Slashdot Mirror
Medieval Copy Protection
An anonymous reader writes "In medieval times a 'book curse' was often included on the inside cover or on the last leaf of a manuscripts, warning away anyone who might do the book some harm. Here's a particularly pretty one from Yale's Beinecke MS 214: 'In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen. In the one thousand two hundred twenty-ninth year from the incarnation of our Lord, Peter, of all monks the least significant, gave this book to the [Benedictine monastery of the] most blessed martyr, St. Quentin. If anyone should steal it, let him know that on the Day of Judgment the most sainted martyr himself will be the accuser against him before the face of our Lord Jesus Christ.'"
No, that's one of man's laws written under the guise of god so people would actually follow it back in the day.
Living With a Nerd
if i own a house, i have something unique. it has doors, windows. if you break into my house, and take my television, i am now without a television
meanwhile, if i copy an mp3, have i deprived anyone of anything? ostensibly, i've deprived the owners of the mp3 from control of how it is distributed, and theoretically, i've deprived some artist $. but in reality, i've increased the exposure of that artist, he'll fill more seats at concerts, and the only people i've deprived economically is the distributor, whom isn't even needed anymore, since the internet has replaced their function
the problem is you believe a logical falsehood: that taking a car, or a television, or a diamond ring, something material with concrete value, is somehow anything like copying a file, which is effortless, and without cost. but that you equate these obviously conceptually different things that a kindergartener could correctly compare and contrast, means you are either not very bright or a victim of propaganda
in fact, the little scenario i outlined above has a well-conceived strong capitalist model: radio. on radio, they give songs out for free. why? to attract interest, and they use that interest to sell advertising. again: this is completely valid capitalist principles at work. on the internet, an artist can give his tracks out for free. why? to attract interest, and sell warm butts in concert halls. solid capitalism at work. no one loses out. well, except for one party: the recently made redundant and useless: old school distributors
and that's really what this is all about: corporatism, not capitalism. what i am talking about is not some hippie socialist "information wants to be free man" bullshit, its merely a new capitalist landscape enabled by new technology, the internet. but you have these old school distributors, now suddenly redundant and useless, angry that the world has changed and they are now defunct
so what do they do? they do what any good corporatist would do: they manipulate the market. the greatest enemy capitalism has ever known is not socialism or communism, it is corporatism. study your economic history with monopolies and oligopolies from the turn of the century: you use your size and heft to crush the little players in the marketplace, you buy off the government that is supposed to keep the market fair with rules, to make rules that instead artificially preserve the status quo with you on top. so what you are seeing with intellectual property is not capitalists versus anarchists or thieves, but corporatists versus new capitalist models
unfortunately, people like you, who aren't very bright, easily buy the obviously logically unsound propaganda of the corporatists, who describe intellectual property as if it were owning a house or a television. its obviously not the same thing
consider this a little intellectual charity for you today. try to grow a little intelectually, and see that you are far from understanding the subject matter you are currently ignorantly commenting on
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
because it now costs $0 to distribute it
furthermore, what motivates people to write a song? love of music, love of fame, or just trying to get in a girl's pants
the point is, you can consume media, because media costs nothing, and those who make it, make it for love
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
do you understand the concept you fucking retard?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it