paper.

Assuming you live in the US, you live in a republic.  You voice is heard through your vote for your representative, as well as any conversation you may have with him or her convincing her of your point.  The representative secures rights, in this case copyrights, through legislation, which aim to, yes, reflect "things just generally agreed on based on the whims of contemporary culture."

The point I've been trying to make throughout this whole ordeal, disagreeing with that legislation doesn't grant you the right to be exempt from copyright.  In fact, I doubt you can understand why the "whims of contemporary culture" deem a certain level of it necessary.  

Which is actually understandable if you've never been in a position to have produced something for which copyright granted a noticeable benefit, yet have been in a number of positions where you have either seen or felt the negative repercussions of breaking copyright.  

But the people who actually produce something will always be given the preferential treatment.  As they should be.

[kiyote]

I own my computer and the electricity that flows through it. I care not if it resembles the matter or energy of another; it is mine. There may be many like it but it is mine. It is in my domain and within my control. I will use it as I please regardless of any ownership claimed by others. My physical property right supersedes. I shall shape it, modify it and utilize it as I please. You shall have no say over its use.

That's what I have to say to intellectual property rights and the like.

That's fair.  Not giving a shit about infringing on other people's ownership is actually a lot more refreshing than the belief that it's your right to be given that ownership.

It just hit me. Why would pro-copyright people claim that pirates want to take ownership of other peoples' IP (you're not the first) if pirates don't believe in the concept of intellectual property in the first place?

Because that's what you're effectively doing from an outsider perspective.  By disregarding copyright law, you are behaving in a way that, legally, only the original copyright holder can behave in. 

[RandyFolds]

I own my computer and the electricity that flows through it. I care not if it resembles the matter or energy of another; it is mine. There may be many like it but it is mine. It is in my domain and within my control. I will use it as I please regardless of any ownership claimed by others. My physical property right supersedes. I shall shape it, modify it and utilize it as I please. You shall have no say over its use.

That's what I have to say to intellectual property rights and the like.

That's fair.  Not giving a shit about infringing on other people's ownership is actually a lot more refreshing than the belief that it's your right to be given that ownership.

Their supposed ownership holds no authority over me. It holds as much authority as your preference not to have other men dream of fornicating with your wife in their sleep. Your whole idea of a right is just a mere emotional whim. It has no standing on its own. The soil will not be tilled, the cows will not graze sustainably just because you prefer it.

Feel free to force others to your whim; however, whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed.

You picked the wrong analogy for Rassah. Something with banging dogs or horses atop coffeetables would have been more apt.

[kiyote]

I own my computer and the electricity that flows through it. I care not if it resembles the matter or energy of another; it is mine. There may be many like it but it is mine. It is in my domain and within my control. I will use it as I please regardless of any ownership claimed by others. My physical property right supersedes. I shall shape it, modify it and utilize it as I please. You shall have no say over its use.

That's what I have to say to intellectual property rights and the like.

That's fair.  Not giving a shit about infringing on other people's ownership is actually a lot more refreshing than the belief that it's your right to be given that ownership.

Their supposed ownership holds no authority over me. It holds as much authority as your preference not to have other men dream of fornicating with your wife in their sleep. Your whole idea of a right is just a mere emotional whim. It has no standing on its own. The soil will not be tilled, the cows will not graze sustainably just because you prefer it.

Feel free to force others to your whim; however, whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed.

Mmmhmm, see how you believe in ownership when I take your cows, break your plow and then fuck your wife. 

[ALPHA.]

I own my computer and the electricity that flows through it. I care not if it resembles the matter or energy of another; it is mine. There may be many like it but it is mine. It is in my domain and within my control. I will use it as I please regardless of any ownership claimed by others. My physical property right supersedes. I shall shape it, modify it and utilize it as I please. You shall have no say over its use.

That's what I have to say to intellectual property rights and the like.

That's fair.  Not giving a shit about infringing on other people's ownership is actually a lot more refreshing than the belief that it's your right to be given that ownership.

Their supposed ownership holds no authority over me. It holds as much authority as your preference not to have other men dream of fornicating with your wife in their sleep. Your whole idea of a right is just a mere emotional whim. It has no standing on its own. The soil will not be tilled, the cows will not graze sustainably just because you prefer it.

Feel free to force others to your whim; however, whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed.

Mmmhmm, see how you believe in ownership when I take your cows, break your plow and then fuck your wife.  

You can't because my household is armed. The government that puts a backing behind my supposed "rights" is armed and I'll probably snap you like a twig before you can touch my wife. My "rights" have backing. Your "intellectual property" does not. You cannot touch all the millions who infringe these supposed rights daily. They are broken and bypassed with ease by the individual. There is nothing to them. They are empty. Void.

[ALPHA.]

­­

[ALPHA.]

Assuming you live in the US, you live in a republic.  You voice is heard through your vote for your representative, as well as any conversation you may have with him or her convincing her of your point.  The representative secures rights, in this case copyrights, through legislation, which aim to, yes, reflect "things just generally agreed on based on the whims of contemporary culture."

I couldn't care less how the system views me and what they allow me to do. It's how they stop me from doing what I wish that matters. I'll go out of the way to accomplish what I want despite whatever others wish. I'll change nation's if that will bring me the value I desire in the end. I am a free body.

The point I've been trying to make throughout this whole ordeal, disagreeing with that legislation doesn't grant you the right to be exempt from copyright.  

Sure it does. It doesn't affect me one damn bit. It can't touch me.

Which is actually understandable if you've never been in a position to have produced something for which copyright granted a noticeable benefit, yet have been in a number of positions where you have either seen or felt the negative repercussions of breaking copyright.  

It doesn't affect me on an individual level. On a societal scale, it's only a negative benefit. Innovation is empirically limited by copyright laws.

But the people who actually produce something will always be given the preferential treatment.  As they should be.

Not for long. The force that makes their treatment possible is gradually becoming irrelevant.

[kiyote]

Assuming you live in the US, you live in a republic.  You voice is heard through your vote for your representative, as well as any conversation you may have with him or her convincing her of your point.  The representative secures rights, in this case copyrights, through legislation, which aim to, yes, reflect "things just generally agreed on based on the whims of contemporary culture."

I couldn't care less how the system views me and what they allow me to do. It's how they stop me from doing what I wish that matters. I'll go out of the way to accomplish what I want despite whatever others wish. I'll change nation's if that will bring me the value I desire in the end. I am a free body.

The point I've been trying to make throughout this whole ordeal, disagreeing with that legislation doesn't grant you the right to be exempt from copyright.  

Sure it does. It doesn't affect me one damn bit. It can't touch me.

Which is actually understandable if you've never been in a position to have produced something for which copyright granted a noticeable benefit, yet have been in a number of positions where you have either seen or felt the negative repercussions of breaking copyright.  

It doesn't affect me on an individual level. On a societal scale, it's only a negative benefit. Innovation is empirically limited by copyright laws.

But the people who actually produce something will always be given the preferential treatment.  As they should be.

Not for long. The force that makes their treatment possible is gradually becoming irrelevant.

Haha!  Fourteen!  My guess is you're fourteen, Alpha!  It could go a few years either way, you could be an old-twelve year old or a young eighteen year old, but I hold to fourteen.  ^_^

[ALPHA.]

Ad hominem; a false one at that.

Face the truth. It doesn't matter if it's illegal or hated by a flying spaghetti monster in the sky. If you can't effectively force people to do or not to do something, the preference is worthless.

I have your wife, kiyote. She chose me. I make her happier. No matter how much you want her back, no matter how wrong you think it is that she's in my bed, it changes nothing.

You'll have to kill me and rape her to get her back.

[kiyote]

Ad hominem; a false one at that.

Face the truth. It doesn't matter if it's illegal or hated by a flying spaghetti monster in the sky. If you can't effectively force people to do or not to do something, the preference is worthless.

I have your wife, kiyote. She chose me. I make her happier. No matter how much you want her back, no matter how wrong you think it is that she's in my bed, it changes nothing.

You'll have to kill me and rape her to get her back.

An "ad hominem" implies that I am trying to prove your claim is false by attacking your person, but all you're doing is putting your fingers in your ears while singing "Lalalala, the rules don't apply to me."  There's nothing to claim is false.

And yes, there is a lot your can do to force someone to obey the laws.  The fact that you can't see that makes you either young and sheltered, a malignant narcissist or a sociopath.  I still think you're just young.

[Serge]

>  Innovation is empirically limited by copyright laws.

How do copyright laws stop anyone from producing innovating ? what's the limiting factor?

[kokjo]

>  Innovation is empirically limited by copyright laws.

How do copyright laws stop anyone from producing innovating ? what's the limiting factor?

look at Apple and Samsung.
or linux, and a variate of patent holding companies.

THIS SUCK!

[RandyFolds]

>  Innovation is empirically limited by copyright laws.

How do copyright laws stop anyone from producing innovating ? what's the limiting factor?

I sincerely hope that you are joking here. You've got to be trolling. If not, you are clear-cut retarded. Why do medications that can be produced for pennies cost thousands of dollars, you ask?

[Explodicle]

Thank you for answering my question, kiyote. This is where I usually disagree with pro-copyright people, since I believe humans are born with their rights... elected representatives and constitutions don't change what those rights are. Governments can try to describe and protect those rights, but they never create rights.

[ALPHA.]

Ad hominem; a false one at that.

Face the truth. It doesn't matter if it's illegal or hated by a flying spaghetti monster in the sky. If you can't effectively force people to do or not to do something, the preference is worthless.

I have your wife, kiyote. She chose me. I make her happier. No matter how much you want her back, no matter how wrong you think it is that she's in my bed, it changes nothing.

You'll have to kill me and rape her to get her back.

And yes, there is a lot your can do to force someone to obey the laws.

You can use force. You can't hold force against the millions torrenting as we speak. You're ignoring the whole discussion at hand which is fine. Don't expect to get much out of this, in that case.

[Rassah]

...You live in a republic. ...  The representative secures rights ... through legislation

... disagreeing with that legislation doesn't grant you the right to be exempt from copyright.  In fact, I doubt you can understand why the "whims of contemporary culture" deem a certain level of it necessary.  

You are still confusing "rights" with "laws." One stands alone, the other just tries to describe it and put it on paper. You can still have rights without laws. For example, I think slaves still had a right to freedom and self-determination even if the written law said otherwise. That's why these laws change: society realizes that the law is going against basic rights, and fixes the broken legislation.

Which is actually understandable if you've never been in a position to have produced something for which copyright granted a noticeable benefit, yet have been in a number of positions where you have either seen or felt the negative repercussions of breaking copyright.  

But the people who actually produce something will always be given the preferential treatment.  As they should be.

Ahem...
United States Patent 8,047,138

[phillipsjk]

>  Innovation is empirically limited by copyright laws.

How do copyright laws stop anyone from producing innovating ? what's the limiting factor?

look at Apple and Samsung.
or linux, and a variate of patent holding companies.

THIS SUCK!

Copyright Laws are not the same as Patent laws.

Copyright law covers the creative expression of ideas. Because all ideas are based on those that come before them, copyright law has built-in exemptions that allow you to borrow/quote other people's ideas (the specific exemptions vary, but generally: the smaller the portion your borrow, the safer you are). Databases are generally not considered to be copyrightable because they are not creative enough. That is why some jurisdictions such as Europe have introduced the Database directive, which has little to do with copyright.

Patents cover novel inventions. They are intended to encourage disclosure, rather than the use of trade-secrets. As I said, they are stronger than copyright in that independent development is not a defence. They also allow a patent holder prohibit the use of the patented invention for the length of the patent period. The assumption is that it will be more profitable to license the invention rather than hold back technological progress for 20 years.

The argument that patents harm inovation is much more clear-cut* than the argument that copyright harms innovation. However, with copyright law being modified to include legal protection for Effective Technological Measures, copyright law has the potential to outlaw the general-purpose computer. This would hurt every sector of the economy as the computer industry is pushed back 30 years. For example, large businesses would see the return of paying by the processor cycle (the Windows Server Licenses already demand payment per-user and per-CPU).

* I have read rumours that the auto industry is using battery patents to prohibit the manufacture of high-capacity batteries. 10 Amp-hours is not a lot of capacity: it is about what you would get out of a D cell battery. Most rechargeable D-cells you see in stores (rated for 2000-3000mAH) are actually AA cells in a D sized case. It is actually cheaper to buy AA cells and put them in a AA->D adapter yourself. I have some cheap, real D cells from china. It is possible they are circumventing patent law by shipping them. It is the difference between 1 and 5 hours of run-time for the lights on my bicycle.

Edit: I suspect copyright law is being modified in such a strange way because traditionally, Patent law has been used to enforce DRM. Unfortunately, Copyright terms last much longer than patent terms. The Patents on DVD technology should be expiring soon. That means that without a blanket prohibition of circumventing "copy protection", people would be free to make region-free optical disk players that just happen to be able to read DVD (trademark) disks.

[phillipsjk]

Which is actually understandable if you've never been in a position to have produced something for which copyright granted a noticeable benefit, yet have been in a number of positions where you have either seen or felt the negative repercussions of breaking copyright.  

But the people who actually produce something will always be given the preferential treatment.  As they should be.

Ahem...
United States Patent 8,047,138

Are you claiming to be one of the patent holders?

I was expecting a "process for eating a can of soup" type patent.

If you read the details, the patent claims to disclose an invention distinct from existing maglev train designs.

[Rassah]

Ahem...
United States Patent 8,047,138

Are you claiming to be one of the patent holders?

I was expecting a "process for eating a can of soup" type patent.

If you read the details, the patent claims to disclose an invention distinct from existing maglev train designs.

Yep. This was my Summer legal headache, and something I've been involved with for last ten years

And yep. Totally unique, and incorrectly assumed to be impossible.

[chickenado]

In my view, all laws must pass the "Robinson criterion" and the "drop dead criterion".

Robinson criterion: "If this law were passed on Robinson Crusoe's island, it must not interfere with the way Robinson would have acted in absence of the law."

drop dead criterion: "If I were to drop dead tomorrow, and this doesn't make you worse off, then I am not indebted to you".


IP laws fail on both counts, especially proactive IP laws.

If you own property, it's your responsibility to defend it. It's your responsibility to pay for the cost of defense.  

If you accuse someone of a rights violation, the onus is on you to prove it.

The purpose of a legal system is not to defend people's property.  The purpose is to settle disputes where a rights violation has already provably occurred.

If I park my bike in a shady part of town, I can't force the local residents to buy me a bike lock because it's more likely to be stolen. It is my responsibility to pay for the lock.

It is not the responsibility of ISPs to pay for the defense costs of copyright holders.  Neither can ISPs be forced to spy on their customers against their will, on the mere suspicion that a rights violation is occurring.
 

[phillipsjk]

In my view, all laws must pass the "Robinson criterion" and the "drop dead criterion".

Robinson criterion: "If this law were passed on Robinson Crusoe's island, it must not interfere with the way Robinson would have acted in absence of the law."

drop dead criterion: "If I were to drop dead tomorrow, and this doesn't make you worse off, then I am not indebted to you".
 

I had trouble parsing these.

If somebody dies, making me better off, does that imply they were indebted to me? Does that imply you oppose the concept of inheritance?

For the first one, are you suggesting that laws should be based on a classic novel?

[ALPHA.]

In my view, all laws must pass the "Robinson criterion" and the "drop dead criterion".

Robinson criterion: "If this law were passed on Robinson Crusoe's island, it must not interfere with the way Robinson would have acted in absence of the law."

drop dead criterion: "If I were to drop dead tomorrow, and this doesn't make you worse off, then I am not indebted to you".
 

I had trouble parsing these.

If somebody dies, making me better off, does that imply they were indebted to me?

No that doesn't. It just means their death was valuable to you. That's all it means and nothing more.