Slashdot Mirror
3 Strikes — Denying Physics Won't Save the Video Stars
Philip K D writes "Award-winning SF author and BoingBoing co-editor Cory Doctorow has an editorial in today's Times of London. Doctorow elegantly eviscerates the basic injustice posed by the imminent Mandelson '3 Strikes' law in Britain. He makes the explicit observation: 'The internet is an integral part of our children's education; it's critical to our employment; it's how we stay in touch with distant relatives. It's how we engage with government. It's the single wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. It isn't just a conduit for getting a few naughty free movies, it is the circulatory system of the information age.' It is worth noting that Doctorow was influential in the creation of the Creative Commons. He has enjoyed considerable commercial success for his writings, owing in no small part on his insistence that his work be made available for unrestricted electronic distribution and copying."
In related news, the UK's second-largest ISP, TalkTalk, is now threatening legal action if Mandelson's plan goes through.
good luck.
Cory, that's only encouraging them. Now you've told them that if you can arbitrarily cut off people's Internet access, you've got those people by the gonads and can make them do whatever you want without going through the annoying process of actually passing laws and obtaining convictions and such.
They should create a 3 strike law for dumb politician laws.
Assuming that they're going to create something stupid, what would be the least stupid alternative?
How about something along the lines of "3 strikes and you're limited to ports X,Y,Z"
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
So if this isn't the answer, how do you propose that illegal software downloads, copyright infringing video clips on youtube, and illegal downloading of mp3 music *should* be handled ? Obviously the '3 strikes' isn't the answer to you, so what is ?
In the Bush years, the US had become the poster child for bad government in the Western world. Now, though, it seams the UK is the clear leader in this respect. There are so man examples other than this one. For example, just today, the UK fired a drug policy advisor because his scientific findings "sent the wrong message."
Yes, in the UK government, stating scientific facts is now a fire-able offense. Bush was pretty anti-science, but even he didn't outright fire people like that.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
It is in fact, THE conduit for getting naughty movies. People who downplay the role of porn on the internet are in fantasyland.
First I've heard of this. Citation, please?
I know that Doctorow was one of CC's early adopters. I've never heard that he was involved in the creation of the license.
IMO Cory Doctorow is good writer, but an absolute genius at self-promotion.
Find free books.
Which is the reason all the world's governments want to control it. And if they can, they will. And the quid pro quo for all the potentially good works they might do is ubiquitous surveillance, standards of decency enforced by the perpetually aggrieved of all stripes, and one-stop enforcement of copyright, drug laws and taxation.
"Award-winning SF author and BoingBoing co-editor Cory Doctorow has an editorial in today's Times of London. Doctorow elegantly eviscerates the basic injustice posed by the imminent Mandelson '3 Strikes' law in Britain. He makes the explicit observation: 'The internet is an integral part of our children's education; it's critical to our employment; it's how we stay in touch with distant relatives. It's how we engage with government. It's the single wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. It isn't just a conduit for getting a few naughty free movies, it is the circulatory system of the information age.' It is worth noting that Doctorow was influential in the creation of the Creative Commons. He has enjoyed considerable commercial success for his writings, owing in no small part on his insistence that his work be made available for unrestricted electronic distribution and copying." In related news, the UK's second-largest ISP, TalkTalk, is now threatening legal action if Mandelson's plan goes through.
Jar-Jar Binks: Meesa make bigbig splash withsa web two point ohoh namessa. Meesa make bigbig news with nerd website, http colon slash slash slashslash dotdot dot org! Yousa read it!
Even assuming the security services don't lynch the dark lord before this goes to the vote, i have to wonder how effective such a law would be. For 20 quid i can get a 3g pay and go modem. No contract, no names, just cash.
Then we have TOR and i2p, which if the papers are to be believed have the aformentioned services bricking it.
Still, so long as he keeps getting his back handers, I'm sure everything will work out fine.
regards, the_leander
So if this isn't the answer, how do you propose that illegal software downloads, copyright infringing video clips on youtube, and illegal downloading of mp3 music *should* be handled ?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Your question presupposes that people accused of something are automatically guilty of it.
who fucking cares? its just so much damage to route around
yes, they could make laws that would end filesharing... laws that would also essentially kill everything that makes the internet worthy our contribution and attention. that's not going to happen, unless media companies have more power than self-destructive military dictatorships
therefore, let them pass all of the half-assed measures that don't essentially kill the joy that is the internet all they want. let them joust with that technological hydra, and waste all their resources, a pool of cash and manpower that just keeps dwindling every day. obfuscation schemes, proxy schemes, encryption schemes, steganographic schemes, etc ... some college freshman in his dorm will handle all the complexities, for free, and make it as easy as point and click, and the program will spread like wildfire. and will of course get stamped out, just as the next moronic big media-sponsored law circumventing tool is spreading like wildfire. whack-a-mole is never a game you eternally prevail at
so let them buy as many legislators as they can, pass as many intrusive legal schemes as they want, waste as much of their dwindling reserves as they can
again, who fucking cares?
millions of media hungry, technologically savvy, and most importantly, POOR teenagers
versus a counple thousand lawyers basing their strategy on a philosophically flawed premise: that the internet can be controlled, that the distribution tollbooths that allowed media companies to thrive in the pre-internet age can be preserved
game over, douchebags
it doesn't reflect well on you when you are already defeated, and don't know it or won't admit it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I normally would not give the time of day with this bunch of cowboys(>£10 in phone charges just to cancel a landline) but if they do take legal action over the latest silly idea to come out of Darth Vader (aka Mandy) I'll support them.
IF the EU has told the French that this goes against the EU laws why the f*** does NuLab think this will also pass their scrutiny. Dumb idiots.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
I find this proposed 3 strikes law quite baffling. I mean, it's a conduit of communication, just like a telephone, right? I wonder what would happen if there was a 3 strikes law proposed for phones that kicked in if you were found conducting crime over the phone. How silly would that sound?
Lord Mandelson has today announced that the outgoing Labour government will be going ahead with the "three strikes" plan against Internet filesharing, thus ensuring the widespread use of encryption in all routine network communications.
"Encrypted communications as standard is the best possible thing for everyone's privacy," he said today, "but there's so much inertia from the installed base of unencrypted systems. This will provide a rapid incentive for everyone to upgrade as soon as possible. In our last few months in power at the fag-end of a failed government, we need to leave a real legacy for the future."
The benchmark for the new system will be illegal filesharing dropping by 70%. "That's measured illegal filesharing, of course. We have set out our metrics quite clearly. Furthermore, home taping is killing music."
MI5 and the police have objected to the plan due to the difficulty of mass-monitoring encrypted systems, even with the RIPA power to obtain passwords, since mass anonymity systems such as TOR and Freenet have been constructed where the end-user never has nor sees the encryption key. "But a few hideous terrorist atrocities is a small price to pay for less Lily Allen songs being shared. Particularly if they happen on the Tories' watch. MuWAAAhahahaha. By the way, have you noticed just how much Dave Cameron looks like Iggle Piggle? Uncanny."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
I'm from Romania and we have a very difficult economic situation right now, worse than others, because of a crappy political crisis. All I can think now is how could we vote these stupid fucks. All other countries from EU criticise us because of this. But I think in the end we are the same: Who the hell voted for Mandelson?
L.
Copyright infringement laws are difficult to enforce. That does not automatically justify making someone guilty upon accusation.
Sure, the activities are illegal. And some believe they are illegal with good reason (something about causing economic harm). Be that as it may, it is still not okay to presume someone is guilty just because he has been accused too many times.
Any idiot can accuse, even if there is no guilt. Innocent people must be protected against false accusations. Allowing guilt to be presumed upon accusation is a far greater crime than copyright infringement.
So it doesn't matter how else the situation should be handled. It doesn't matter if there is *no other way* to inforce copyright law. Guilty-upon-accusation is outright unacceptable under any circumstance.
Physics killed the video star?
Goo goo g'joob.
Some commentators call this affliction, which seems to have harmed most English-speaking nations in the world, the "Anglo Disease". (Keep in mind that this particular eerily prophetic article was written before the Great Recession.)
This seems easy. Let the law pass. Then start accusing people in power of copyright infringment to get their internet turned off. Then, because the people in power won't have the laws apply to them (as usual), accuse their families, then their family's family. You then systematically create a society with no internet access.
Now, if the law is written that a specific named company (or companies) are immune, legally change you name to the same as the company, then infringe all you want (because you will be named in the law! woohoo! that is step 2 in the 3 profit steps BTW, the ???).
At this point, it is *OBVIOUS* that the people making these sorts of laws are in no way acting out of their own opinion on the matter (well, if favoring the people who line your pockets is an opinion, then ignore my last statement).
At this point though, everyone should just go re-read "A Modest Proposal" and start using satire/ubsurdity to make a point, because being reasonable certainly doesn't work any more.
[/cynicism]
Yes, it is amazing, that the Internet has become all this — and more — but civilization did exist before 1990ies, and all of the freedoms mentioned were there — some of them even more so than today, perhaps.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
you are of course absolutely correct
however, i am merely pointing out that although the thugs on the street corner will extract their pound of flesh, they will not prevail
it is still entirely valid and appropriate to directly confront the thugs, as you insist
but your point, and my point, are complementary points, not mutually exclusive points. i can make my point without hindering yours, and visa versa, so there is no need to assume friction between our two areas of concern
both of our enemies are the thugs. so you fight your short term war, i'll fight my long term war, and we will both prevail (in the long term ;-)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What bearing does physics have on this?
i never changed my attitude towards hard core drugs, nor was i ever pro-copyright
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1424363&cid=29925269
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/1/28/31758/7402
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
On a totally irrelevant note, what's going on with your movie? You've been editing it for as long as I can remember :p
[FUCK BETA]
No copyright and freedom of the individual are not the same thing, but the issue is here that you are asking a loaded question.
You are asking, if hanging escaped slaves isn't the answer, then how should they be handled. Making it obvious that in your mind, that you already made up your mind that there should be punishment.
Others would argue that you might ask whether the very concept of copyright might not need to be changed. Once again.
Copyright has NOT been in existence for the vast majority of human history. Thousands of years, humanity has progressed and produced art that has endured across the ages, with absolutely no copyright.
This changed, and NOT as you might think to protect the creators of content, but the publishers of content. Copyright is not for nothing called COPY right. It was created to protect music PUBLISHERS, printed music sheets, who bought the music from artist for a small sum and then printed money. Obviously, they wanted to be only ones to be allowed to do that, and so copyright was started in its modern form.
The current system is a dreadful beast. The same Disney that has lobbied to have it extended published Pinocchio on the day after the copyright on it expired. Yet if you dare to use their work, you will be hounded by their lawyers, even with works of parody.
No, you ask how the slave should be punished, when every right thinking person ask, should slavery be allowed.
Copyright needs to change, it has no longer got anything to do with giving a creator a change to make a living of his work and everything with enormous business interests seeking to bleed every last penny from content others produced. When a music publishers seeks money a dozen times from the same person for the same song, the beast needs to be killed. 1 payment for the audio sample. Another for the tune on your iPod, then next for the home stereo, another fee to embed it in your birthday video, another if you play it a party, more money still for your ringtone, buy it again if you buy another MP3-player.
ENOUGH
Copyright has to change. Computer games that cost ever more for shorter and shorter games with tiny addons costing 10 bucks or more is nickle and diming the industry to death. People bought games when you could simply swap them on a floppy because the price was right. 70+ euro's for a PS3 games is just not on. Especially since the PC version costs 30-40 euro's LESS. The Collectors Edition of Dragon Age for the PC costs the same as the regular edition for the consoles. Greed gone out of control.
For music the same goes. Apple lovers, turn away, this is going to hurt. The costs of an iTune song is the purest greed displayed, until the BBC named its pricing plans for the iPlayer. 1 dollar/euro for a song, that does not have to be pressed on a CD, put in a box with a printed sleeve, stocked and shipped, all with the risk of producing to few or to many, is JUST TO FUCKING MUCH. What happened to the CAPITALIST idea of cost savings reducing prices? The BBC even thought to charge 10 dollar per episode. God help the Eastenders fan. Or worse, neighbors.
The prices got nothing more to do with demand and supply but with "We supply therefor we demand."
Movies make record profits, yet the movie industry is being killed by downloading. How can this be? Because some MPAA accountant has told movie moguls that their are 6 billion people in this world and so their movie should at 10 dollars per ticket earn them 60 billion. When it doesn't, piracy is to blame.
Pension funds in Holland invest in MUSIC rights for the future as their analysts who are boring men who think gold is unstable because it evaporates at a rate of few atoms every 1 million years, have determined it is a reliable investment. A safe buy that pays for itself in 10 years and is then a steady source of income at virtually no cost.
Yet the music industry is supposedly at an edge.
No, it is no wonder you posted as an AC. You are arguing a lost cause, people
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I am not defending the 3-strikes law. It has serious "due process" problems that everyone else is pointing out.
But what Cory is really saying, is that the punishment is too severe. That when you cut someone off (allegedly for infringement), you're not just stopping their future infringement, but you're also cutting them off from talking to grandma, and if you did the same thing to the bogus-accusers, it would be "corporate death penalty."
Well, guess what? All punishment is like that. If I put you in jail for theft or murder, I'm not just preventing future thefts or murders. I'm also impacting your life in many other ways, perhaps even violating your "rights" in ways that are utterly disconnected from the crime itself.
People seem ok with that, in general. Why wouldn't they be ok with that when it comes to the internet? Copy that floppy, no more emails to grandma or your government representative. Murder someone, no more visiting grandma's house or political assemblies. What's the difference? I don't see how TFA would persuade anyone.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/24/california.marijuana/index.html
and marijuana should be 100% legal
meanwhile, meth, coke, and heroin legalization should never be seriously considered
that's just my opinion
but even if you disagree with me, you completely fail at the subject matter as soon as you talk about DRUG legalization. now if you want to talk to me about METH legalization, or MARIJUANA legalization, or COCAINE legalization, then we are having a valid coherent discussion. but there is no such thing, nor will there ever be such a thing as a coherent subject matter called DRUG legalization
every single drug is completely different in its pharmacological effects, and therefore every single drug should have a completely different legal framework around it. this is the most rational logical approach. meanwhile, if you don't understand that or refuse to take the radically different inebriation/ toxicity/ addiction/ etc profiles of different drugs into consideration when you frame your opinions on the subject matter, you are not being serious about the subject matter
if you wish to tell me everything from caffeine to methamphetamine should have the same legal approach, you just announce yourself as a complete idiot who knows absolutely nothing about the subject matter, or you are willfully expressing an utterly naive attitude to an obviously complicated and multivariate issue. which means you fail
this is a solid fact: marijuana will get legalized in the usa. it will be legalized FASTER if the idiots who think ALL drugs should be legalized shut the fuck up, or are shut up and kept out of the discussion. you refrain your opinions to marijuana, and marijuana alone, in the discussion about marijuana legalization, or you are HURTING THE CAUSE. if you try to broaden your remarks to all drugs, you sound like an idiot, and you turn people OFF on the subject of marijuana legalization who might otherwise listen
if you confine your remarks to MARIJUANA legalization and insist that the approach to methamphetamine/ coke/ heroin/ etc should be DIFFERENT (whether or not you think they should be legal or illegal), then you actually win over hearts and minds to a good cause
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
once again after reading a slashdot article description, I'm wondering what the hell they are even describing. don't just copy and paste a paragraph out of context, why don't you actually give a background before just pointing at someone else's work and going "See!"
so i'm currently stuck in a rut between what my ego will allow me to release, and what i've done so far and would be stupid to abandon considering all the effort that has gone into it so far. i'll finish it someday, i'm just in a funk about it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Every time there's a story about this self-promotion king, everyone here seems to go wild with all the masterbations. And Doctrow goes for more. He must be a Bukkaki fan.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
The fact that the government would be able to disconnect you from the internet after "3 strikes" of copyright infringement is very scary. The internet has become the center of communication. Critics of big companies or opposition parties use it to voice their opinions. Although the British current law will not go to the extreme, I fear that if it passes, other countries will begin to pass more extreme laws until the copyright becomes an excuse to completely silence critics.
The question is perfectly valid; it presupposes that people are illegally downloading copyrighted content. Which they are.
If you're going to try to "unask" the question on the basis that it makes an invalid supposition you'll have to try to argue that no one is illegally downloading content. Good luck.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
As a counter weight...
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-3-strikes-law-proposals.html
What can you suggest.
(Naturally, it would be best not to have these 3 strikes plays at all...)
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
ego bruising is slightly less
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Why don't you stop telling us who the 'idiots' are and what we can and cannot debate and FINISH YOUR FUCKING movie. Okay, blowhard.
I just think it's funny to see Doctorow try to create reasons to oppose this law. The number one reason Doctorow opposes this law is that he's a piracy advocate. He's fighting for the legalization of filesharing. This is all very well documented. Of course, he can't actually come out and say that. What's he going to say, "I oppose this anti-piracy legislation because it will cut-down on piracy"? In fact, in a recent poll of internet users, a majority of pirates admitted that the threat of cutting off their internet access would reduce their willingness to pirate. So, he has to resort to talking about secondary reasons to oppose this legislation.
Why don't you stop telling us who the 'idiots' are and what we can and cannot debate and FINISH YOUR FUCKING movie. Okay, blowhard.
I was just thinking the same thing. All these pronouncements from on high about the way things must be viewed are kind of ironic coming from someone who hasn't made any headway for over two and a half years. If he's so all knowing about the ways of the world, why can't he get shit done?
I just don't get it. Why do people keep confusing socialism with communism? They are so very different. It's not even "Some purely academic" thing. It's two completely different ideologies. Political system. Economic systems. Communism relies on free market and people's ability to profit while socialism relies on state control.
Communism isnt social programs like Social Security. Communism is state owned property and means of production. This is something tea baggers should have been taught in school. Social Security isnt paid for by nationalizing all the business, its a tax, same as roads, navies, etc.
No. Just no. I beg you, read some Marx or Engels (or any socialist or communist philosopher or economist) before you try to explain communism to someone.
State owns nothing in communism. That's the whole point. There isn't supposed to even be a state, except perhaps (Marx never went into this subject) for law enforcement, etc.
Removing property from people and running a state command economy has nothing to do with these things. Heck, by the 1940s the Soviets were in a panic because the world was modernizing and the "commune" concept was only successful with the simple economics of the agrarian system and all the command economy voodoo cant compete with an open market in a complex economy. Forty years later their fears were realized when they couldnt afford anything and shortly collapsed.
That is exactly the opposite of true. Marx specifically noted that communism could never work in an agricultural society (which applied to Russia, China and North Korea at the time) as it required industrialized society to work. It was part of the communist theory (which you clearly haven't studied at all), which predicted that a society like soviet union would certainly fail.
Then again, soviet union was a socialist country, not a communist one. It even said so in it's constitutuion.
I think the lesson here is centralized planning economies attached to a totalitarian government == fail. Not "theres wisdom in command economies."
I think that the lesson here is "If inventor of a whole new economic theory says 'It won't work in your society' and you still try to force it through with incompetent dictators, your end result isn't very good.". Then again... Before socialism, Soviet Russia was FAR behind the western world when it comes to living conditions. So comparing "1970s soviets had it much worse than people of 1970s USA" is hardly valid.
Sadly, a lot of the pro-communist people in the states were fed carefully engineered propaganda and life in the Soviet Union was not what they thought it was. This all tied in with what the Unions were doing but Unions didnt need communist sympathizers, if anything having people in their ranks only hurt them politically.
You personally lack any idea of what communism is so you perhaps aren't a good authority about the subject.
They aren't talking about jail time. It people's internet connection. Man ACs are even more retarded then normal these days.
of the things being pirated. The RIAA and MPAA should offer the lowest possible prices that still allow them to earn a profit and then sell at more reasonable prices. That would put big cuts in piracy of materials. Sell in quantities at lower prices, rather than sell less at higher prices and force poor people who cannot afford the materials into piracy.
Most piracy happens because the person is too poor to afford the materials, but they can afford a computer and Internet connection and then get a free P2P file sharing program and get as many materials as they want for free.
Hulu was a good idea, free TV shows and movies but with commercials. The RIAA and MPAA need to make a free access Hulu like site for videos, movies, TV shows, songs, music videos, etc and offer commercials in-between them for making money. Paid members can have the commercials removed and then buy the media for a low cost to download it to their computer or media playing device. The Internet is really based on a free content model of business, people don't want to pay access for a web site, but they do want to pay low prices to download media.
If the RIAA and MPAA did a Hulu like site, then there wouldn't be any need for media piracy as you could watch all you wanted for free, and then pay a small fee to download the media file you watched to your computer or media playing device. Commercials will pay for such free sites, and paying members can skip the commercials.
But I doubt the RIAA or MPAA would do that, as it makes too much common sense, and they are more of suing people for downloading content and are in fact suing their fans and customers. That makes a bad business model and gives bad PR.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
No drug affects anyone other than the imbiber. Therefore all drugs should have the same legal framework - none at all.
If I say 'have a drink', do you interpret that to mean 'drink anything and everything liquid'?
If not, then why do you interpret 'legalize drugs' as 'legalize anything and everything that can be addictive'.
Effectively, your whole comment is about language (CAPITALIZED language even), not the subject at hand.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
peter mandelson isn't even elected so he should fuck right off - he is in the house of lords and the role of the house of lords is to monitor legislation passed by the house of commons
SURELY NOT!!!!!
Award-winning SF author and BoingBoing co-editor Cory Doctorow
Is this really what first comes to mind when people think of Cory Doctorow? I thought "Disney obsessed douchebag and general internet wanker" would be the more appropriate description.
... and then they built the supercollider.
many or most addicts can't keep jobs, can't stay in relationships, and wind up on the street, destitute. do you deny that is true?
it is pharmacologically impossible to take highly addictive drugs without risking becoming an addict. when you become an addict, you may need my tax dollars to house and feed you. since i am expected to pay for their care, this gives me every right to prevent the creation of addicts in the first place, by severely curtailing the open trade of highly addictive drugs. obvously i can't prevent the creation of addicts completely, but that never was the point. the point is, i can make a dent in the creation of addicts. and this effort at addict creation prevention may be cheaper than caring for a lot of addicts that are created as simple unavoidable result of easy access to highly addictive drugs
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"why do you interpret 'legalize drugs' as 'legalize anything and everything that can be addictive'"
because that's exactly what many people actually mean when they say 'legalize drugs'
many people out there actually believe all drugs should be legal, period, end of story
yes, they are that naive/ ignorant on the subject matter, and they are very loud and assertive about their naivete/ ignorance
i am not arguing with phantom opponents in my mind, i am arguing with a large vocal contingent of idiots
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You claim many things, but the only you have to offer us is your assertive, but subjective and very personal point of view.
The points of view of people demanding despenalization fro the consumption of all kind of drugs deserved to be heard.
You seem to imply that "people" and individuals debating issues are non intersecting sets, which is, demonstrably (unlike your rants) stupid, since clearly all people proposing despenalization of drug consumption are part of the populace, and as such they don't "turn off people" since they are part of the people after all.
If you think that a different strategy would work better, all the power to you, but your attitude is patronizing on the extreme.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It occurs to me that taking away peoples' internet for what they may view as a perfectly reasonable use of their access (Or even worse, through no fault of their own) is going to KILL PEOPLE. I wish I were joking. I wish this was a joke. But if some kid murders his parents because they took away his Xbox for playing too much Halo, or someone commits suicide because their WoW account was hacked... What's going to happen when people have their right to use the internet revoked?
I have no qualms about saying that I cannot function without the internet. If I need to know something, I look it up on the internet. If I want to know what's going on, I check news sites. If I want to buy something, I buy it online. I do business online. And quite frankly, the number of people that I consider to be 'close friends' and 'colleagues' on the other side of my monitor far exceeds the number of people I know offline, by at least 20-to-1.
Nevermind the whole ridiculousness of it all anyway. Piracy is not theft. Nothing is stolen. There are copies made. And there's only two kinds of people who want copies of stuff: The ones who never would have paid money for it to begin with, and the ones who will end up actually buying it anyway. You can apply that to literally anything.
People are going to die because the entertainment industry doesn't want them getting something for free that they wouldn't have bought anyway.
Hundreds of people die every day in the industrialized world because they can't afford healthcare...and now we have the entertainment industry killing people because they think they lost a CD sale?
Here's a novel idea: Instead of trying to sell a CD with only one or two good songs on it for THIRTY FUCKING DOLLARS and giving the artist (You know, those people who did all the work and that the consumer actually gives a shit about?) fuck-all, how about you get with the program and actually try to leverage the goddamn internet to sell things-- ACTUAL PRODUCTS PEOPLE WANT --in a manner that MAKES SENSE for a REASONABLE PRICE.
And people wonder why I don't want to participate in society.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
That sucks... at least in jail I would still have internet.
Well, I'd do it by telling all these folks with digital products that because it is SO cheap now to make copies, so cheap and so easy, that society has made an historical breakthrough in eliminating "want" and scarcity in an entire class of products, with this digital replicator technology, which is in the "public good" because our "arts and sciences" made a TREMENDOUS leap forward when this happened in the gestalt; that they either get real and charge a sane fair price, such as perhaps a full 100% markup over bandwith costs for transfer and no more, and make their money on just much larger and legal mass volume sales then, because there is no scarcity now, or that they lose all copyright protections and it goes into public domain instantly if they attempt blatant price gouging by charging 100,000% markup or similar, like they do now, or try to.
Charging folding dollars for a few cents worth of download bandwith is nuts, it's a ripoff and a dangerous precedent for the future as tangible replicators get developed.
Now, if they did that, adopted rules that really reflect advances in technology, then society could still get strict then on really cheap people who wouldn't even pay that now really small and much more fair price as well. I think "cracking down" then would be justified.
What they are doing is trying to maintain the completely junk science totally debunkable viewpoint that these digital copies are a "scarce resource", like they were with wax cylinders and vinyl and plastic tape holder conraptions or even a simple spinning plastic disk, when they are not.
They should NOT be allowed to charge those huge sums for digital copies. Yes, this would require some serious paradigm shifting of the copyright laws, but those copyright laws are all man made, artificial constructs first designed for a much earlier age with primitive technology, and they are not a natural law, and as such, we-society as we-could and should adopt and change the laws as technological circumstances change.
Blatant price gouging and relegating digital technology into the past, locking it down and carving in stone some huge no longer necessary markup for these products is no more than enforced legal Luddism and is abhorrent to the true advancement of the arts and sciences "in the public good" when they insist on such ludicrous prices. It is NOT in the public good for them to get away with that.
The law just shouldn't treat them the same as truly scarce tangible copies which have much higher production and distribution costs. Times have changed, and oh ya they changed copyright law-for the worse, not the better.
BTW Mr. AC, your post was not a troll, it was a legit and honest question. Mods, please fix that.
There's a general principle at work here. Harm caused by drugs is increased by prohibition. We saw it with alcohol, we see it with marijuana, and we're about to see it in action with nicotine. The same principle applies to cocaine, amphetamines, and opiates. If you're concerned about harm reduction, which is really the only sane policy approach to drugs, you're going to end up advocating for at least the decriminalization of these drugs.
Here's why. Drug prohibition doesn't stop anyone from taking drugs. Check the facts, alcohol use was higher under alcohol prohibition, and countries that decriminalize see a decrease in drug use (see Portugal). Why does this happen? Well instead of thinking of the difference as legal vs illegal, think of it as unregulated vs regulated. You can't regulate a black market. So illegal drugs get sold to teenagers, while legal drugs get sold to adults. Who do you think is more likely to get addicted?
So with decriminalization you're going to have fewer addicts, but it's also less harmful to be an addict. You get cleaner drugs, with measured doses, so you're less likely to have an overdose or adverse reaction. If you do have an adverse reaction or side effect, you can get treated for it without the fear of going to jail.
On top of having fewer addicts, and reducing the harm on those we do have, decriminalization helps reduce the negative societal effects of drug use. Cheaper legal drugs are easier to support an addiction to without resorting to crime. With the criminal stigma lifted, it will be easier to get and keep a job without employers caring about what's in your urine. So addicts can continue to contribute to the economy to the best of their ability. The profits from the huge US drug market would no longer go towards criminal organizations, and the associated crime wouldn't happen anymore.
From every way I look at it, decriminalization of all drugs is going to cause less harm than prohibition. If that makes me an idiot, I'd like to know where I'm wrong. But I think it's you who's afraid and not really thinking. I understand why, stimulants and opiates are quite dangerous and change is scary. I do agree that we should focus on Cannabis first, though. It isn't as dangerous and will serve to illustrate the general principle.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
And it would be shameful that me, a foreigner living in the UK, would have to explain this to you.
Peter Mandelson, Lord Mandelson (for fucks sakes...) is "Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, First Secretary and Lord President of the Council"
Secretaries of government in the UK are selected by the PM of the day, the only requisite is that the lucky one should be member of one of the legislative chambers (Commons or Lords).
Since Mandelson is not elected, the the only way is for him to be offered the patronage of the PM in order to accede to the House of Lords.
This system is corrupt and contrary to the most basic democratic principles, but the current Labout government wasted his majority in Parliment and never delivered the promise of wholesale reform of the unelected House of Lords....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Consider: The US, in its infancy, models itself after the biggest guy on the block, the UK, and builds an empire.
The U.S. didn't so much build an empire as buy one - gathering up pieces here and there as they became available.
Louisiana 1803 $11 million
Mexican Cession 1848 $15 million
Gasden Purchase 1853 $10 million
Alaska 1867 $7 milllion
US Virgin Islands 1917 $25 million
The US was a debtor nation through most of its history - but the money went directly into infrastructure and economic development.
The building of the railroads, for example.
Take oil out of the equation and the American economy looks very strong and very well balanced.
posting to undo my mistaken mod (I hit overrated, sorry about that).
But while I'm at it: I agree with your conclusion about differentiating the legal status per drug, but I think your persuasion skills need some work. You're ostensibly trying to change people's opinions while simultaneously calling them idiots. That is not the way to win an argument.
i'm not american, but even i know 20th century american history better than you.
neither communism nor socialism were dirty words in america until the 1950s with all the scare propaganda about the Red Menace.
right up until then, there was an active, large, and popular socialist movement in america. it wasn't likely to hold government in its own right but was strong enough to provide a moderating influence on the growing corporate control of american government.
after mccarthy, socialism became a thought-crime in america and corporate control had no effective opposition.
i'm constantly astounded by the mindless american hostility to the idea of government - it's like children denying reality. the fact is that government is inevitable and unavoidable, you can't deny its existence or power by just subscribing to some moronic "rugged individualist" mythology. so, if government is inevitable, then only sane thing for citizens do is to ensure that it works for THEM....because if it doesn't work for the citizens, it will be controlled by the rich and powerful for their own benefit. which is *exactly* what you've got. as a whole, the people of america have abdicated and the power vacuum has been filled by corporate interests, which is precisely why there is so much corporate-sponsored propaganda brainwashing citizens into believing that socialist principles like universal health care are bad for them.
Cory Doctorow makes a decent living by restating the obvious.
this is a solid fact: marijuana will get legalized in the usa. it will be legalized FASTER if the idiots who think ALL drugs should be legalized shut the fuck up, or are shut up and kept out of the discussion. you refrain your opinions to marijuana, and marijuana alone, in the discussion about marijuana legalization, or you are HURTING THE CAUSE.
My CAUSE is freedom. Letting assholes like yourself get high is an unintended side affect.
but there is no such thing, nor will there ever be such a thing as a coherent subject matter called DRUG legalization
I find it funny how you assume it is impossible to acknowledge and take into consideration the different effects of different drugs and still conclude that they all should be legalized and thus support what can only be called in a small number of words "drug legalization", without being an idiot.
It can be rationally argued that there is no existing drug whose effects are such that the harm is not worsened by prohibition. Ergo, supporting the end of prohibition for all drugs is a rational stance to take. That isn't the end of the issue (even legal drugs have many regulations, and these indeed would have to be different just as a practical matter), and its not simplifying it. It is most definitely a "serious" stance that people who do in fact understand the issues can take.
every single drug is completely different in its pharmacological effects, and therefore every single drug should have a completely different legal framework around it.
Completely different legal framework? Really? Even today, drugs are organized into only a few broad classes of illegality. Let's assume I agree with your position that amphetamines, coke, and opiates should never be legalized. Why would they require "completely different legal frameworks" beyond changing the quantities specified by statutes?
Besides, I already know that reason you think those drugs should remain illegal is because they are in the "inebriating/toxic AND addictive" category, which is already a gross oversimplification. "Inebriation" as a description of the mental effects of alcohol is wildly different from the mental effects of cocaine which is wildly different from LSD. Having already boiled down the entire constellation of drugs into basically 4 categories*, why is it so hard to accept that if you consider the "worst" drug on the few axes you are concerned with and decide that it should be legalized, it makes sense to say that all the others should be too. Even considered individually.
Not saying you have to agree, just see that this is not the logic of idiots. It's not actually my opinion either as what I think of when I think "worst", PCP, I think should be illegal.
you refrain your opinions to marijuana, and marijuana alone, in the discussion about marijuana legalization, or you are HURTING THE CAUSE.
Okay now you're talking how rather than should, a completely different issue, but I agree completely. For two reasons. One, the argument against prohibition is a much surer thing with such a mild drug, and thus a much easier sell (who doesn't know at least one stoner to know that they're harmless :P). Two: If the trend is going to be to rollback prohibition, we need a period where mj is separated from other drugs, because one thing you touched on I agree with completely is that we need to stop viewing all drugs the same. Regardless of legality, the question of "Do I want to take this drug now?" should be a more informed and more nuanced opinion than "Drugs are bad, mmmkay?" That's going to take time.
* Giving credit where credit is due, this is vastly more nuanced than usual.
The enemies of Democracy are
Hopefully he'll die from AIDS.
"owing in no small part on his insistence that his work be made available for unrestricted electronic distribution and copying."
The fundamental and basic point being, that is Cory's right to insist on those terms for his work, NOT FOR THE WORK OF OTHERS.
How long until you people get this? What works for one person does not necessarily work for another.
" If drugs were not illegal then those people who become destitute may never even have run into those problems in the first place."
i stopped reading there. its pure ignorance
you can work/ have a relationship while using LSD on the side. LSD is not addictive
you can work/ have a relationship while using nicotine: its not highly inebriating
you CAN'T work/ have a relationship if you use a highly inebriating and addictive substance: the desire to use the drug is greater than the desire to support yourself, and using the drug bltos out your ability to work/ relate. you do see the straightforward logic here, right?
guess what moron: THE ACTUAL SUBSTANCE IS THE PROBLEM. if the country let anyone use whatever they wanted, no drug policy at all, complete freedom to use: there would be addicts (a whole hell of a lot). if the country beheaded drug users and their families at the slightest whiff of nanoseconds of a chemical substance, there would be addicts. why are their addicts in both societies? because the POLICY OF THE SOCIETY DOESN'T MAKE A FUCKING DIFFERENCE, THE SUBSTANCE DOES
can you try to recognize the fucking obvious in your opinions at some point in your life?
the DRUG is the problem, not the POLICY
how do you have a discussion with someone who won't admit or see the blindingly obvious?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The government shouldn't be able to tell anyone what they can and can not put into their own body.
It might destroy their lives and their health, but it should be their right to destroy their lives and their health.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
of prohibition you mention
i don't dispute any of it, i agree with it 100%
now lets get to my point as unambiguously as possible: increased casual use leads to more addicts
so if you have a society where access to drugs is easy, versus one where it is difficult, sure, there will be a core committed population who will get drugs no matter what you do, in either society. again, i agree with that point of yours
but this group does not describe every type of user
there's another population, the casually interested group, which is a much larger population. they are not highly motivated to get access to drugs, but if access is available they will try it
now you can't talk about alcohol and marijuana in the same breath as cocaine, meth, or heroin in this situation. simply because basic pharmacology tells us that the addiction potential is much higher for meth/ heroin/ coke than anything else, and so this casual group will result in a number of addicts. do you dispute that?
such that, with this casual population, with the easy access to these hardest of drugs that you accept, you harvest a population of addicts THAT WOULD BE MUCH SMALLER IF ACCESS WAS DIFFICULT
do you see my point?
the war on drugs that makes access difficult for the casual user has MANY negative side effects you demonstrate. and yet the positive of the war on drugs: a much smaller population of addicts, is something you will not recognize or admit to, when basic logic about the addictive potential of something like meth/ heroin/ coke should tell you something about the fate of many casual users with easy access. the best way to fight addiction to hardest of drugs is to fight this initial contact between CASUAL user (you can't do anything about the committed losers) and hardcore drugs
casual interest + easy access + high addictive potential = much larger pool of addicts. do you dispute that logic?
the lessons of prohibition of things like alcohol and marijuana do not teach us anything about the highly addictive+inebriating drugs because the harm the highly addictive+inbriating drugs do to individuals directly far outweighs all of the negative prohibition effects you speak of. the negative prohibition effects you speak of DOES argue for soft drugs like marijuana and alcohol to be legal, but NOT meth/ coke/ heroin
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Aren't Britons allowed to go to court to get such an unconstitutional law repealed?
Remove a method of communication if you break the law with it (slander, libel, insider trading rules, yelling fire in a theater)? 3 strikes on speech: vocal cords cut out 3 strikes on writing, typing, or sign language: hands severed 3 strikes on cell phones: must communicate via voice and writing for the rest of your life, unless you had those removed in earlier violations
The court system would collapse under the weight of so many cases. They need to deal with this like parking tickets. See a violation, give a ticket. If you want to fight the ticket, show up at court. Most people don't fight it, because they have no grounds to. The government gets their money and influences behavior. The court system isn't destroyed. People's lives aren't severely disrupted. Yes they'll probably do it again.
Not all pirates are threatened by the law:
GROUPAMA was caught in a software PIRACY case of $200 million and has made an unofficial affidavit (claiming that it was not guilty) to divert Police investigations from the evidences officially collected one month ago at a different office.
GROUPAMA argued that bank secrecy entitled it to limit the scope of Police investigations to a building that was not the place where evidences about the infraction were officially collected.
GROUPAMA managed to have the General Prosecutor of Paris to state that Police was 'right' to ignore the criminal file and focus only on the irrelevant information provided by GROUPAMA itself!
All the details, including the General Prosecutor reply, the BEFTI investigation file and the unofficial affidavit cooked by GROUPAMA have been made publicly available:
http://remoteanything.com/archives/groupama.pdf
I pirate because I'm deaf. I can't use streamed media because it doesn't have subtitles. In my country, I can't watch what I want because the captioning just isn't there. Some of the DVDs that are sold here have no subtitles, yet the Zone 1 DVDs sold in America have English SDH subtitles. And the last thing ... I pirate because I can't EVER go to movie theaters, yet the movie studios think it smart to release DVDs a few months later in the American market THEN a few weeks later in my country.
As this act clearly marks the end of democracy in that country, it is imperative that the US invade immediately to preserve democracy and build a new, democratic, constitutional basis for the government before we can withdraw our troops. We owe it to the people of our long-time friend and ally to save them from the loss of their freedom.
But who will save us?
People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
Your freedom too can be taken from you if you break the law. And freedom is far more important than the internet for things that are essential to humans. So, according to Cory Doctorow's logic, we should also stop jailing people who break the law because freedom is so important. What kind of argument is that?
Herein lies the essence of the problem: Any idea or piece of technology can be used for both good and evil. However, government rarely takes that into account when creating legislation. Oh, some moron chose not to wear a helmet while riding his motorcycle and splattered his brains all over the road? Well then clearly every motorcycle rider is an idiot and we must save them from themselves and have a law requiring people to wear helmets and fine them if they don't. Look! I did something. Re-elect me. Oh and the government makes money on the deal! How cool is that?
This deserves a mod: clear, concise and accurate.
educate yourself. here's a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg
the question being: how many addicts does easy access by casual users create?
CASUAL users, who would not pursue the drug if it were less available
depending upon that number of addicts you harvest from casual users who are created by easy access, you have a greater amount of evil happening from the drug itself VERSUS from the society's prohibition effects
with some substances, prohibition is clearly worse. with other substances, the actual DRUG is the worst effect
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Destroying your own life and health might really suck for you and your family, but it also isn't free either, for you or for me. Same thing with refusing to wear a seatbelt, bike helmet, etc... No?
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
..Is that the "3 strikes" laws that I heard about all have this "The ISP shall cancel all service to individual X but will keep charging the fee as if the service were active." approach to it.
Because the ISP would not bother cutting access if their cash cow could be lost with it.
This falls under the "Don't steal! Governments don't like competition." clause.
If that's the case, then they should also take away incentives for behaviors such as:
I could go on, but I won't.
Rather than take away incentives, have them pay higher premiums.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
You obviously haven't seen many ACs.
Denying people access to the phone has been done but only under the most extreme circumstances and you hardly ever hear about it. Access to telephone is so important that it would be unimaginable to deny anyone access to it as it would deny people access to their own government quite often.
Denying people access to [driving on] the roads is also been done but only under the most extreme criminal circumstances such as too many accidents, drunk driving, etc. Even vehicular manslaughter does not automatically deny one access to roads.
The internet is quickly becoming so tightly integrated with society that cutting people off of the internet would be to cut them off of society... and their government. And for what? At whose request is all this going to happen? A special interest group and business model (copyright) that exists because of permission granted by "the people" and routinely abuses those same people.
I think it is beyond the time to visit the purpose and intent of copyright and correct the areas where current law and practice exceed the purpose and intent or fails to fulfill the purpose and intent. Following this, we can talk about appropriate remedies for any civil abuses of copyrighted material.