Slashdot Mirror
Interview With Pirate Party Leader Rick Falkvinge
mmuch writes "In the wake of the recent copyright debate in Swedish mainstream media, the P2P Consortium has published an interview with Rick Falkvinge, the leader of the Swedish Pirate Party. He comments on the mainstream politicians starting to understand the issues, the interplay between strict copyright enforcement and mass surveillance, and the chances for global copyright reform." Some choice Falkvinge quotes: "What was remarkable was that this was the point where the enemy — forces that want to lock down culture and knowledge at the cost of total surveillance — realized they were under a serious attack... for the first time, we saw everything they could bring to the battle. And it was... nothing. Not even a fizzle. All they can say is 'thief, we have our rights, we want our rights, nothing must change, we want more money, thief, thief, thief'... Whereas we are talking about scarcity vs. abundance, monopolies, the nature of property, 500-year historical perspectives on culture and knowledge, incentive structures, economic theory, disruptive technologies, etc. The difference in intellectual levels between the sides is astounding... When the Iron Curtain fell, all of the West rejoiced that the East would become just as free as the West. It was never supposed to be the other way around."
and I'm free to cease producing works.
Children so stupid they think America invented the Internet, computer, motor car, light bulb, telephone etc ad infinitum....
You're really a depressed individual. If you're so incapable of seeing the good things in life, I suggest you simply off yourself now, and put yourself out of our misery.
And Americans mostly did invent the Internet, computer (well, us and the Brits), motor car (well, us and the Brits), the light bulb and the telephone. Find some other examples if you want to prove how stupid and uncreative Americans are.
You do raise some good points, however, you're making the same fundamental mistake that many people of other countries make. That's assuming that the vast majority of Americans think one way or another, and pegging all of us as fitting some arbitrary mold that serves their own prejudices. What I find hysterical (and hypocritical) about that is that America, of pretty much all nations, is a pretty fractious affair, with most of us disagreeing with somebody else about something.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You could exchange America with what ever you want, you can still do this rant. Blame Comunism, blame capitalism, blame stupidity, but in the end you are just shifting the blame from yourself.
Now try to change stuff instead, do something positive, join a recycle program, an SCI International Voluntary Service program. Just do stuff for yourself that makes you feel better, but in the same time helps others. I'm sure that will help you get over your angst.
I hear this posited repeatedly in response to me, and not ever do I say this. But it's the red herring tossed out in an attempt to discredit what is said. Always what will happen is the rate at which new works are produced will drop (significantly, most likely) but never cease. And there's no reason for this drop to be forced.
Agreed, it is insane. But blatantly violating copyrights like we see today does nothing to correct it. On the contrary, it gives them ammunition to use against us.
My one bit of advice to these folks would be to not make this overtly political. People are going to begin to lose respect for the people behind torrent sites if they start spewing pseudo-Marxist ideas as their defense. Look where it got RMS -- no one takes him seriously anymore and the project that put him on the map clearly considers him irrelevant (linux/gplv3).
People who download music and movies aren't doing it to assert their solidarity with the Sandinistas, they're doing it because they can, and frankly most of us don't have enough cash free to go buy the entire discography of say Miles Davis or Bob Dylan.
Stick to the 'we're not providing content, only torrents' line. I think they'll find a more sympathetic client base.
You're not required to respect me in the slightest, but I think you are jumping to conclusions. We've been discussing this full time for the past three or four years (with the Pirate Party being founded on Jan 1, 2006) -- it's a rare day I get a new question.
:) Which president said "If I knew I would make president, I would have studied harder"?
I've been exposed to pretty much every argument, angle, and corner out there in this debate. Obviously you don't have to respect me for that, but you'd do well to assume that I've seen the pros and cons of most dimensions of this structural shift.
Oh, and as always, if I had known in advance this interview would end up on Slashdot, I would have spent more time on it.
>computer (well, us and the Brits),
Konrad Zuse?
>motor car (well, us and the Brits)
Gottlieb Daimler?
>and the telephone
Philip Reis?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Compare how much work there is out there now compared to five years ago and you will see that the rate hasn't significantly dropped - its grown at a rate where I have the opposite problem - there is just too much stuff out there and more than I can ever see is very, very good.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
"you're making the same fundamental mistake that many people of other countries make. That's assuming that the vast majority of Americans think one way or another, and pegging all of us as fitting some arbitrary mold that serves their own prejudices"
There is truth in what you are saying, however, consider this fact :
You guys elected W.Bush TWICE.
It still needed a majority of Americans to think the same way to accomplish this.
Food for thought.
... because he's really trying to articulate the possibilities for new business and political models that the Internet presents us with. The EFF, the Pirate Party, RMS, Cory Doctorow, hell, even Slashdot - they're all part of the same revolution that most of us who read /. are part of - and we need to take what Falkvinge says seriously.
Remember - big businesses, media empire, the government they've all got a natural, and completely understandable, vested interest in not letting the Internet become the medium for new business and political models - and only guys like Falkvinge are standing up to them.
We may not agree with everything they say but we all need to support them vocally and financially so there are at least some counterbalances to the opposing forces.
I've always believed that the incumbents in any situation should be challenged and attacked (non-violently) - the bigger the incumbent, the greater and more vociferous the challenge.
The EFF and the Pirate Party aren't big enough yet - so let's support them - I know I'm going to right now.
Hmmm, and I thought cars were invented by zee Germans.
Digital computers were achieved by Germans and Americans sorta simultaneously in the heat of WWII, but the American ones obviously lived longer (which makes me wonder: did the Soviets invent their own computers during the cold war?).
The earliest incandescent light bulbs were done by brits, but weren't so efficient or practical. Edison took the fame for having the most refined solution and for good marketing, but Swan (British) had already commercialized some of his models.
Telephone invention is widely disputed
Another thing Americans love to boast as being their own invention is the airplane. This is, guess what, disputed! (personally, I side for Alberto Santo Dummont's).
Please understand I don't claim the US hasn't contributed to the current technology. They did, a lot, in refining details and improving production techniques. The initial "breaktrough", however, is not reserved to Americans in all instances as some people seem to think.
Since you didn't actually read the interview, or at least doesn't show any signs that you did, it would be strange if you gained any form for respect for the man from it.
You do however seem to exemplify the "no intellectual capital" quote. Rather than take up a single point from the interview, you invent some of your own, and then "argue" against them. I put "argue" in quotes because you don't actually argue against the points you invented, you just dismiss them. Sad really.
The initial "breaktrough", however, is not reserved to Americans in all instances as some people seem to think.
I never said it was, invention is a worldwide phenomenon and always will be. But the GP seemed to think that Americans are idiots. I was contesting that perspective.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
More depressing still is your use of 'us and the Brits' - I know, 51st state and all that, but we Brits did do somethings ourselves and should not be referred to in such a sidekick sort of way.
;)
Oh, fuck you America, you fucking bunch of fat-arsed, over-consuming, celebrity obsessed, loose moraled, fornicating, right-wing, fascist, bigoted, interfering, dullard, fuck-wits - before I forget
I'd like to express my support for the Mr. Falkvinger. I look forward to the day when musicians will again be forced to perform live fairly frequently to make a living. I've had enough of this overproduced shit with pitch shifted vocals and talentless anti-creative jingle-like songwriting spawned by the music industry. The concept of copyright in music has no moral basis, other than the fact that technology was discovered to record and reproduce music. Well you know what? We've discovered technology to distribute this music -- how that is any less of a moral justification I don't know.
The days of bands releasing a shitty album every 5 years, touring for 6 months then retiring to their mansion in LA are over, and thank God. Will we see less people going into the business? Yes. And again, thank God -- art should be made by people with a passion for the art, not by people with simplistic dreams of fame who will do anything to get publicity.
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
>>computer (well, us and the Brits),
>Konrad Zuse?
John Vincent Atanasoff?
>>and the telephone
>Philip Reis?
From your own cited article:
"Said Judge Lowell, in rendering his famous decision: 'A century of Reis would never have produced a speaking telephone by mere improvement of construction. It was left for Bell to discover that the failure was due not to workmanship but to the principle which was adopted as the basis of what had to be done. "
(Bell, of course, was not an American in any case, having been born in Scotland and emigrated to Canada, so it's not clear why you want to knock him down)
sorry, but stuff like Linux only works BECAUSE of copyright... The only reason if i modify the kernel source and distribute the binary, that I HAVE to give the source with it, is because of copyright. Otherwise I could just take the code that was released, make a closed source software, and watch as people interested are forced to decompile it to figure out my changes. Good luck.
Thats very different than releasing it from copyright.
If it's really "insane", why aren't more content producers *voluntarily* reducing the copyright terms of their own works? I mean, a content producer might not be allowed to impose a longer copyright than the law specifies, but he/she sure is allowed to stipulate a shorter one (e.g. 'after 15 years this becomes public domain' or 'after my death this becomes public domain).
{sigh} I was trying to say "it's not all about us" and give some credit where credit is due, but I guess you limeys are too damn thickheaded to take a compliment when you get one. Fine. Next time I'll say "Us and the Germans" or maybe "Us and the French" or maybe "Us and the Iranians". Sheesh. Would you have felt better if I'd said, "The Brits and us?"
... I thought everyone knew that, and for all you Canucks in the viewing audience that's a goddamn JOKE and I just don't want to hear it.
Besides, Canada is the 51st State
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Actually it didn't happen that way in the first election, seeing as how Bush won that first election without getting the popular vote. You see, we're not exactly a true democracy. We have an Electoral College system which grants every state a number of votes in proportion to their population, making it possible to win by having a distribution of voters, but not a majority of voters.
Also taking into account the low voter turnout that the States have, it could be that only a minority of Americans supported him, but it's their own damn fault for not voting.
I think you pasted the wrong troll rant. This is a copyright article, so you use the one about owning a family friendly record store. Use the anti-America one for YRO and politics.
Here is why we cannot "leave it up to the producers":
One problem is that all you need for a copyright violation to take place (in the USA at least) is for two private parties to exchange some copyrighted information. In order to use the law to stop copyright infringement, one must punish certain kinds of private communication between two parties. Punishing all instances of certain kinds of private communication between two arbitrary parties requires monitoring all private communications. This kind of surveillance is both unacceptable and a necessary condition for enforcing copyright law. Therefore, enforcing copyright law is unacceptable. This, I gather, is the president's argument.
People involved in the Freenet project often make a similar argument that goes something like this: In order to have true free speech, people must be able to speak and listen anonymously so that they cannot be punished for exercising their free speech. Yet, any system that allows for anonymous speaking and listening can be used for copyright infringement. So free speech and copyright are mutually exclusive. Free speech is more important than copyright, so copyright must go.
"Why not leave it up to the producers?" makes about as much sense as "Why not let the slave owners decide on an individual basis whether to own slaves?" Information and people are fundamentally un-ownable for a variety of moral and practical reasons.
Ever had an argument with a religious person? As the saying goes, if this is to be a battle of wits I'm not fighting an unarmed man. But we all know how pervasive indefensible ideas are and that intellectual and moral superiority do not mean the race is to the swift. In the 10 or 15 years I have been saying intellectual property is a bankrupt idea I have had many arguments and listened to many points of view. Twisted moral outpourings about artists rights by people who have never and could not exhibit creativity if their life depended upon it. Cowardly legal arguments by appeal to authority. Specious economic arguments from armchair CEOs (ever notice how everyone thinks they know something about the pseudo-scientific quackery known as economics?). People will go enormous lengths to confirm their own beliefs, erect a veil of denial that avoids cognitive dissonance with the bad ideas they have already absorbed.
But there is one argument that never fails to elicit at least a shadow of doubt in the most hardened advocate of intellectual property and I believe this "Pirate Party" not only understand it but know it is a nuclear option in this debate. It is the the apparent paradox that intellectual property is simultaneously anti-capitalistic and anti-socialistic, it cuts across orthodox political divides because it goes against our most fundamental human nature. Intellectual property damages culture and social structure, so it offends conservatives and progressives alike. Patent wars are strangling industry and holding back essential progress now. We need to revise or abolish the entire system. As said in the interview the proponents of IP really do not have any other argument that stands up, only "We want our money", "We are the self appointed gatekeepers of knowledge and culture and you will pay us or...or.... we'll shout about it even louder!!" As far as I can see the old notion that IP promotes the arts and sciences has been knocked down, it is no longer relevant in the 21st century where the means of production are commodities and there is abundance of resources. There are 6 billion of us. Our ideas, whatever our status, are no longer special, unique or valuable. That we share culture and knowledge is what makes us human, so IP, what history will show to be a short lived facet of the industrial revolution, goes against 5000 years of human culture and our needs for the future. It only remains to perpetuate growth in de-industrialised nations.
Anyway, that said, IP being a self-evident absurdity and the arguments of its proponents being weak does not make it just go away. There is long hard fight ahead before people start to wise up and see that concepts like copyrights, patents and trademarks are the fictions of a bygone ruling class.
So good luck to them. I believe a world without intellectual property of any kind would be a much better place. This is an issue of our time, and the main parties would do well to be bold, turn their backs on the small but powerful vested interests of the media and embrace the issue, because if we had a Pirate Party in my country I would vote for them.
I'm sick of hypocrisy and two facedness.
So am I.
The world is full of problems. No doubt about it. But it's a mixed bag, too. Life expectancy has gone up everywhere but in sub-Saharan Africa over the last 50 years. You're too young to remember the Cold War, but for those of us who were around, it sucked. The likelihood of a catastrophic global nuclear conflagration has gone down over the last 50 years.
You're not alone in being sick of the status quo, but I find it humorous that you equate anyone who doesn't share your opinion as being a whiner or someone with a low IQ. For example, you wrote:
Perhaps if you studied the history of systematic racism and sexism in Europe and America, you might recognize why equality of opportunity still doesn't exist in those places. Civil rights are not where they should be, but they have been advancing in the western world. America, for all its faults, has been trying to move beyond racism and sexism. America also has a far more sophisticated understanding of religious tolerance than Europe. For all the talk of naive and barbaric Americans, why is it that Western Europe is having such a difficult time integrating Muslim immigrants?
As for your bizarre comment about "women that act like men," what is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that you and those who follow your beliefs should be the arbiters of what constitutes acceptable female behavior?
If you're sick of lame TV, here's a newsflash: You don't have to watch television. Believe it or not, some of those moronic Americans (such as myself) have elected to get their news and most of their entertainment not from the idiot box, but from other sources like news magazines (one of the best is even produced in Britain) and international websites. Nobody is forcing you to watch the crap on TV.
I'm sick of Americans who cry that people hate them or are jealous of them or who are anti them because someone dares to point out that the America they've been programmed to believe in from birth bears no relation to the one that exists in real life.
There is nothing daring about anonymously pointing out in an online forum that the American government has been fearmongering and failing in its relations with the rest of the world. Here's another newsflash: When Shrub was elected the first time, half the country voted against him. When he was elected the second time, a slightly smaller percentage, but still almost half the voting public voted against him. Domestic opposition to this most pathetic American government has been loud and angry. The last seven years have been terribly divisive times in America. With any luck, this time around we'll elect a much more capable president, and we'll start restoring our reputation around the world.
Here's a tip: The next time you go ranting about hypocrisy, examine your own hypocrisy first. Then try posting with an account. It's still just a pseudonym, but at least it's a small form of taking responsibility for your writing.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Programmers and musicians have one thing in common, they mostly make their money from non-copyright sources. The vast majority of programmers (no, I don't have recent numbers to back it up) make their money doing in-house programming. The vast majority of musician make their money on live performance, even if the occasional album sale feels nice.
The interesting issue is what will lack. For musicians, the underground will hardly be affected, they make their money on live performance. The established names ditto, as well as merchandise. Even the "boy bands" and other label made concept will likely continue, with other sponsors (currently TV seems to love the process of creating pop bands).
For programmers, free software is already everywhere, about half of it produced by professionals according to the EU sponsored FLOSS report. Anything that can be created incrementally can be created by people paying for features the need.
For movies, outside the big languages (English, Spanish, Hindi) production is heavily subsidized, so generally not profitable.
Books will continue to be written (a writer has no choice but to write) but getting paid might be a problem (unless you are into propaganda). Again, for smaller languages government subsidies are already needed. In Denmark it takes the form of a library fee, authors of Danish language books gets a sum proportional to how many people borrow their books. Yes I know tax is stealing, but the majority in my country for some reason want to preserve our quaint language, even if it means higher taxes.
So what we lose out is international blockbuster movies (which is sad, while I likes Clerks which is the type of movie that would continue to be made, I loved Lord of the Rings), some types of "movie like games" that cannot be created incrementally, and maybe a system to pay authors in some countries. Music will be mostly unaffected.
RIAA astroturf is flying thick and fast today. A content free propaganda first post mod'ed up to +5 to try to neutralize the article and direct the debate. I wonder how that happened?
Be careful people; there's a lot of astroturf and probably sock puppets on /. these days. It's amazing how every time there's a story with a point of view that the software or media industries don't like you'll get numerous weasels popping up who "just happen" to repeat tired old propaganda we've all heard and dismissed many times before. Treat these lowlifes with the contempt they deserve.
Redundancy and repetition are a strong sign that marketing parasites are involved. They don't care if they waste/steal people's time and attention as long as they achieve mind share at the expense of other points of view.
---
Astroturfing "marketers" are liars, fraudulently misrepresenting company propaganda as objective third party opinion.
If it was about not being able to download movies, your reaction would be correct. In reality, it's about (some, but "any at all" is a bad enough answer) private interests and the state being allowed by law to monitor all network traffic supposedly to be able to catch any copyright infringements. Once that's actually allowed, you can imagine what people can do with that kind of power.
A break-out group of seven politicians from the dominant party in the current administration wrote an op-ed piece last Monday which outlines some of the consequences in the near future (link's to the English version). If you won't believe the rag-tag newcomer party, would you believe the largest party in the administration - the people who already *have* power?
Believe me, of all the problems this might bring, having to spend money to see "Hollywood claptrap" is not what we're worried about.
I guess you didn't notice when Burma shut down the whole cell phone network to stop pictures and video from getting out. As soon as the Western press wasn't getting spoon-fed a lot of free content, it dropped the story like a hot potato and the Burmese government happily went back to slaughtering monks.
P2P doesn't exist in a vaccuum. And because it's so pervasive, controlling copyright means significant intrusion of the state into peoples' lives in one way or another. If you want to go up against armed thugs waving a dead cell phone around and telling them, "If you kill me, I'll take pictures", you go right ahead.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Find some other examples if you want to prove how stupid and uncreative Americans are.
Or better still, don't believe anybody's bullshit associating nationality with particular types of knowledge or skills.
We replaced lords and kings with the super-rich. The major difference between then and now is perception.
Even in the past, there was the chance for "bettering" yourself-- getting yourself a knighthood, for instance. Most peasants really didn't have that chance, just as the current poor have no real chance to better themselves. Some do, certainly, but there are only a few slots available for betterment.
It's not just "fucking music files." This is about the concept of ownership of ideas. This is about the ownership of culture, the very framework of our society. (There is an intimate relationship between art, ideas, and culture.)
Anyway, we still have the assholes, and they still stand on the heads of those less fortunate than themselves. Now, property rights might not belong to those with the biggest swords or guns, but they *do* belong to those with the biggest bank account. It's less bloody, and probably a better proposition. But just because the serfs aren't beat bloody by their lords doesn't mean they aren't serfs just the same.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Dude, you're trying to roll the big boulder uphill like Sisyphus. 99% of humanity is now batshit insane with rigid ideology and rabid hate. You can't argue with people like this. They are blinded far beyond reason and critical thought.
Bashing The U.S.A. (one of the most diverse nations ever created) with generalizations is just the latest excuse people use to avoid having to actually think. It's all going to go to shit. The brief flirtation humanity had with freedom will end, and it'll all return to the king/serf model where the serfs don't have to think and the king is replaced by massive bureaucracy.
All you can do is keep your head down, work hard and invest, and retire as early as possible far away from it all when the whole thing does a big belly flop.
Strange how a discussion about the link between liberty and artistic expression degenerates into a simplistic two-sided rant about money.
The world is much more complex than simply, "musicians should be paid." If that were true, they'd actually get *paid* for their artistic output, rather than the middle-man. The discussion of musicians and payment is a simple one of business models, which may or may not work in an emerging culture where freedom of speech allows easy copying and distribution.
The discussion as framed is more about the curtailing of liberty and freedom in subservience to the interests of big business, due to the strawman of copyright infringement. As this also serves the interest of government (the constant surveillance of citizens), it's easy enough for these cartels to get their way, at the expense of culture and individuals.
I personally believe that individuals are more important than business. I am also of the opinion that businesses are actually *hurting* the economy by insisting on their own dominance. But that is secondary. The real issue is liberty (and by extension, democracy), and whether or not we'll give that up.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Many people seem to forget that the whole concept of intellectual property is entirely unnatural and the word 'property' in this context is a misnomer. Without some very strong reason no-one should have the right to stop me from copying something. There is no natural ownership to the intangible. We only extend 'rights' to intangibles if it benefits all of us. Quite often the applications of intellectual properties do not benefit 'the whole' on balance. Rather quite perversely they simply protect private interests. There is also a vast difference between theory and practice. In theory we have fair use. In practice the courts have severely limited its application. So frequently even in educational institutions, materials are denied to students because of fear of copyright (unless they cough up very big bucks). Many types of copyright of simply unnecessary for creativity. We had no copyright on buildings before December 1, 1990 but we do after that date. Did that damage creativity there? No of course not. But now they are copyrighted.
We also quite often forget that preventing people from speaking, or singing, or playing an instrument, or creating a DVD or using a photocopier in a way they deem proper takes away from their personal freedom and their economic freedom. Does anyone take into account the money saved on allowing people to use more copyrighted, trademarked and patented concepts with greater ease. Does the $15 I save because an album is 30 years old and 'could' be actually out of copyright count? Take that $15 and multiply is by 10 million. Now people have saved $150 million. You have to weigh their costs and benefits against the artists. And let us not forget that the artist and the corporation that has been putting out their music has been making money off the copyright for 30 years. They have made a fortune.
What about the right to use copyrighted material as part of a large of a larger whole? Eg a documentary film that wants to use short copyrighted clips. Often the cost of obtaining them makes their use uneconomic. Here commercial prorogation of something new is inhibited by 'Copyright' despite the fact that the reason d'etre of 'Copyright' was to encourage commercial prorogation of new ideas and art. Copyright owners who extol the value of copyright often 'forget' quite conveniently that IP may actually supress creativity. Often copyright is used simply to deny public use of material. So let me get this right. You need copyright law that allows the complete prevention of artistic material from circulating at all so you can encourage future creativity. Because mr/ms creative would only produce something for the public if they knew they could prevent any public dissemination. Right?!
I always get a laugh out of the heirs who already enjoy copyright revenues. So they didn't do jack sh*t but they are an heir so they should rake in cash for doing nothing. There was a New York Times article that had the audacity to argue for perpetual copyright. So you want to put on a Shakespeare play - better pay his descendants or some rich corporation. You want to read your bible in the church. Not before you hand over some cash. This idea is absurd but it's scary that the copyright crazies are advocating it. They claim they own ideas. We get this...no-one owns ideas! IP is not susceptible to ownership. We just put restrictions on IP for societal benefit not for the narcissistic desires of the original producer and certainly not their descendants.
Some of the restrictions of IP impinge on free speech. Sometimes you need to be able to film some event that has political implications without worrying about the 'person' rights. Eg Police brutality. Think this is an exaggeration? Just wait till you hear that free speech is cool but because some political speech intruded on commercial ri
And unlike the creators who actually have valuable skills, the only thing the middle-men have are their monopolistic hold on old-world distribution channels and the copyrights which allow them to milk those same channels.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Thank you for pointing this out. The outcome oligarchical national election never makes any difference. As Emma Goldman observed, "if voting really mattered, they would make it illegal.
Tragedy of the commons doesn't apply here: If I work hard and create something that *never existed before* (say, I produce a cool new graphic novel), how does it *cost* you if you aren't able to see it because I priced it too high for you? Do you *lose* something that you had before? Do you wake up with less? No, at worst you end up in exactly the same position as before. You just might decide you *feel* more bitter, because yesterday you didn't know my work existed, today you know it exists and that you can't afford it - but you haven't lost anything at all (unless I stole your pens and paper to produce the thing).
We Canadians are going to form a nation with Cuba and Mexico and SURROUND you.
Mwahahahahahaha.
Then we're going to write you a stern letter about many things really.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Means nothing - t'was us Brits that invented America what invented all the rest of that stuff - P.S., we're still waiting for the Royalty check ...
The other principle is the surveilance principle, that everything should be inspected and recorded so that the chain goes "gathered evidence -> suspicion -> warrant to evidence". That is a very dangerous road to go down and requires that kind of totalitarian access to all private communication that you speak of. It is the kind of system where there's a file on every citizen. It is the kind of system that casts suspicion on any communication it can't record or comprehend. It places massive power in the hands of the government and asks the government to be its own watchdog. It is a system where you're afraid to draw the attention of the government, because they have an arsenal to use against you.
That is what the RIAA is pushing for, that is where this is going. They have already tried to strike at the meeting points, the crossroads with little effect. Now they try to strike at each and every filesharer, but the lawsuits don't have any effect. So now they're trying to push it onto the government and the ISPs. Already there's a debate brewing about this in Norway regarding EUs data retention directive. Undoubtably it'll pass like every other of the thousands of EU directives we pass, but at least the discussion has started. We don't want a surveilance society, and if you tell us to choose between freedom and copyright, copyright has to go.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I live in Hong Kong, and so I can say this is bullshit. First, bootleg media is not everywhere. You can get it of course, but there are plenty of big legit CD and video shops. However, there has indeed been a slump in local movies and music production. The reasons are complex, due to crappy quality derivative movies and prepackaged unoriginal musical performers being pushed by the labels as much as anything, but part certainly is that a lot of the export market was lost, as in SE Asia bootlegs certainly are prevalent.
"The brief flirtation humanity had with freedom will end,"
It ended before you were born. But like those who believe in their god while thinking everyone else worships false gods, a lot of people in the US believe in their media while thinking everyone else watches "propaganda". As Goethe said, none are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
On those points, I agree. I have already seen one copyright free period in computing, back before anyone really knew if you could copyright a binary at all. Naturally, everyone claimed their software was copyrighted, but nobody wanted to ever take it to court and risk an unfavorable ruling.
Of course, personally, I don't advocate the complete abolition of copyright, but rather a radical re-think. Cut it back to 20 years or so possibly with lesser restrictions lasting longer and add a use it or lose it clause. Also require placing a copy in escrow to be conspicuously released on expiration. If DRM is used, an unlocker must be freely distributed at seller's expense once copyright expires.
Well, you don't know when I was born, but yes, the end *started* a while ago. Look at the other two reactions I got. The blind and insane will think you crazy when you speak the truth. :)
Actually, the idea that most of humanity has a world view composed of little more than myth, lies and wholesale bullshit is hardly new, but people will gape at you with drooling expressions if you ever suggest it
And the information age hasn't helped on bit. If anything, it's made it worse. Now people can be totally ignorant about thing they never used to know existed!
It was solid state, in the sense that it did not use vacuum tubes; just not in the modern no-moving-parts sense.
The Atanasoff-Berry calculator was not programmable. Therefore it was about as much a computer as the punch-card programmable loom.
Oh very well. All yanks today are idiots. There, you happy now?
To start a revolution you need the support of the masses. 'Piratpartiet' got 0,63 % of the national votes last election (2006).
Break the sound barrier - bring the noise.
I believe many Americans are afraid to share (bittorrent or whatever) music, books, movies etc. Here in Sweden, nobody (at least not that I know of) is afraid of that. You'll never get cought. This is almost identical to actually removing copyright laws. However, Swedish writers are making very good money from their books, which sells extremely well (even in Sweden). The same goes for music artists or movie producers. Why, you might ask? Because a lot of people will still buy their books, songs, whatever.
In this world of ours, we have had libraries for centuries. This is essentially the same as removing copyright on books. It enables poor people (which we don't have many in Sweden, as opposed to the US where the differences in "financial freedom" is extreme) to read any amount of books they like, for free. You have had this opportunities in the US too, for centuries. Still, in Sweden, the US and everywhere in the world, people buy books.
People buy music. People buy movies. People go to concerts, and to the cinemas.
Allowing people to share any information (be it text [books], audio [music] or moving pictures [movies]) doesn't automatically make us go back to stone age. Quite the opposite. It will force artists into being even more creative in how they attract their audience.
I believe we can have a world completely without patents and copyrights. I'm absolutely certain that business will flourish as they always have. Copyright only makes it easy for (large) businesses to excercise oppression on citizens (RIAA, MPAA, BSA). It has, in real life, nothing to do with getting paid for what you do.
And quite frankly, I think it's pathetic that some frightened writers or song writers asks "how will I get paid?". I don't ask them how I will get paid. If I don't get paid, I change job. You can't make money out of your job? Change it. Surely a lot of intelligent artists will be able to make money off their work, without crying out in media "but how will I get paid??". That's really not my problem.
And, as I stated, they do get paid now, even though many people get their works for free (and have done, for centuries). Just remove the money sink aka "production companies", and the audience will pay the artist directly. They'll easily be rich (if that's what they want), if their work is appreciated.
I find that for every track I get for free from an artist, I tend to want to reward the artist fairly. This weekend just gone, I came across the CASH music site, linked to from Kristin Hersh's blog (http://www.throwingmusic.com/blog). I downloaded both the tracks she'd put up there, though "Hey, this is pretty good..." and decided to do the 3 dollar one-off donation that they ask for but don't force from you. Then as the tracks grew on me I thought "I could do with more of this..." so I went & bought her latest album from iTunes. The point being that for a lot of people, file-sharing is merely like a form of advertising, a free sample or loss-leader that gets the customer into the metaphorical showroom so they can buy more. Kristin's doing a great thing by releasing her work under a Creative Commons attributable, changeable share-alike license - people are free to remix it, mash it up, change the lyrics, cover it, do derivative artwork, sculpture or whatever, as long as they link back to their work & publish it under the same license. Her wish is that we regain the sort of musical communities we had back in the heyday of folk & blues, where a song remains after the artist has travelled elsewhere, & it takes on a local aspect, different chords, lyrics etc.