I think their point is, in any population of X freeloaders, there will be Y people who will, at some point, begin to contribute, so it's never hurtful to have a large population of X.
Plus, the bigger X gets, the bigger Y gets by proportion. Hence the "More freeloaders == more developers" ideology.
Personally, I take a bit of offense to the term 'freeloader.' If you didn't want people using the software without 'paying' in some way, either through fiscal or chronological contributions, you shouldn't be giving it away for free.
Actually I know quite a few catholics. They are the same as everybody else. Everybody.
Yea, I should have clarified that statement wasn't directed at you. I could tell from your post you're smart enough to realize that a particular label does not, generally, define a person.
Also at 11, Archaic Institution Maintains 300 Year Old Rules, Despite Fact None of Followers Believe That Crap Anymore.
Seriously, go talk to some Catholics sometime. You'll find out they aren't nearly as obtuse and idiotic as the Vatican (and media) makes them out to be.
...the Internet will eventually route around the damage. Perhaps the edges will be a little raggedy, but Life will go on.
(You can't stop the signal. Everything goes somewhere, and the Internet goes everywhere. )
Yes, a clever line for interplanetary fiction.
Not so applicable here on Terra Firma; I doubt we'll be getting much signal out, after Big Brother cuts us off from the grid and surrounds us with RF jammers.
Shit, I think I'm being possessed by a marketing drone...
Profit minded companies mainly used the Internet and would really love to rule it, but did they bring innovation ? Seriously ?
Well, Sure! Facebook transforms granular programs to envisioneered enterprise relationships with cultivated, synergistic cutting-edge infrastructures! Then, of course, there's Twitter, with its front-end mindshare of distributed aggregate efficiency markets!
Is it not completely possible that one intelligent man, $300 laptop, and an internet connection be just as "deadly" as any country's electronic warfare unit?
Think of it as a matter of scale: If one smart person with a laptop can do X amount of damage to our enemies, 300 smart people with laptops could do 300X damage; 5000 could do 5000X, etc.
That is bullshit, and to me grounds for anyone accused of online "piracy" to invoke the 14th Amendment in their defense, as giving anyone a harsher punishment violates the Right to equal treatment under the law.
HOWEVER, that doesn't magically free counterfeiters of guilt.
As far as stealing things that are a mix of private and public property (as the intention of copyright is to give temporary private rights to the arts which are by default (under natural law) public property) then GM got a huge infusion of cash from the public to keep them afloat and had squandered it only to get another infusion of cash, this time as a free 'loan'.
What, didn't you know? It's not stealing if the government does it!
Sad part is, that really seems to be their rationale...
BP spilled a huge amount of oil in public property by being reckless and deprived large numbers of people from both their income and the enjoyment of said property and I could go on and on.
A) that's not an example of theft or counterfeiting, and thus is a strawman argument
B) BP got fined, as well as the company that ran the rig, and they are all facing criminal charges as we speak. Not what I would qualify as "getting away with it."
Copyright infringement is not theft,
I didn't say it was. I said it was counterfeiting, because it is.
it is sending and receiving bits and bytes (energy - a public property) at no cost to the original author
How do you know it's "at no cost to the author?" Aside from the obvious fact that counterfeiting deprives the creator of income (which, BTW, is a valid argument in court), what if they pay for the hosting of the file themselves, and use the cost of whatever the item is to defray hosting costs?
disseminating them across public lightwaves on public radio frequencies.
I believe the privately-owned ISP that you access the "public" internet through would argue that point. Or, at the very least, show you some nasty click-through pop ups, a la Six Strikes.
It is the same thing Google did, they received bits and bytes in public spaces across public radio frequencies and got a really light punishment for it.
Which I agree is nonsense, but I do see the silver lining of getting other, similar cases thrown out on 14th Amendment grounds.
No, but copying things that aren't really "ownable" except when a massive effort to create artificial scarcity by crippling technology, surveiling internet users, and ruining lives with disproportionate damages isn't the same as "taking" them.
Right - it's not theft, because the original is still there, accessible by the owner.
Rather, it's counterfeiting - making a copy without legal authorization.
If an artist does not want his work copied then he/she should not release it in a copyable form. Period.
Wow, that's just... wow. I don't know where to begin telling you how wrong this is... kind of like saying, "well, if you don't want your car stolen, you shouldn't own a car!" or "If you didn't want to be beaten by the police officers, you shouldn't have stepped out of the house."
This isn't going to be popular, in particular around here, but here it is. Just because you choose to not copywrite something, doesn't mean anything.
If someone has copywrited something, by law, they hold the rights to it. They can do whatever they please, within the confines of the law. One of those things, as they currently stand, is to prevent someone, anyone, from copying it.
If you choose to not participate in IP law, that is your own choice. I applaud you for it, but it doesn't give you any more rights than anyone else, for something that is copywrited.
My point, exactly. Well said.
Now, all this said, I dont feel like people are attacking the right thing. Rather than saying "I have a right to copy and distribute this thing/concept/object/widget/whatever" they should be saying "You dont have a right to keep me from copying and distributing this thing/concept/object/widget/whatever". A subtle difference, but very important. In the former, you're insisting that you have a right to something not yours, in the former you're aserting that its not theirs to begin with. The entire concept of copywrite is out of date and inconsistant with modern times, and needs to be rethought. That is where the fight needs to be, not at this silly level its at right now.
While that may be a better angle to approach the issue, I'm afraid it will always be a losing battle. Just replace "thing/concept/object/widget/whatever" with "legal tender," and the reason why will become quite clear.
I highly doubt the defense of "You dont have a right to keep me from copying and distributing this legal tender" has ever kept a counterfeiter out of prison.
It seems you are suffering from a form of mind control where you believe that property and "intellectual property" are the same thing.
Let's break this down. I am not going to give you access to take my things.
I'm happy for you to make duplicates of any information I have. For example by hearing the words I speak or reading the words I type, and saying them later.
Strawman argument - the moment you said "I'm happy for you to make duplicates" you started talking about something completely different.
I could have copyrighted various code I wrote on my own time in a way that denied access to others, but I've never done so.
But does that mean it's OK for people to copy works that are copyrighted, without permission? Talk about your false equivalence...
but all I wanted to do was deconstruct your silly "let me steal your stuff" false equivalence that you attempted to draw.
And, in doing so, you proved that you don't understand the topic. At all.
FYI, making copies of things you do not have authorization to make copies of is not, technically, theft. It's counterfeiting.
"But, but, but teacher, Little Johnny got away with it!"
Well, guess what: we aren't talking about Little Johnny. Yes, it's wrong that those companies aren't being held to task for their crimes, but that by no means absolves anyone else of committing the same.
I'm also curious - what, precisely, are you accusing GE, GM, and BP of getting away with, that ordinary people do not?
I will state the caveat that if you are being prosecuted under the same laws you claim those companies broke, and you're being given a much harsher punishment than what they received, you would be wise to contest the conviction on 14th Amendment grounds.
The EHCR recognizes that the Swedish verdict interferes with the right to freedom of expression, but ruled that this was necessary to protect the rights of copyright holders.
Copyrights are officially worth more than human rights.
Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. I don't think anyone would dispute that.
So is it okay to swing your fist within 1mm of my face? It's a bit dangerous. The potential for injury is high. It would annoy most people to the point of being unable to function normally.
I think you misunderstand the point of a metaphor - it's not meant to be taken literally.
FYI, if someone literally swings a fist at you, regardless of whether they actually make contact, they are committing a crime called "assault," because it violates your freedom to stand in a public place and not be physically attacked.
Hence the reason the phrase is used as a metaphor and not as an allegory.
What about drink driving? I mean really blind drunk. You might not kill anyone, but there is a significant chance you may. Your freedom presents an unacceptable risk.
Well, for starters, there is no such "right to drive," nor is there a protected right to imbibe alcohol. That aside, by driving under the influence you are knowingly and willingly risking the lives (and thus, rights) of other people who have not agreed to any such condition. To use your own analogy, you may as well have taken a swing on every single person you come within range of.
Nevermind the fact that drunk driving is not analogous to firearm ownership in any way, shape, or form.
Say you are a violent disturbed person. Should you be free to download a gun?
Well, that does create a bit of a conundrum, doesn't it? Before I could answer that, I would need a bit more qualifying information:
- who is it that's claiming that a person is "violent and disturbed?"
- how are those terms being defined?
- by what metric are we measuring danger and disturbed-ness?
Granted, there are some people who, based on normal observation, should not have access to weapons of any kind... the toothless guy who stands on a corner downtown, dressed in nothing but whitey-tighties, a tinfoil hat, and a sandwich board with some manner of mad ramblings scrawled upon it, screaming about how the pigeons are trying to steal his baby's pickle? Yea, that guy does not need to be armed (and, honestly, should be placed in a facility where he can get the care he obviously needs).
But that's not what many people, especially the politically motivated, mean when they say "violent disturbed person." Some people, like Diane Feinstein, seem to believe that term applies to anyone who already owns a gun (Google "Mr and Mrs America, turn in your guns"). Other folks, take Rush Limbaugh for example, apparently think that anyone who disagrees with them is "violent and disturbed."
And therein lies the real problem with armament limitation laws: The definitions of who would be considered a restricted party, or what is considered a restricted weapon, are intentionally left vague, presumably so those who support such theories are able to cast a wide net and ensnare as many folks as possible.
That makes sense - if we're not busy complaining about Wiley & Sons vs. Kirtsaeng, we really shouldn't complain about anything else.
Did I say you shouldn't complain about anything else? No, no I did not. I said I couldn't give a shit less about how one particular company treats the consumers who are still stupid enough to keep giving them money.
But please, don't let facts or reality stop you from whining like a petulant child with a fucking attitude. It's so endearing, after all.
Oh, malarkey - you're letting your biases and paranoia override your ability to reason.
You won't be able to buy disks for them
Sony has invested entirely too much in BluRay technology to not include an optical drive on the PS4. Not to mention, "It plays BluRays!" was a major selling point for a lot of people who bought PS3 systems, myself included.
all the games will be download only, require online access all the time
Making the consoles "online DLC only" would severely limit their ability to sell consoles - I know this might be hard to fathom, but the entire world population does not necessarily have access to always-on broadband internet. While you may not realize this, I assure you the marketing drones at Sony and Microsoft very much do.
all your movies and music will be streamed, and no, you can't keep them or transfer to other devices to watch/listen to them.
Right, because somehow this device is going to magically alter all my existing movie and music files, move them to a remote server, and delete them from my local storage device.
Oh, wait, you probably meant the content that they will allow you to rent through the device, right? Yea, FYI, stuff you rent isn't "your" stuff. Don't believe me? Trash your apartment, then tell your landlord you won't pay to fix it because it's "your" apartment. Hope you enjoy homelessness.
But you will be allowed to buy install credits, 500cr at time for $100, but the games will be 510cr, so you have to buy two credit packs, and just like a strip joint, wont let you cash out the funny money for real dollars when you leave.
Microsoft already does that with their current generation console.
And you cant get a refund if the game is crap or doesnt work as advertised.
Slashdot Mirror
Since they provided a vehicle to allow others access to counterfeit goods.
Really, it's not that complex a concept, once you accept the reality that pirating software is counterfeiting.
Right - it's not theft, because the original is still there, accessible by the owner.
Rather, it's counterfeiting - making a copy without legal authorization.
Wrong. It's not counterfeiting either... it's "copyright infringement".
... which is a type of counterfeiting. By definition.
kind of like saying, "well, if you don't want your car stolen, you shouldn't own a car!"
No, it's absolutely nothing like saying that.
Agree to disagree on that point.
I think their point is, in any population of X freeloaders, there will be Y people who will, at some point, begin to contribute, so it's never hurtful to have a large population of X.
Plus, the bigger X gets, the bigger Y gets by proportion. Hence the "More freeloaders == more developers" ideology.
Personally, I take a bit of offense to the term 'freeloader.' If you didn't want people using the software without 'paying' in some way, either through fiscal or chronological contributions, you shouldn't be giving it away for free.
Actually I know quite a few catholics. They are the same as everybody else. Everybody.
Yea, I should have clarified that statement wasn't directed at you. I could tell from your post you're smart enough to realize that a particular label does not, generally, define a person.
Also at 11, Archaic Institution Maintains 300 Year Old Rules, Despite Fact None of Followers Believe That Crap Anymore.
Seriously, go talk to some Catholics sometime. You'll find out they aren't nearly as obtuse and idiotic as the Vatican (and media) makes them out to be.
You, sir or madam, have just made my day.
(You can't stop the signal. Everything goes somewhere, and the Internet goes everywhere. )
Yes, a clever line for interplanetary fiction.
Not so applicable here on Terra Firma; I doubt we'll be getting much signal out, after Big Brother cuts us off from the grid and surrounds us with RF jammers.
Shit, I think I'm being possessed by a marketing drone...
Profit minded companies mainly used the Internet and would really love to rule it, but did they bring innovation ? Seriously ?
Well, Sure! Facebook transforms granular programs to envisioneered enterprise relationships with cultivated, synergistic cutting-edge infrastructures! Then, of course, there's Twitter, with its front-end mindshare of distributed aggregate efficiency markets!
Client-focused!
Embracing interactive communities!
Positioning dot-com convergence!
POP!
*head asplode*
Damn right!
Totalitarian Fascism FTW!!!
On a serious note - China is not my enemy. Probably not yours either.
Is it not completely possible that one intelligent man, $300 laptop, and an internet connection be just as "deadly" as any country's electronic warfare unit?
Think of it as a matter of scale: If one smart person with a laptop can do X amount of damage to our enemies, 300 smart people with laptops could do 300X damage; 5000 could do 5000X, etc.
Well, if we're talking about the stealing of bits and bytes that are that are structured in certain ways that they are somehow people's property then Google just got away with it: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/03/13/1621200/googles-punishment-lecture-those-they-snooped-on
That is bullshit, and to me grounds for anyone accused of online "piracy" to invoke the 14th Amendment in their defense, as giving anyone a harsher punishment violates the Right to equal treatment under the law.
HOWEVER, that doesn't magically free counterfeiters of guilt.
As far as stealing things that are a mix of private and public property (as the intention of copyright is to give temporary private rights to the arts which are by default (under natural law) public property) then GM got a huge infusion of cash from the public to keep them afloat and had squandered it only to get another infusion of cash, this time as a free 'loan'.
What, didn't you know? It's not stealing if the government does it!
Sad part is, that really seems to be their rationale...
BP spilled a huge amount of oil in public property by being reckless and deprived large numbers of people from both their income and the enjoyment of said property and I could go on and on.
A) that's not an example of theft or counterfeiting, and thus is a strawman argument
B) BP got fined, as well as the company that ran the rig, and they are all facing criminal charges as we speak. Not what I would qualify as "getting away with it."
Copyright infringement is not theft,
I didn't say it was. I said it was counterfeiting, because it is.
it is sending and receiving bits and bytes (energy - a public property) at no cost to the original author
How do you know it's "at no cost to the author?" Aside from the obvious fact that counterfeiting deprives the creator of income (which, BTW, is a valid argument in court), what if they pay for the hosting of the file themselves, and use the cost of whatever the item is to defray hosting costs?
disseminating them across public lightwaves on public radio frequencies.
I believe the privately-owned ISP that you access the "public" internet through would argue that point. Or, at the very least, show you some nasty click-through pop ups, a la Six Strikes.
It is the same thing Google did, they received bits and bytes in public spaces across public radio frequencies and got a really light punishment for it.
Which I agree is nonsense, but I do see the silver lining of getting other, similar cases thrown out on 14th Amendment grounds.
No, but copying things that aren't really "ownable" except when a massive effort to create artificial scarcity by crippling technology, surveiling internet users, and ruining lives with disproportionate damages isn't the same as "taking" them.
Right - it's not theft, because the original is still there, accessible by the owner.
Rather, it's counterfeiting - making a copy without legal authorization.
If an artist does not want his work copied then he/she should not release it in a copyable form. Period.
Wow, that's just... wow. I don't know where to begin telling you how wrong this is... kind of like saying, "well, if you don't want your car stolen, you shouldn't own a car!" or "If you didn't want to be beaten by the police officers, you shouldn't have stepped out of the house."
Seriously, man, why do you hate artists?
Legality of the Right of First Sale is vapid, in comparison to "Dur, EA is a jerk but I keep giving them money anyway?"
My original assertion stands: you kids and your fucked up priorities...
This isn't going to be popular, in particular around here, but here it is. Just because you choose to not copywrite something, doesn't mean anything.
If someone has copywrited something, by law, they hold the rights to it. They can do whatever they please, within the confines of the law. One of those things, as they currently stand, is to prevent someone, anyone, from copying it.
If you choose to not participate in IP law, that is your own choice. I applaud you for it, but it doesn't give you any more rights than anyone else, for something that is copywrited.
My point, exactly. Well said.
Now, all this said, I dont feel like people are attacking the right thing. Rather than saying "I have a right to copy and distribute this thing/concept/object/widget/whatever" they should be saying "You dont have a right to keep me from copying and distributing this thing/concept/object/widget/whatever". A subtle difference, but very important. In the former, you're insisting that you have a right to something not yours, in the former you're aserting that its not theirs to begin with. The entire concept of copywrite is out of date and inconsistant with modern times, and needs to be rethought. That is where the fight needs to be, not at this silly level its at right now.
While that may be a better angle to approach the issue, I'm afraid it will always be a losing battle. Just replace "thing/concept/object/widget/whatever" with "legal tender," and the reason why will become quite clear.
I highly doubt the defense of "You dont have a right to keep me from copying and distributing this legal tender" has ever kept a counterfeiter out of prison.
It seems you are suffering from a form of mind control where you believe that property and "intellectual property" are the same thing.
Let's break this down. I am not going to give you access to take my things.
I'm happy for you to make duplicates of any information I have. For example by hearing the words I speak or reading the words I type, and saying them later.
Strawman argument - the moment you said "I'm happy for you to make duplicates" you started talking about something completely different.
I could have copyrighted various code I wrote on my own time in a way that denied access to others, but I've never done so.
But does that mean it's OK for people to copy works that are copyrighted, without permission? Talk about your false equivalence...
but all I wanted to do was deconstruct your silly "let me steal your stuff" false equivalence that you attempted to draw.
And, in doing so, you proved that you don't understand the topic. At all.
FYI, making copies of things you do not have authorization to make copies of is not, technically, theft. It's counterfeiting.
This sounds like whining to me.
"But, but, but teacher, Little Johnny got away with it!"
Well, guess what: we aren't talking about Little Johnny. Yes, it's wrong that those companies aren't being held to task for their crimes, but that by no means absolves anyone else of committing the same.
I'm also curious - what, precisely, are you accusing GE, GM, and BP of getting away with, that ordinary people do not?
I will state the caveat that if you are being prosecuted under the same laws you claim those companies broke, and you're being given a much harsher punishment than what they received, you would be wise to contest the conviction on 14th Amendment grounds.
Aw, bullshit.
News bulletin - YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO TAKE THINGS YOU DO NOT OWN.
Nor do you have a right to make illegal copies of things you don't have the right to make copies of.
If you disagree with this, then by all means, post your address and a high resolution photo of your keys.
Kinda my takeaway as well.
What? Those liberal EU judges declared counterfeiting to be... a crime?? Travesty!
The EHCR recognizes that the Swedish verdict interferes with the right to freedom of expression, but ruled that this was necessary to protect the rights of copyright holders.
Copyrights are officially worth more than human rights.
Since when is counterfeiting a human right?
Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. I don't think anyone would dispute that.
So is it okay to swing your fist within 1mm of my face? It's a bit dangerous. The potential for injury is high. It would annoy most people to the point of being unable to function normally.
I think you misunderstand the point of a metaphor - it's not meant to be taken literally.
FYI, if someone literally swings a fist at you, regardless of whether they actually make contact, they are committing a crime called "assault," because it violates your freedom to stand in a public place and not be physically attacked.
Hence the reason the phrase is used as a metaphor and not as an allegory.
What about drink driving? I mean really blind drunk. You might not kill anyone, but there is a significant chance you may. Your freedom presents an unacceptable risk.
Well, for starters, there is no such "right to drive," nor is there a protected right to imbibe alcohol. That aside, by driving under the influence you are knowingly and willingly risking the lives (and thus, rights) of other people who have not agreed to any such condition. To use your own analogy, you may as well have taken a swing on every single person you come within range of.
Nevermind the fact that drunk driving is not analogous to firearm ownership in any way, shape, or form.
Say you are a violent disturbed person. Should you be free to download a gun?
Well, that does create a bit of a conundrum, doesn't it? Before I could answer that, I would need a bit more qualifying information:
- who is it that's claiming that a person is "violent and disturbed?"
- how are those terms being defined?
- by what metric are we measuring danger and disturbed-ness?
Granted, there are some people who, based on normal observation, should not have access to weapons of any kind... the toothless guy who stands on a corner downtown, dressed in nothing but whitey-tighties, a tinfoil hat, and a sandwich board with some manner of mad ramblings scrawled upon it, screaming about how the pigeons are trying to steal his baby's pickle? Yea, that guy does not need to be armed (and, honestly, should be placed in a facility where he can get the care he obviously needs).
But that's not what many people, especially the politically motivated, mean when they say "violent disturbed person." Some people, like Diane Feinstein, seem to believe that term applies to anyone who already owns a gun (Google "Mr and Mrs America, turn in your guns"). Other folks, take Rush Limbaugh for example, apparently think that anyone who disagrees with them is "violent and disturbed."
And therein lies the real problem with armament limitation laws: The definitions of who would be considered a restricted party, or what is considered a restricted weapon, are intentionally left vague, presumably so those who support such theories are able to cast a wide net and ensnare as many folks as possible.
Why is this here? Every single person who gives a damn knew this already.
Such insight, I don't think I've ever seen...
At least, not from an AC.
I'll take it!
That makes sense - if we're not busy complaining about Wiley & Sons vs. Kirtsaeng, we really shouldn't complain about anything else.
Did I say you shouldn't complain about anything else? No, no I did not. I said I couldn't give a shit less about how one particular company treats the consumers who are still stupid enough to keep giving them money.
But please, don't let facts or reality stop you from whining like a petulant child with a fucking attitude. It's so endearing, after all.
At the time of sale, the latest SimCity was unusable for the purpose for which it was sold.
Wouldn't that be covered by lemon laws?
Oh, malarkey - you're letting your biases and paranoia override your ability to reason.
You won't be able to buy disks for them
Sony has invested entirely too much in BluRay technology to not include an optical drive on the PS4. Not to mention, "It plays BluRays!" was a major selling point for a lot of people who bought PS3 systems, myself included.
all the games will be download only, require online access all the time
Making the consoles "online DLC only" would severely limit their ability to sell consoles - I know this might be hard to fathom, but the entire world population does not necessarily have access to always-on broadband internet. While you may not realize this, I assure you the marketing drones at Sony and Microsoft very much do.
and no, you can't sell them
Sony has already confirmed that the PS4 will work with used games.
all your movies and music will be streamed, and no, you can't keep them or transfer to other devices to watch/listen to them.
Right, because somehow this device is going to magically alter all my existing movie and music files, move them to a remote server, and delete them from my local storage device.
Oh, wait, you probably meant the content that they will allow you to rent through the device, right? Yea, FYI, stuff you rent isn't "your" stuff. Don't believe me? Trash your apartment, then tell your landlord you won't pay to fix it because it's "your" apartment. Hope you enjoy homelessness.
But you will be allowed to buy install credits, 500cr at time for $100, but the games will be 510cr, so you have to buy two credit packs, and just like a strip joint, wont let you cash out the funny money for real dollars when you leave.
Microsoft already does that with their current generation console.
And you cant get a refund if the game is crap or doesnt work as advertised.
Again, that already occurs, not a new concept.