Talks about DRM
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
I saw today a clip on youtube.They talk about DRM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmtKE_Y8Lhw
I am a translator!
The talk wasn't particularly informative or interesting.
The talkers discussed at first installation of media codecs on GNU/Linux. In Trisquel the relevant GStreamer packages are installed, and only encrypted DVD playback requires running a script.
Later they discussed DRM and said it was inconvenient for users who paid the companies money. The talkers decided that DRM was OK as long as it was done right and wasn't too severe. They never mentioned that DRM is proprietary software that should be rejected.
Here's on DRM and HTML5 and lovely little corporations like Microsoft and Google
Well, as much as I hate the way DRM are used nowadays, I still say what I have said before in this forum: users brought DRM on themselves, when they started pirating stuff.
The suggestion on defectivebydesign is the correct way to do things. You don't like a policy, you don't support the owner and don't keep on using the service. Or at least, you fight to change the policy of that service. You don't go around "manipulating" things to get your way without them knowing. That is not the correct answer.
If people who "like to share" really cared about "share" they would have done two things:
1. Share free content. Creative commons, public domain, content that was not proprietary.
2. Refuse to get paid thousands for advertising. The problem is also that people who run pirate websites don't care much about sharing, they care about the money they make from the ads they sell!
The end result? The bad guys (I count pirates as bad guys)made things that now affect the good guys (people who just want to use open standards on the web for example, people who like to have security and not run flash for watching a video...).
In my opinion, a group of people who are "free only" minded, people who refuse to even use flash to watch youtube, shouldn't EVER think about pirating movies musics and books. It's contradictory and actually hurts the cause.
(and don't even try saying "we don't attack ships we are not pirates". yada yada yada.... "piracy" is a word that has been used for many years now to refer to "illegal distribution of copyrighted content". Learn it and use it (or rather NOT use it lol.))
"In my opinion, a group of people who are "free only" minded, people who refuse to even use flash to watch youtube, shouldn't EVER think about pirating movies musics and books. It's contradictory and actually hurts the cause."
Why is it contradictory?
Many reasons, but for me the main two are:
1. you want your freedom respected, but you don't want to respect the other person freedom.
2. GNU exists because RMS didn't pirate UNIX, he created something new with a new license, GNU. That is, in my opinion, the principle what should empower a community such as this. Reject (AKA, don't use) the things that are wrong, and create new things that are right to give an alternative (or entirely replace) the wrong things.
> 1. you want your freedom respected, but you don't want to respect the other person freedom.
Copyright is a monopoly, not property. Being an unauthorized distributor of a copyrighted work doesn't affect the copyright holder's freedom in any way. If anything, it might affect their business, the same way Meijer selling crackers identical to Triscuit affects Nabisco's business.
> 2. GNU exists because RMS didn't pirate UNIX, he created something new with a new license, GNU. That is, in my opinion, the principle what should empower a community such as this. Reject (AKA, don't use) the things that are wrong, and create new things that are right to give an alternative (or entirely replace) the wrong things.
I don't agree with this way of thinking, at least the way you're saying it. It's just as good to take something bad and make it good as it is to throw away something bad and make something good from scratch. Just look at the BSD projects; all of those originated from proprietary UNIX code.
Using proprietary software is of course never good for you, whether obtained legally or not. That doesn't mean that copyright infringement is contrary to free software. Using or distributing to Adobe Photoshop illegally is contrary to free software because the program is proprietary, not because its distribution is infringing copyright.
I've come to the conclusion that one is just as much a pirate if they don't watch [movie title here] movie, or watch another one. :)
Dec 26 2013 EDIT: (Because the author doesn't get the royalties in those cases, too.)
Unauthorized distributors hurt the copyright holder's freedom, because he is no longer free to determine how something that actually belongs to him, will be distributed.
Truth is, and i have said it here before: people behind those sites don't care about "sharing" or "making a better world". They care about "watching the latest hollywood trash" and "getting money from ads". They do nothing but harm to our society and also to the free/open culture.
Want to share? Respect the license and share what is public domain and creative commons. Maybe you will encourage people to CC license their content in the future, thus making a better, freer world.
Piracy? Is bad, wrong and totally unnecessary. I have a ccomputer, I listen to music, I watch movies, I read books... And I don't do piracy. I don't live like a caveman to reject piracy, I actually live in a way that sometimes leads me to greater knowledge. Is piracy necessary? nope. Is it good? nope. Is it morally right? Nope.
Got it?
How do you define "freedom"? I define "freedom" as the ability to control your own life. Copyright does not control your own life. It controls others' lives. That's power, not freedom.
You seem to be attached to the idea that copyright is property. This isn't the case. Copyright is a legal monopoly system established a few centuries ago as an industrial regulation. It's completely unrelated to property rights. The reason theft is illegal is because something is taken away from someone else. If you steal a bike, the owner of the bike doesn't have it anymore. Copyright infringement doesn't do that. It's more like creating magical copies of bikes and giving them away, affecting the business of selling bikes.
http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/copying_is_not_theft
> users brought DRM on themselves, when they started pirating stuff.
I don't agree with that in the slightest.
Copyright infringement (what you call "piracy") has another word: sharing. In Kindergarten, we're taught rightly that sharing is good. Then, publishers compare this good, normal act to attacking ships.
Sharing is natural for us. Without sharing, society as we know it could not have existed. What we were taught in Kindergarten is correct: sharing is good, and this is true whether it affects someone's outdated business model or not.
Other than that, DRM didn't arise exclusively to stop unauthorized sharing. That's been the biggest reason, but there have been others. The Nintendo Entertainment System, for example, contained a chip whose purpose was to cause the NES to refuse to function if "unlicensed" games were put into the system. This was in fact an effort to restrict publishers so they could charge fees and control the process, not to prevent unauthorized copying.
Sure, but if you go to the kid and hit him until he "shares by force" it's not good, it's not sharing. Welcome to reality, that's piracy.
I am really confused how people can actually support both free software AND piracy at the same time. ??
That's not a proper analogy at all. People who infringe copyright are sharing themselves, not forcing someone else to do it.
I don't support attacking ships. Attacking ships is very bad. Sharing is good, though, and copyright (which is currently a legal monopoly which prevents sharing) is unjust.
As I have stated countless times before.... sharing is sharing, when you share what is YOURS. If it is not yours, you are not sharing.
Want to share? Create something, use a free license, and share it. Or just mirror some CC and PD content and share that. That is sharing. What you are talking about, is disrespecting the creators and copyrights holders decisions and choices, is taking their freedom away, and actually supporting monopolies by using their stuff in an illegal way.
That's not just wrong, it's also plain stupid. If people didn't pirate stuff, we wouldn't have so much DRM as we have. They could still exist, but would be an exception. As of today, they are about to become the rule.
Why is it wrong to make another copy of YOUR copy? It doesn't harm the guy who gave you the copy in any way. They still have their copy.
Let's extend this to food. Someone came up with a recipe and decided to sell the food known as potato chips (or crisps if you're British). Is it wrong, if you know the recipe, to yourself make potato chips because it's not "your" recipe?
Suggesting that it's wrong to share knowledge that didn't originate from you goes completely against human nature. Our society only exists because we share this knowledge.
sigh, not this discussion again. As I've said, I think piracy is a sort
of catch all for copying of proprietary software. If a company is stupid
enough, or just plain greedy enough to put something in a license that
you can't modify, distribute, etc than as far as I'm concerned they
deserve what they get. Am I saying every single piece of software should
be free? i'd love that, but whether it will happen or not I have no
clue. What I have no sympathy for whatsoever is companies making
substandard software, wrapping it in a eula, attaching a pricetag to it
and going, "you want software, you pay." Happens all the tiem in
windows. Linux is the exception but in linux if the software is good
enough usually people will pay. Those are my two cents. Disreguard them
if you like but this whole "piracy" thing is giving me a headache
trying to waid through it all.
On 08/07/2013 08:48 AM, name at domain wrote:
> Why is it wrong to make another copy of YOUR copy? It doesn't harm the
> guy who gave you the copy in any way. They still have their copy.
>
> Let's extend this to food. Someone came up with a recipe and decided
> to sell the food known as potato chips (or crisps if you're British).
> Is it wrong, if you know the recipe, to yourself make potato chips
> because it's not "your" recipe?
>
> Suggesting that it's wrong to share knowledge that didn't originate
> from you goes completely against human nature. Our society only exists
> because we share this knowledge.
> As I have stated countless times before.... sharing is sharing, when you share what is YOURS.
That's the point you don't understand. It IS yours. It's your copy.
> What you are talking about, is disrespecting the creators and copyrights holders decisions and choices, is taking their freedom away
No, the copyright holders are still free to do what ever they want.
It's not part of their freedom to force *me* to do what they want.
Of course, you had to come around and "play victim".
You are forcing them to do what you want: share the movie for free on the internet.
When was the last time you worked day and night and got 0 return from it? Had your family waiting for you to come home with the money to buy food and had to tell them you did not get the money?? Did you like that?? -.-
I thought you were staying away from my comments, but it seems not. Too bad you are STILL making the same lame comments...
Remember that I used to say I had a different opinion? Well, I am glad my opinion is different from yours quantumgravity, and I will tell you this, it's better. You used to put these words in my mouth, well, now I am saying them myself. My opinion is different and better than yours. The opinion owners are probably in the same positions too -.-
> When was the last time you worked day and night and got 0 return from it? Had your family waiting for you to come home with the money to buy food and had to tell them you did not get the money?? Did you like that?? -.-
You don't see how crazy your argumentation is.
Your talking the whole time about using free creative commons works like on archive.org.
If I do so, no one will get my money. No one will give the poor artist anything.
The poor artist will come home to his family just you said.
Not only the one who shares illegaly refuses to give money to them.
People who use creative commons or just don't listen to anything don't pay them either.
You don't realize that sharing is not the actual problem which harms the artist.
Everyone here wants the artist to live and eat and we want to create a system which benefits the artist.
> I thought you were staying away from my comments, but it seems not.
No, I told you I always will correct them so other people don't face your propaganda without hearing a sensible voice.
> My opinion is different and better than yours.
Well, it's sad how you try to hurt me personally but don't manage to succeed.
I think you have a false image of yourself; you claim to be a free thinker with a different (more precisely, like we now know even a better) opinion but in fact you are trapped in your own emotions and thus suffer from a limited view.
This is bad for you, not bad for me, so I don't feel insulted or attacked in any way. There's no reason for me not to respond to your comments even if you don't manage to hold back with ridiculous and childish claims ("my opinion is better than yours") or emotional escalation.
Why can't you just stay on topic? that's really sad.
//edit
Oh I just forgot.
Since your opinion includes insulting people is ok if their opinion is different than yours - yeah, that's really what I call a great, intelligent opinion, surely better than mine.
Lol, what would people do without you as a "sensible voice" to guide them... xD ahahahahah. And I am the one who is childish? You think you are so better than me... You have been harassing me ever since the first day I arrived here. Well, guess what? I am not going away. And I will keep spreading the truth, that we should fight to be free, really free, not "i use free software to make piracy".
And by the way, if you use Public Domain and CC content, you are not giving money to anyone (even if you could make donations to projects like Gutenberg and Librivox, but people like you just want to keep money in their pockets), but you are at least RESPECTING THE LICENSES! And you are not taking money AWAY from copyrights holders.
So, you are supporting the idea that we should not respect licenses unless we like them, we should not obey the law if we don't agree with it, and you want to accuse me of propaganda? I once called you an asshole, and I tried to keep myself from calling you that again (because a friend actually asked me to) but I really feel that you need to be called the proper thing: quantumgravity, you are an asshole and you make only harm to everyone who comes to this forum. And you actually make me lose my time correcting you and putting you in your place. Well... good thing I always manage to have some free time.
Sharing is sharing what is YOURS. Want to share? Respect licenses, create new content, encourage social change. Illegal sharing is called PIRACY! And yes it's a crime. But even worse, it's a stupid move that hurts free/libre projects.
> but you are at least RESPECTING THE LICENSES!
So what? The output is the same.
> And you are not taking money AWAY from copyrights holders.
No one who shares illegaly takes *away* money from the copyright holders.
The amount of money in their pocket stays the same if a friend gives you a jamendo.de song or a copy from lady gaga.
Taking away money from the copyright holders would be theft, that's true, but I can't imagine how this should be even possible.
> quantumgravity, you are an asshole and you make only harm to everyone who comes to this forum.
Well, spoken from your mouth, this sounds like a compliment!
I really thought you just had a emotional knock-out last time we had the piracy discussion, but perhaps you calmed down.
Now I see you have a massive choleric problem; I just hope for you it's because you're very young (I don't know) since this could improve.
You're behaving like you were fifteen years old, sorry.
But feel free to insult me as you wish. This harms you, not me, since everyone can see the deficit of your character. And your welcome doing harm to yourself as many times you like. For me, it's very funny entertainment.
> So, you are supporting the idea that we should not respect licenses unless we like them
And you are supporting the idea that we should respect every shit put in front of our nose.
Perhaps authors want me in a few years to write a letter to them asking for permission everytime I read the copy of my book.
Well, we really should obey or just say: bye bye books!
We can't disrespect their licences, no we can't!
Even if technology passes on and big companies want to stick to outdated business models.
And to your argument that sharing illegaly harms CC projects:
I don't think listening to vivaldi will magically stop a musician far away producing his own stuff.
I don't see any logical connection.
...
> No one who shares illegaly takes *away* money from the copyright holders.
The amount of money in their pocket stays the same if a friend gives you a jamendo.de song or a copy from lady gaga.
Taking away money from the copyright holders would be theft, that's true, but I can't imagine how this should be even possible.
Well, maybe you don't know it, but in a legal context, preventing someone from making money that they would make under normal circumstances is considered "lost gains" (liberal translation) and makes you owe the person all the money that person lost (plus expenses!). So, yeah, my argument is actually right.
There are many things you don't know, but don't worry oh "sensible voice", I can teach them to you.
> Well, spoken from your mouth, this sounds like a compliment! I really thought you just had a emotional knock-out last time we had the piracy discussion, but perhaps you calmed down.
Now I see you have a massive choleric problem; I just hope for you it's because you're very young (I don't know) since this could improve.
You're behaving like you were fifteen years old, sorry.
But feel free to insult me as you wish. This harms you, not me, since everyone can see the deficit of your character. And your welcome doing harm to yourself as many times you like. For me, it's very funny entertainment.
Oh, so that is your problem! You think that by calling you what you are, makes me lose the reason and the right on this argument?
Well, I will teach you something (again): a hammer is a hammer. If you were to call it a flower, and I used it to hit you in the head, guess what, it would STILL BE A HAMMER! The hammer doesn't just magically turn into a flower because I hit you, and you are not right on something just because someone actually used the proper word to address you!
> And you are supporting the idea that we should respect every shit put in front of our nose.
No, I'm supporting the idea that we should fight to have better laws, not just disobey the ones we don't like. You on the other hand accept that companies keep using the same system, as long as you can have your pirate copy in the hard drive.
> Perhaps authors want me in a few years to write a letter to them asking for permission everytime I read the copy of my book. Well, we really should obey or just say: bye bye books!
Yes, if the author decides that, you should obey! That is the whole point, you should obey the decisions (free decision) that people make, or else you making their freedom be worth NOTHING! If you don't like that, you can always go and write a book and sell it without that limitation, license it under a license that says "you can read as much as you want".
> And to your argument that sharing illegaly harms CC projects:
I don't think listening to vivaldi will magically stop a musician far away producing his own stuff. I don't see any logical connection.
If you are listening to a pirated music and some friend comes to visit you, he will say "I really like that music" and you will proceed to send him the file by email, thus making that person a slave of piracy as much as you are. BUT if the friend comes to visit you and you are listening to a CC licensed song, maybe you are using an online service like librefm who knows, and he says that he likes the music, you can say "it's from this website that supports CC" and you email him the link, which will make him more aware of the freedom that artist and consumers both have in CC and PD. Thus, making him FREE!
Got it now???
I fail to understand how someone can argument that piracy serves any other purpose than fulfilling our own luxuries and desires, with total disregard for my fellow neighboor. And I will always fail, because it makes no sense. We should discard piracy as a way of life. I did and I am very happy =D
> Well, maybe you don't know it, but in a legal context, preventing someone from making money that they would make under normal circumstances is considered "lost gains" (liberal translation)
Under normal circumstances, I would never have bought the music my friend gave to me;
if I listen to the music, like it and then decide not to give any money to the artist, this can only be excused by to facts:
1. There's no easy and anonymous payment system
2. I'm really poor
First one is true at the moment, second one only for a few people.
So if you don't do *this* although point 1 and 2 are false, then we're talking about immoral actions (even then it's not piracy, but it's immoral).
They are not ok, but sharing is ok.
You're pretending everyone who gets a copy from a friend would have bought the media otherwise; surely a false assumption.
> If you were to call it a flower, and I used it to hit you in the head, guess what, it would STILL BE A HAMMER!
Funny to hear this from your mouth.
If I were you I would now claim "but the meaning of words change over time! now it's a flower!"
I know a few very young teenies sharing illegaly proprietary software. Why are they doing this? First, they don't know about the bad effects of proprietary software. Second, because they are curious and want to discover technology.
They never would have bought a 1000 € adobe photoshop version.
*You* are the one who says this curious teenies are murderers who attack ships.
> You think that by calling you what you are, makes me lose the reason and the right on this argument?
I think loosing the head and insulting people is not a very good argument, lol.
> Yes, if the author decides that, you should obey!
The author doesn't have the right to tell me what I should do with my copy of my book in my house. And just because I read the book without his permission I'm no murderer and I don't attack ships.
> If you are listening to a pirated music and some friend comes to visit you, he will say "I really like that music"
I'll call this "case A" for further argumentation
> BUT if the friend comes to visit you and you are listening to a CC licensed song, maybe you are using an online service like librefm who knows, and he says that he likes the music
I'll call this "case B".
Now, just because case A happens x times, this doesn't mean case B happens less often.
And as I said before, if you restrict yourself to cc music, you're wiping out other music.
That's worse than sharing illegaly for the artists, because this way artists don't gain anything from sold cds AND they loose popularity.
I think no artist will say thankyou for this because you "respected his licence".
You taught me so many new things in your last post, I'm really glad.
Now I will teach you something:
Just because someone has a different opinion than you, the word "asshole" is *not* the proper term for him.
You don't know a thing of me beside the fact that I often disagree with you, though you're calling me an asshole. *I* know many right terms for persons like you, but I won't put the shame on me to write them here, because I obey community guidelines and social guidelines instead of unjust license terms.
Obviously, you didn't develop neither any form of discussion culture nor the ability to deal with other opinions or critizism.
You're repeating the same propaganda terms all the time, the same weak arguments. Emotional reactions instead of rational thinking.
Poor performance, really.
Well, first things first... You are an asshole. Just to make sure you understand it, I will even repeat: You are an ASSHOLE!
You have been harassing me ever since I came here, so, that is the proper word to describe you.
Now, as for the whole piracy thing, you keep making stupid jokes and analogies with ships and murders. That only reveals how childish you are and how amateur you are on using your brain. Not using your brain is actually the main reason why you are so protective of piracy. You will never create something with that brain of yours and try to turn that into a business. So, you will never suffer the consequences of piracy.
> Funny to hear this from your mouth. If I were you I would now claim "but the meaning of words change over time! now it's a flower!"
Well, this shows how childish and purely idiotic you can be.
Honestly you don't give a damn about anything anyone says, and that is a common trace I have found on most people who defend piracy. You don't care about morals, laws, anything! You care only about satisfying your own luxuries and desires and make fun of people who actually try to change the world into a better place. I believe the name "asshole" comes again in handy, as it also describes this attitude of yours.
You know, free software gives you freedom, to use the software to any purpose. It also allows you to make your own changes and distribute it any way you see fit. How exactly does piracy works in this context? You can't use pirated musics for commercial purposes (even in non commercial public rooms you will get into trouble probably). You can't change it and then sell your modified version. So, piracy does not give you freedom. So, do you want freedom or not?
I guess not, you want free software because it's convenient and you want pirated content because it's also convenient.
Public Domain and Creative Commons and other such free licenses will give you freedom.
Again, I will bring in my friend Buck to the conversation, to make you understand that the only content we should support is free content. Pirate content is not free content.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/8HddV3nRLEg
Thanks Buck!
You see, Buck agrees that copyrights are not always good. But he supports that we should use CC instead of being pirates and pirating what is not ours.
> The author doesn't have the right to tell me what I should do with my copy of my book in my house.
You are wrong, because it's YOUR copy of HIS book. You bought ONE copy of that book. Want to share? Borrow the book to someone else, allow yourself not to be able to read that one copy, and let other person read it. Oh, you don't like that hum? You like to share as long as it costs you nothing. But if you were to make a sacrifice to share, you wouldn't support those ideas anymore.
So, you see, your points (and most people's points when they support that we should pirate at will) are moot.
>Well, first things first... You are an asshole. Just to make sure you understand it, I will even repeat: You are an ASSHOLE!
Please refrain from this kind of outbursts.
I really enjoyed your funny behavior and your ridiculous contradictions until now, but you don't come up with something new and this gets kind of boring.
You're just repeating all the time that I'm an asshole (oh I'm deeply, deeply hurt)
and you come up with all kinds of completely untenable claims. It's the same over and over again.
Your last comment was a single confession of failure.
The truth was stated in this threads many times, so new users get protected very well.
Go ahead and get some more laughter, the asshole said everything necessary. You don't have capacity to understand; well, bad for you, not for me.
> You are forcing them to do what you want: share the movie
> for free on the internet.
There's a big difference between using your own means to share (e.g. giving a file to someone) and forcing someone else to share (e.g. pointing a gun at someone and telling them if they don't give person X a copy, you will shoot).
/"If people didn't pirate stuff, we wouldn't have so much DRM as
we have."/
You are confused about piracy because the companies with unethical
minds have used the media to spread the message that you are a criminal
if you share you are a criminal.
When a person is buying a software, the person should own the software
but that doesn't happen.
It is only and only like the person is renting the software from those
companies to get a job done now with proprietary software.
Let's presume a company sells a free operating system, Trisquel and
a copies of Trisquel shipment is en-route to distributors but some
people attack that shipment, steal Trisquel's copies and sell it.
That would be piracy!
I am starting to find some arguments presented here ridiculous. Really!
"sharing knowledge" and "sharing your copy doesn't harm the person who gave you the copy", yada yada yada.... You guys are forgetting that what we see in the web are THOUSANDS of websites that "share" the latest hollywood piece of crap, while making money from ads! That's not sharing knowledge! That's not doing something good! That is "I want to watch movies without payin eheh, I am smarter than them eheh, I have internet and in internet you don't need to obey the law, and you don't need to think about morals, because its the internet eheh, is not real life, eheh".
That line of thought disgusts me... -.-
You know what guys?? Go ahead and just reverse engineer Windows, change the code and use it! Why use free software?? Free software also has to do with respectign licenses, but you care ZEROOOOOO about licenses!
I know what the problem is... most people who support piracy, never used their brains to create something new and make a living out of that. They probably never used their brains anyway, let alone to create something new...
You pirate a book/movie/music/whatever, you harm the creators and the people who run bussiness around that content. You care nothing about that. You care about your own desires and luxuries.
You pirate a book/movie/music/whatever, you disobey the law. You care nothing about that because for you "the law does not apply to the internet" or "the internet does not belong to the police and the government".
You pirate a book/movie/music/whatever, you harm the people who create Creative Commons and Public Domain content. You bring attention to the pirate material, instead of the free content. You care nothing about freedom, you care about whatever the hell you want and look at no means to get it!
If there is one thing that sickens me in the free software movement are the people who think piracy is ok...... Either stupidity was born within them, or they just are so selfish that they fail to recognize their own history.
wow. What a passionate response.
I'm not at all sure who your rant is directed at, but if it's at me, I
don't use windows, have no desire to use windows, can't stand windows
... etc etc. Here's a problem that no one has so far solved. Print books
are relatively cheap, you can walk into just about any book store and
pick one up. But for those who are blind or who don't want them, it gets
tricky. YOu have to listen to audio books. Those are available too, but
generally run somewhere in the vacinity of $35, and that doesn't include
shipping. There are cheaper, but these are rare. I do no about gutinburg
hope i'm spelling that correctly, but I want a way to read the latest
hit from the authors i'm interested in. This requires books that are
copyrighted. I don't want to download those books without paying for
it, would gladly pay for them. If they weren't so expensive. Since you
are so passionate about creative commons, licenses, Find a way to get
audiobooks in those licenses. You try that and the publishers will
scream bloody murder and you'll either have a lawsuit on your hands or
they'll try to encumber it with drm. I'm trying to be reasonable but I'm
not "playing the victim", just stating a fact. Ebooks are a nogo, drm
encumbered, and ebook readers are not accessible to us blind people and
aren't freedom friendly anyway. I agree with lots of stallman's points
but I take real issue with him, or anyone, telling me that ethical
reasons are more important than feeding my family. Try telling the irs
that you didn't pay your taxes because the tax software is proprietary.
See where that gets you. This has turned into a bit of a rant, so I
apologize. I really, really want to switch to free software only but
hardware issues aside, I'm having trouble finding alternatives to things
I use. I don't use skype, facebook or twitter. I do listen to music and
watch movies which i can do with free software. I download the
occasional youtube video which I can do with free software. The few
games I play are gpl3, which is good. but parts of my hardware do not
work with free software and I cannot simply go out and buy another
laptop or desktop. Can't afford it. Seriously peopls. We all want the
same thing. Free software to be the rule, not the exception. Why do we
fight so much. Telling people "sorry your laptop doesn't work, here, go
buy another one." Won't work. "sorry you need proprietary software to
work, quit your job and get another one." Doesn't work. I don't
understand why people who want to join the free software movement often
get a bad taste because we're so uncompromising. Just my two cents, i've
said enough for one day.
08/07/2013 04:24 PM, name at domain wrote:
> I am starting to find some arguments presented here ridiculous. Really!
> "sharing knowledge" and "sharing your copy doesn't harm the person who
> gave you the copy", yada yada yada.... You guys are forgetting that
> what we see in the web are THOUSANDS of websites that "share" the
> latest hollywood piece of crap, while making money from ads! That's
> not sharing knowledge! That's not doing something good! That is "I
> want to watch movies without payin eheh, I am smarter than them eheh,
> I have internet and in internet you don't need to obey the law, and
> you don't need to think about morals, because its the internet eheh,
> is not real life, eheh".
> That line of thought disgusts me... -.-
> You know what guys?? Go ahead and just reverse engineer Windows,
> change the code and use it! Why use free software?? Free software also
> has to do with respectign licenses, but you care ZEROOOOOO about
> licenses!
> I know what the problem is... most people who support piracy, never
> used their brains to create something new and make a living out of
> that. They probably never used their brains anyway, let alone to
> create something new...
>
> You pirate a book/movie/music/whatever, you harm the creators and the
> people who run bussiness around that content. You care nothing about
> that. You care about your own desires and luxuries.
> You pirate a book/movie/music/whatever, you disobey the law. You care
> nothing about that because for you "the law does not apply to the
> internet" or "the internet does not belong to the police and the
> government".
> You pirate a book/movie/music/whatever, you harm the people who create
> Creative Commons and Public Domain content. You bring attention to the
> pirate material, instead of the free content. You care nothing about
> freedom, you care about whatever the hell you want and look at no
> means to get it!
>
> If there is one thing that sickens me in the free software movement
> are the people who think piracy is ok...... Either stupidity was born
> within them, or they just are so selfish that they fail to recognize
> their own history.
First, I was not ranting. Second, the only person I directly replied to was quantum gravity and it was a different separate reply.
As for what you write, I believe it was with you that I changed some emails the other week, but if it wasn't here goes some information.
People who need audio books (because they are blind, or just because they like to listen rather than read) are always up to download a pirate copy of a audio book. They know the websites by heart, they know the software they need to use and they will know how to use torrents better than even me! But you talk to them about Librivox project, and they will say they never heard of that! And keep in mind that Librivox has a perfect web interface which gives you:
-all the different versions of each audio book;
-the gutenberg text links;
-images in public domain related to the audio book;
How can you say that piracy is not evil and harms people when it helps preventing people to gain access and knowledge of free content like Librivox recordings???
I could maybe agree with you that you may actually want to read up to date books. But piracy will not solve that problem. When they bring piracy down for good, with a law like SOPA or PIPA, the companies will have a total monopoly and you will get stuck with that they give you. The solution would be to fight NOW to get freedom from that. Encourage writers and companies to provide free audio versions for blind people for example! Or just encourage a system that allows people to make a living out of Creative Commons licensed content. Make the world a better place, don't just sit back and enjoy piracy while you can! That's my whole point!
I'm stumped. Yes, we did exchange emails. Librevox is great, I didn't
say it wasn't. My point was only that the publishers of books most
likely won't think to create commons license their books. Their
motivation is money, so that doesn't give them a reason. I was not
advocating piracy, I don't know where you got that. People who are blind
do have a system to get audio books and it's usually reliable. It's run
by the government so some books don't make it. There's bookshare for
text copies, which is much more reliable so yes, we do have ways of
getting books. I do know how to torrent, but that wasn't my point
either. I was simply stating that the average person doesn't realize how
good they have it, with print books available. If ebooks take over
they're seriously screwed. Audio books are also great, you can kick back
and listen to a book. I wasn't attacking anyone and i thought I said
that, but not sure. On 08/07/2013 05:17 PM, name at domain wrote:
> First, I was not ranting. Second, the only person I directly replied
> to was quantum gravity and it was a different separate reply.
>
> As for what you write, I believe it was with you that I changed some
> emails the other week, but if it wasn't here goes some information.
> People who need audio books (because they are blind, or just because
> they like to listen rather than read) are always up to download a
> pirate copy of a audio book. They know the websites by heart, they
> know the software they need to use and they will know how to use
> torrents better than even me! But you talk to them about Librivox
> project, and they will say they never heard of that! And keep in mind
> that Librivox has a perfect web interface which gives you:
> -all the different versions of each audio book;
> -the gutenberg text links;
> -images in public domain related to the audio book;
>
> How can you say that piracy is not evil and harms people when it helps
> preventing people to gain access and knowledge of free content like
> Librivox recordings???
>
> I could maybe agree with you that you may actually want to read up to
> date books. But piracy will not solve that problem. When they bring
> piracy down for good, with a law like SOPA or PIPA, the companies will
> have a total monopoly and you will get stuck with that they give you.
> The solution would be to fight NOW to get freedom from that. Encourage
> writers and companies to provide free audio versions for blind people
> for example! Or just encourage a system that allows people to make a
> living out of Creative Commons licensed content. Make the world a
> better place, don't just sit back and enjoy piracy while you can!
> That's my whole point!
I apologize Kendell Clark. I did not mean to attack you or put words in your mouth. But seeing as a couple of users were already taking the conversation in that direction (supporting piracy), and you seemed to be saying something like "if we don't get have money it's ok to pirate stuff", I was replying to everyone in general partially, and was taking it that you shared their opinion. I realize now that was not your point, and I am sorry if I misunderstood you.
Taking you as an example, I will once again say that sometimes choosing the easy way (piracy way) will most of the time lead people AWAY from the best solution. The free/libre way.
I am glad people with special needs have a better treatment from the government, but I still say we should encourage artists and publishers to use free licenses. If we were willing to compromise in some ways to make sure they would get their fair share, maybe we could find such a system. But it would take time for sure, I don't claim that changes like that will happen from day to night.
I am glad I could introduce you to Librivox, I love their project! =D
It's good to hear from you again, thanks for the comments =) Hope all is going well with you and again, I apologize for any misunderstood from my part.
Of course, I am not pro-DRM. I am pro-"people-learning-to-respect-the-license". That would make DRM unnecessary.
I think DRM are bad and should be abandoned. But I merely understand why SOME companies use them.
As for HTML5, I think it should be freely used, but the truth is that many websites now restrict access to it. I have commented about that here in the forum before.
I am a member!
If you care so much about following rules, why do you refuse to follow the rules of this community? https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/trisquel-community-guidelines
>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.
Another good analogy to use is a car or a house. Imagine if you buy a house, but the blueprints are secret. The only way you can change your basement is if you go to the first architect and ask him for them. He can charge whatever he wants, even though it is your house. If it was legal for car companies to force you to get your car serviced by them exclusively they would do it. That's what propietary software creates, a monopoly and dependence.
As to what you say about Stallman not sharing UNIX that's not a good analogy either. Even if it is possible to decompile and reverse engineer software it is difficult work and one never gets the original source code back. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Stallman's conflict with proprietary software started in part because of a bug in a printer driver. He wanted to fix it, but was unable to do so as the driver was proprietary. In this instance his alternative was to create a new system. When it comes to movies, music, electronic books, audiobooks, etc. the content is already accessible but behind a jail.
And just out of curiosity did you even check out any of the films I linked you to?
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.
Let's try to make it simple for you: I am not supporting monopolies. I believe we should go with free/open standards in the internet, I believe we should use free software, I believe we should encourage artists and creators to use GPL and BSD and Creative Commons, all free licenses. Maybe we should create some new licenses, that might improve upon the ones that already exist. That is not th point. The point is: I don't support piracy. If you buy software and you respect the license that says "not share" and you don't like it so you start using free software only (that was the reason for free software in the beggining), why sould it be any different regarding other creations? Just because it's too much work, or maybe because you are addicted to watching hollywood movies and listening to lady gaga songs? And you are willing to give up the morals you have about free software when it comes to those things?
You want to have freedom to share and mix musics and movies and books? Create one and license it under a free license. Don't impose on people who chose (a free choice) to use a "non share" license, to have their stuff shared against their wishes.
Piracy is not the answer, and it will keep harming society.
You don't seem to have gotten the implication from previous responses, so I'll be explicit about it:
The word "piracy" does not accurately describe the effect of copyright infringement. That use of the word "piracy" is propaganda from publishing corporations. Piracy, or attacking a ship, is a horrible crime; theft occurs, and in most cases any who dare to resist are murdered. Real-life pirates are no better than any other organized criminals.
The word "piracy" seeks to suggest that copyright infringement is equivalent to theft. Sometimes, people even say this explicitly. But copyright infringement is not theft; not legally, and not in any other sense. Copyright is a legal monopoly. Copyright infringement is illegal competition.
Also, copyright is not a right. It's an industrial regulation from a few centuries ago. Its intention was to impose a restriction on the publishers wielded by the authors to encourage the authoring of more works (mostly books). It functions differently now: it's a restriction of the general public wielded by the publishers in the name of the authors. That is unjust.
Words change meanings over time!
"Piracy" is a word that has been used for many years now to refer to "illegal distribution of content". People who make stupid jokes about ships and seas, are just pretending they can't see a big elephant in a room.
I am not doing propaganda and I have explained to you in my last comment VERY WELL, what I stand for. If you don't want to understand it, it's your choice. But DON'T ACCUSE ME OF PROPAGANDA! If anyone here is doing that, it's you and quantumgravity.
Got it? -.^
"Words change" might work if the term didn't still suggest that unauthorized copying is theft. But that isn't the case.
from a legal point of view, you are still causing financial harm, and therefore you are to pay all the money that person has not won plus expenses.
Think about it... You take one copy, and "share" (pirate actually) to 100 people. If you were to pay the money that the creator would have made from those 100 copies, would you still give it away?? No, I didn't think you would.
If someone creates content expecting to sell it 100 times, and only sells it once because someone thought they would just pirate his content, well, he is in the right to ask for a compensation.
Would you pay that, to be able to share? Do you really care about sharing THAT MUCH? No, didn't think you would.
Would one be a 'pirate' if he convinced 100 people not to buy that work? (He would be causing the same financial harm.)
It's "financial harm" the same way donating clothes to charities is "financial harm" to the textile industry. How horrible that we donate clothes and prevent those poor corporations from getting money, right? How horrible, also that Meijer steals profits from many huge corporations by selling competition for their products. How horrible that Oreo cookies pirated sales off of Hydrox cookies.
I have noticed both you and the asshole (quantumgravity for those who might not know him yet) like to attack me with straw man fallacies (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/straw-man/) . I used to think, before I joined this forum, that this was a place where I would find intelligent people... Well, I did met some intelligent wonderful nice people, but I also met some people who just like to make stupid jokes about ships.... too bad those are the ones who talk to me the most (probably they are afraid that this community and free communities at large, will stop supporting piracy).
I am a member!
Trying to convince Free Software activists/supporters that sharing is bad is like trying to convince the NSA to stop spying. It is purely antithetical.
Apparently you have problems reading English.
Sharing is good. Sharing means you create something and share it under a free license, or provide means to share what other people have created under similar free licenses.
Piracy is bad. Piracy is when you illegally distribute something that does not have a free license. Not only are you USING PROPRIETARY CONTENT (don't you consider it unethical?), you are also disrespecting the license and the person who created the content. Usually people who pirate stuff, get something in return, they are not good people. They are pirates.
Got it now? -.^
Could you help me find the straw man? I don't see it. A straw man is when you misrepresent someone else's position to make it easier to refute.
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/talks-about-drm#comment-40255
Right here. You made it as if I was talking about competition, and not illegal distribution. Now, you will say that was not it and I didn't understand bla bla bla... You used straw man attack against me. Also, everytime people here make jokes about not being pirates because they don't attack ships, they are pretending to not know what I am talking about (I would consider that straw man, because their "not knowing" is fake and intentional", but you can say it's a different fallacy).
In another thread someone (the asshole, I believe, I remember I was trying to get him to understand some basic principle, so he might have been the one, but I am not sure) said that electricity should have been illegal because it would bankrupt candle makers... THAT was straw man. Usually when I talk about the evils of piracy, people will use straw man fallacies. It's really sad and stupid...
That wasn't a strawman. Copyright infringement, what you are talking about, is a form of competition. I was trying to explain this to you previously.
By the way, you know ad hominem attacks are also a logical fallacy, right? (calling someone "the asshole".)
Talking about electricity being a competition for candles isn't a strawman, either. It's trying to explain to you that copyright infringement is competition.
I think you need to do a little less ranting (and less calling someone names) and a little more reading.
Maybe you are the one who need it.
Both were straw man attacks. Making it as if I was talking about A when I was talking about B. You refuse to accept that, you are just being irrational.
As for ad hominem, I would have done it if I had called him "son of a bitch". I don't know his mom, and I don't think she is responsible for quantumgravity attitude. I am sure she is a wonderful person. So, I did not made ad hominem. I used the proper word to address him. His attitude towards me ( and my opinions) have been those of an asshole.
Got it?? -.^
You still don't get it, do you?
Copyright infringement is a form of competition. Not theft. Competition is what unauthorized copying is. What unauthorized competition is is competition. Not theft. Not piracy.
> Copyright infringement is a form of competition.
You know, competition should be among equals... BUt if you have one person who invests time to create content and sell it, and another that merely sells it without investing (because he stole from the person who created) it is not equal, it's unjust and unfair. I would add illegal, but you care nothing for the law.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios