Talks about DRM
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
Then clearly, attempting to make money from distribution is an outdated idea.
Why should we give up our freedom to support an outdated business model? They can find another way to make money from their work. Maybe they could use crowdfunding, for example (get paid in advance).
Should typing also be illegal so that scribes can keep making money that way? Should photos be illegal so that painters can keep being needed for pictures of people? Should factories be illegal so people who make stuff by hand can dominate the markets as they used to?
Yes, they (the people who create content) could find other ways. And many do find other ways, just browse the web outside of pirate websites and you will see that many people do things in many different ways.
But even if they do find a different way, unless they say you can do whatever the hell you want without respecting their wishes, you will never be satisfied.
I once made here a suggestion: a license that enables you to share freely with everyone, but you must pay to the author for each copy you give away. You are free to share, and the people are free to receive, but you must actually make an effort, a sacrifice, to share. No one accepeted that and that was the confirmation that people don't care about "helping their friends". They care about going to the internet and downloading hollywood to watch in the living room.
Also, doing piracy won't change the world into a more just and "shareable" one. It will do the opposite.
> I once made here a suggestion: a license that enables you to share freely with everyone, but you must pay to the author for each copy you give away. You are free to share, and the people are free to receive, but you must actually make an effort, a sacrifice, to share. No one accepeted that and that was the confirmation that people don't care about "helping their friends". They care about going to the internet and downloading hollywood to watch in the living room.
That's still copyright. It's not a solution. It's just a slightly different way of doing the same thing, and it's based on the same outdated business model.
Copying is the future. In fact, the age of the computer networks is old news. If your business depends on people not copying, your business model is outdated. There is no reason to try to save an outdated business model.
Just to end this, like I said, you care nothing about sharing, you won't do any sacrifice for sharing with people who need, and you refuse any business model that doesn't say "do whatever the hell you want, no need to pay".
You just want free beer, you don't give a damn about free speech. Honestly, people like you don't belong here.
You don't like logical fallacies, right? What you just used is an ad hominem. This isn't the first time, either.
I am a member!
>piracy
Please don't use that propaganda term. The MPAA and RIAA want to you think that sharing information is bad, as bad as murder and plunder on the high seas. And it sounds as though they have you by the balls.
Piracy is very bad. But sharing is good. And sharing is easy. So people share. Sharing in the digital age must be legalised if we wish to pursue a free society.
If I make a copy of a digital work (legal or not), I am not taking away any of your physical property. So it cannot be stealing if the original copy still exists.
Let me illustrate: You have an original digital work A. I make a copy of A. Now there are two copies of A - and you still own your original copy: mathematically, we could say:
Ao + (n)Ac
where Ao = the original data, Ac is a copy of the data and n is any positive integer of subsequent copies made. As you can see, we will always have more copies of the original after duplication - which most curiously, according to you, is theft.
However, for physical objects, if I were to take object A away from you, then:
Ao - (n)A
Where Ao must be >= to (n)A (you can't have a negative number of physical objects!). How many original objects you have left is undefined because it depends on how many you had and how many were stolen.
Copyright has not kept up with digital technology. We must make non-commercial redistribution of exact copies, of any digital work, legal.
Again, again and again, piracy is not a propaganda term. Words change meaning over times, and we should accept that. And stop making comparisons to ships and seas -.-
The truth is, you think in the internet you don't have to obey the law.
Have you ever thought that maybe it was the other way around, maybe the people behind big piracy websites (making millions of dollars in ads) want you to believe that "it's ok to copy a movie and distribute it"? Maybe it's people who never worked for a single day in their lifes and want to make money from someone else's work, that defend that we should accept piracy as a part of life "because it's digital"?
If what you truly care about is FREEDOM and SHARING, why don't you support artists who use free licenses instead? Why not send an email to the big stars asking them to use freer licenses, and open standards for their works? Why not try to make the world a better place instead of just disobyeing the laws you don't like?
I am a member!
>If what you truly care about is FREEDOM and SHARING, why don't you support artists who use free licenses instead? Why not send an email to the big stars asking them to use freer licenses, and open standards for their works? Why not try to make the world a better place instead of just disobyeing the laws you don't like?
If you have the audacity to believe sending an email to a pop sensation is going to change anything, then there's a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.
Big name artists usually do not (and in most cases, unable to) control their licensing schemes as it is the record/publishing company that gets to decide. They have the balance of power, they get to decide who can and cannot use the artists' music, either for commercial or more disturbingly, for non-commercial purposes.
You keep using a classic form of circular logic, GNUser - you assert that piracy is bad because it is illegal (or that is equivalent to stealing), and because it is illegal it means it's bad.
You didn't refute any of my points, which suggests that you either don't understand what I'm saying (which is a failure on my part), or you're just being obtuse.
Also, this:
>Have you ever thought that maybe it was the other way around, maybe the people behind big piracy websites (making millions of dollars in ads) want you to believe that "it's ok to copy a movie and distribute it"?
I'd like to see a source or citation backing this up, because it sounds like bullshit to me.
> If you have the audacity to believe sending an email to a pop sensation is going to change anything, then there's a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.
If you have the audacity to believe that pirating stuff will accomplish more regarding changing the world into a better place, that's a funamental misunderstanding on your part.
> You keep using a classic form of circular logic, GNUser - you assert that piracy is bad because it is illegal (or that is equivalent to stealing), and because it is illegal it means it's bad.
I never explained things that way, so that's false. It was never my opinion either.
> You didn't refute any of my points, which suggests that you either don't understand what I'm saying (which is a failure on my part), or you're just being obtuse.
Your points have already been made by other people and I totally dismantled them on those comments. Anyway, I will explain it to you too.
Person A invests 100$ to produce music and burn 100 CDs and pay taxes, all of that. He will probably sell at least 85 CDs, he has many people saying they want his CD, he played it live and many people wanted to buy before he even had the CDs ready. He is selling each one for 20$. If you buy the first CD and start pirating it right away, you will make it so that no one will buy the other ones. He ends up selling let's say 5 CDs.
So, from an initial investment of 100$ to a probable gain of 20x~85 = 1700$, which would make it 1700-100= 1600. We go to an investment of 100$ to a gain of 20x~5= 100$. In the end 100-100= 0$.
Sure you did not take away his copies, you were correct in that, sharing won't take someone elses copies away. BUT it will render them useless and make the person who invested in it lose his investment.
Unless you are against ANY kind of business where people actually have to pay for something (what, you don't pay for food? you steal it?), wanting musics and books and movies to be free of charge is not a valid point.
> I'd like to see a source or citation backing this up, because it sounds like bullshit to me.
Go to a piracy website, a big one. Now, disable all adblocks, script blocks, all of that... You will see that there are at least a dozen ads and even worse scripts running, images and pop ups appearing everywhere.... What, you think those are there to make you happy? No, they are there because they mean MONEY!
I am a member!
>Person A invests 100$ to produce music and burn 100 CDs and pay taxes, all of that. He will probably sell at least 85 CDs, he has many people saying they want his CD, he played it live and many people wanted to buy before he even had the CDs ready. He is selling each one for 20$. If you buy the first CD and start pirating it right away, you will make it so that no one will buy the other ones. He ends up selling let's say 5 CDs.
A free copy does not mean a lost sale. This is the biggest lie spread about by the entertainment industry. Anyway, I have provided links to studies that indicate that the ones that share are also the ones that *spend* the most.
And I have explained to you that you were wrong. I won't do it again. Use your brains instead of believing everything you read on the internet.
Nobody makes "millions of dollars" on ads, except Google.
Kimdotcom
Ask him how much he made on ads.
I was sad when megaupload was taken down, many good people had free content hosted there, but I understood it was necessary to take down the billions of pirate files they had there. And to try and teach people a lesson: internet is not a "do whatever you want with no consequences" playground.
MegaUpload wasn't uploading things that infringed copyright. It was just a host; other people were doing the sharing via MegaUpload.
I am a member!
>I am not doing propaganda. I am defending what I believe to be the best interest of the community. So, yes, I am obeying the rules about that.
I'll try to illustrate this one more time. This is a link to the guidelines for the community that supposedly you accept: https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/trisquel-community-guidelines. Point 4 on there states:
"The Trisquel project is part of the Free Software Movement and supports the movement's *philosophy*. We are happy to collaborate on practical activities with the supporters of open source, but that is not what we call what we do. We ask those editing the Trisquel community wiki, posting to the forum, and using the mailing list to please avoid certain *misnomers and propaganda terms* and to keep in mind the spirit of free software and the *GNU/Linux system*.
The emphasized words or phrases contain links. "Philosophy" links to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html. "...misnomers and propaganda terms..." links to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html. "...GNU/Linux system" links to http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#why.
Now if you follow the link for misnomers and propanganda terms you will find the following:
>"Piracy" Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)
>If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”
Therefore, by using the term you are not abiding by the rules of the community.
Anyway, as I've read all your arguments on the topic (which coincidentally don't seem to take into account any points contrary to yours) it is clear that it doesn't matter what anyone states on the topic. Your mind is set, even if your points can't possibly be valid as you are contradicting yourself.
Edit: It only bolded one? I don't understand how this forum software works.
This is bold text that is more than one word.
[strong]This is bold text that is more than one word.[/strong]
Change [ to < and ] to >, as the forum software wouldn't show the tags properly otherwise.
Duplicate post removed.
Well, forgive me for actually having an opinion instead of just agreeing blindly with everything written in some website! -.- shame on you... I have already stated here that I did not agree with everything the FSF says. I still think we can work together, I don't need to agree with EVERYTHING someone says to work with them. And apparently they think the same way too, so if you were, I don't know, trying to make me go away with that argument.... You fail!
As for the word piracy, well, it's better to understand the meaning that the word carries when talking about content, than to make stupid jokes about ships and murders.
And no, I am not contradicting myself, but people who say they want freedom and therefore use only free software, and then go and use pirated content ARE contradicting themselves! You want freedom to change and use and distribute, but you use content that has a non free license instead of going to the alternatives. That's like saying "facebook is evil, and google too... I will keep using them, instead of trying diaspora and startpage".
Have a nice day
I am a member!
>>Well, forgive me for actually having an opinion instead of just agreeing blindly with everything written in some website! -.- shame on you... I have already stated here that I did not agree with everything the FSF says. I still think we can work together, I don't need to agree with EVERYTHING someone says to work with them. And apparently they think the same way too, so if you were, I don't know, trying to make me go away with that argument.... You fail!
I'm merely pointing out the fallacy of chastizing someone for not following the rules of the creators when you're failing to do so yourself. Here's a contradiction.
>As for the word piracy, well, it's better to understand the meaning that the word carries when talking about content, than to make stupid jokes about ships and murders.
No, that's not true. It's better to understand the real meaning of words instead of twisting them.
> I'm merely pointing out the fallacy of chastizing someone for not following the rules of the creators when you're failing to do so yourself. Here's a contradiction.
I will play along and pretend to believe that. Still, two totally different things, so... moot point really. Moving on....
> No, that's not true. It's better to understand the real meaning of words instead of twisting them.
Yes, and you fail to understand that words change meaning over time. It's natural evolution of speech. People who attack me with straw man fallacies and stupid ships jokes, those are the ones twisting words.
GNUser said - "As for the word piracy, well, it's better to understand the meaning that the word carries when talking about content, than to make stupid jokes about ships and murders."
I (and most people I know) associate the word "pirate" as pirates on the high seas, even if used in the context of unauthorized distribution.
The RIAA, MPAA, and the BSA (Business Software Alliance) intend for this to happen, to smear unathorized distribution.
The word "piracy" must have not changed too much, as there are modern-day pirates on the high seas, (plundering ships, killing the crew) which are called pirates, and rightfully so.
Well, I don't know where you live (and I am not asking, don't take it in the wrong way please) but in my place, everyone knows "piracy" usually refers to illegal copies. Problem is, they accept it as much as they accept windows =S
I don't know what is worse, but I would say windows is worse. Even if, it would be funny to see the government using windows backdoors to find out who is doing active piracy and shutting them down. The day that starts happening, I won't have to worry, as I don't do piracy.... And also because I protect myself online. But people who say "everyone does piracy, and everyone uses windows, so it's ok to do it"... Those people will get it the hard way ;)
Eheh, actually the thought was good... maybe a clean lesson on RESPECT would do our world good *.* People would learn the values of freedom, security, respect... CC and PD would be finally accepted.... It would probably be good ;)
It doesn't matter if people understand that people mean "unauthorized copying" when they say "piracy". The term is charged to suggest that unauthorized copying is similar to real piracy or theft. The charge doesn't get lost just because the usage is common.
People use that term because they know what they are doing is illegal and they are taking something that does not belong to them (did they buy the content? no, so it's theft in a way).
Have you watched Copying is not Theft?
http://xrl.us/CopyingIsNotTheft
On 09/08/13 06:26, gnuser wrote:
> People use that term because they know what they are doing is
> illegal and they are taking something that does not belong to them
> (did they buy the content? no, so it's theft in a way).
Copying != theft (I think we are going around in circles now, but it
had to be said).
Andrew.
Just because it is illegal doesn't mean it isn't right. Have you seen the massive increase in surveillance lately? This is illegal too as it breaks many of our fundamental rights and takes away our privacy and freedom of speech!
Unauthorised copying is bad, we agree with you but telling us not to share is not. It goes against everything we stand for.
I do not "pirate", I prefer creative works which encourage sharing. As for mainstream works, I purchase them 2nd-hand (which the giants are also trying to abolish!) so that I don't give them money for another copy. Anybody that restricts what I can do with something doesn't deserve my money!
I agree that we must create our own libre works that compete with their work and I agree that we must reduce the demand for unauthorised copies of creative works.
I defend unauthorised copying only because it is sharing! Nothing more!
I am certain that most of the users here are the same.
I completely agree with you, Elad.
EDIT: I don't think that unauthorized copying is bad, except that it may impede freely (as in freedom) licensed music, movies, etc.
I don't agree that unauthorized copying is bad. Sharing is good whether authorized by the author or not. It's better when you have the author's blessing, but only because it's illegal otherwise. I would very much like to see copyright abolished; then, all creative works would be in the public domain.
First of all, thank you Elad, this was one of the most reasonable comments I have ever seen regarding piracy and sharing and all of that. Thank you, I feel that at least someone here understood what I was trying to say.
> Just because it is illegal doesn't mean it isn't right. Have you seen the massive increase in surveillance lately? This is illegal too as it breaks many of our fundamental rights and takes away our privacy and freedom of speech!
I agree. In my place, people in power actually make some bad things legal and... for me they are still wrong things. So, being legal is not enough to be right. As for the spying, that is why I try to use free privacy and security tools, and I believe everyone should do the same. Even if, in light of last events (lavabit, silent mail, freedom hosting, etc) it becomes... hard to believe that such a thing is possible to achieve. But I try anyway =)
> Unauthorised copying is bad, we agree with you but telling us not to share is not. It goes against everything we stand for.
Unfortunately as you can see, many people here don't realize that "unauthorised copying is bad". They don't get it. That is the main problem, they say I am doing propaganda, which is the same attack RMS had to endure over the last 30 years. I hope I can hold that long too =S
When you take it that unauthorised copying and distributing is bad, you realise that sharing must be something else, which is what I have been saying all along, SHARING IS GOOD! I am all pro sharing! But i believe that "sharing" means "copying and distributing freely what was made for that purpose". So, I am not telling people not to share. Why do they think I am saying that? I am only saying that we should take a better approach to share, one that actually makes use of free licenses (the same way free software does).
> I do not "pirate", I prefer creative works which encourage sharing. As for mainstream works, I purchase them 2nd-hand (which the giants are also trying to abolish!) so that I don't give them money for another copy. Anybody that restricts what I can do with something doesn't deserve my money!
I totally agree with you again!
That is the true spirit of sharing!
As for the mainstream works, I agree we need better laws and we should fight for them. We should fight for better laws, not doing so and keep pirating will only make things worse.
This is something I have been saying for a long time now and no one seems to pay attention to that part (or they just claim that "it won't make a difference", which is a poor view of things and one I do not indulge, we CAN change things).
> I agree that we must create our own libre works that compete with their work and I agree that we must reduce the demand for unauthorised copies of creative works.
Again I agree.
You are maybe the first person who seems to understand what I have been saying for the last few days... =)
> I defend unauthorised copying only because it is sharing! Nothing more!
That is the point where I actually have to say "maybe that's not entirely right". As I have tried to explain here before, sharing can't be sharing if you give something that puts the other person in a bad position.
You see, I believe right now that if I give someone a Windows 7 original (or not) DVD, I am actually harming them, not helping them. The same way, if I take a hollywood movie DVD, rip it and make it available on the internet for everyone, I am not helping people, I am harming them. They can get into trouble for that, they will not know of free licensed movies, they won't get a GOOD thing, they will get a BAD thing. If you do something that has a good intention but harm people... you are doing a bad things anyway. Right?
So... I don't think we should defend unauthorised copying as being sharing. We should defend sharing as what it ought to be. And understand that giving away a pirate copy of a movie is the same as giving a copy (original or not) of a proprietary software like windows for example.
How can people on here disagree with this??
> I am certain that most of the users here are the same.
Unfortunately, it's not =S just read the replies you had in your own comment, and you see that many people think it's all ok. And they think that the solution would be to end copyrights. They have never really gave it a lot of thought apparently, as it would do more harm than good. Free licenses would also lose their power, and if someone someday did the same thing RMS did, we would be screwed. (RMS found a way to use copyright against itself. What if someone could also "hack" the law in that way against freedom?)
Well, this was the most interesting and refreshing comment I read here all along, I thank you again, and I would like you to consider please, maybe my argument is not so crazy as it seems... Maybe in a way, illegally distributing a non free licensed content, is not sharing, and maybe it causes more harm than help... think about please Elad =)
And thanks for this!
Claiming that unauthorized copying is bad doesn't make it so, and neither does someone agreeing with you. You've made a lot of walls of text, so I haven't read everything you've posted, but I haven't seen you provide any actual reasons for why unauthorized copying is bad that weren't fallacious. I saw you claim that it's theft and justify it by saying that profits are "stolen". I tried to explain that it's not theft, but competition, and you accused me of using a "strawman". You're a brick wall.
Let me get this straight....
You say what I and other members say or think makes no difference;
You say you don't read what I wrote, but still disagree and say I didn't provide any arguments;
You use strawman attacks against me and my views, and claim you didn't;
You accused me of name calling earlier, but now do the exact same thing;
Ok... Am I missing anything? Because it is a lot of crap to take in! I might need brain surgery after reading some idiotic comments here like yours!
Look, do whatever you want, and think whatever you want, but please, PLEASE, don't call yourself a "defendant of freedom", because you are not. You use free software only because it gives you some feeling of "power" against companies, nothing else. You care little about sharing, nothing about freedom, and can use any sort of idiotic reasoning (be it strawman attacks, stupid ship jokes, whatever) only to justify your selfishness on satisfying your own luxuries and desires.
You know nothing. You deserve nothing. You are worth nothing.
Let me get this straight...
You keep repeating the same things without justifying them.
Look, the way you argue isn't to just say "X is true and Y is false". An argument would be "X is true because A and Y is false because B". As far as I have seen you haven't been including that "because" part. You're just saying facts without justifying why they are true.
No, I actually provided a lot of arguments, many different ones. But you didn't read them. Maybe you are not limited only in logic but also in plain english...
And by now, you are starting to get quantumgravity's place as "the asshole". So just go pirate your shit away, and leave the good honest innocent people in peace.
Yep, that's right, I have nothing else to tell you. I stated many arguments, some people (the ones who read them) understood and maybe I will have made a good difference here. If one person actually stops pirating and start living freely with all the free content we have available already, I will have done my part. I will keep informing people and providing links to free services and content (as I have already done before) and reject any piracy that tries to come up. So... you can leave now, thanks for giving me brain damage with your stupidty, now you can go.
As for the thread title, it's very sad we have DRM, but it was to be expected given the circumstances =S I hope we can fight the good fight and live freely in the future =)
> No, I actually provided a lot of arguments, many different ones. But you didn't read them. Maybe you are not limited only in logic but also in plain english...
What I'm limited in is my willingness to read several paragraphs of the same crap trying to find arguments that you claim are there. Why can't you make this easier and just point me to the arguments you say you have made?
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios