blog.wired.com— Membership in the copyright-reform party explodes after four men connected to The Pirate Bay are sentenced to prison. With elections in June, are the pirates about to board the European Parliament?
Apr 22, 2009View in Crawl 4
"ive never understood how people justify stealing music."Article I: Section 8 Line 7 of the U.S. Constitution."The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;""The Congress..." the only branch of government allowed to make laws, and given that this was written under a fledgling democracy, the Congress should only make laws that would benefit ALL citizens."To promote the Progress..." this clearly means the intention is improvement. There are several way to improve things. One way is to reduce and simplify. Another way is to replace something entirely with something that performs the same task better. But in most cases, Progress and improvement comes from adding on to something that already exists. So what are we trying to improve?"...of Science and useful Arts," ... This section is a little vague, but if you argue that something is not Science or that it is not useful Art... you've just argued yourself out of your Constitutional protection entirely. Now, how do they intent to do that?"...by securing for limited Times" ... This is where the vagueness of the U.S. Constitution has been exploited to the fullest. "Limited" is far too vague. Jack Valenti, former head of the MPAA dared to suggest that Copyright be extended to "infinity minus a day." But, was that the intention of the Founding Father in this matter? If so... why mention "limited Times" at all? The duration was purposefully limited because because the founding fathers understood the need to reward those who improved science and art, as well as the need give back those improvement for others to benefit from.“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possess the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lites his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in-nature, be a subject of property. “ Thomas Jefferson, 1813And who was to be the beneficiary of these limited securities/"... to Authors and Inventors..." This is VERY specific. It is limited to only those who truly create. There is no protection for "rights holders" or provision for transfer of rights. This is back up with the following line."...exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;..." Not only does it limit WHO may have the exclusive rights, but it limits their exclusivity to ONLY work they have done.We can rephrase this to say that the intent is for Congress to improve inventions and art by allowing only those who create, a right to make use of their creations, for a small amount of time.So how can Congress grant any rights to these things? Congress is only the representatives of all the citizens of America. In order for Congress to have the power ti dictate exclusive rights, the People of the United States must have ownership of what they are allowing Congress power over.We The People... own ALL intellectual property. We must own it in order to have the right to grant anyone the right to use it.We have LOANED our property to those who have discovered a previously unknown facet of OUR property to reward them for the discover until a point where that property must be returned for everyone to use.Copyright Infringement is not stealing something that belongs to some one else, it is taking back OUR property before a point where WE collectively have deemed it was OK.It like borrowing a car you own from some one you've let it too for a prolonged period of time. The people who have NO Constitutional right to this material, are the people waging a war of terror on us with out court system.
r3zonance,""Copyright infringement is equal to me creating a new identical car as the one they are trying to sell"""That sounds more like an intellectual property rights issue, than copyright, but hey."Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright (and by extension Copyleft, or Creative Commons) are all part of Intellectual Property.""The actual act of copying it does not cost them a single penny."""The act of selling a copy, denies them profit, or put differently, STEALS the profit away from them. You see what I did there?"Wrong. If I see a nice car, and I can't afford to buy one, I will go without. Do you seriously believe that me not going into debt to buy one of those cars is denying the car manufacturer profits? What right do the manufacturers have in expecting people to buy their cars in the first place? What if, under the glossy paint job, it's a complete piece of s**t and people who bought one are furiously telling their friends,'It's complete piece of s**t! Don't buy one!'Is that stealing money from the manufacturers? No. It's exercising the fundamental right of Word of Mouth.Don't f**king try to tell me that my desire to not buy crap is denying some company the right to earn a profit. Companies have the right to provide a product or service in exchange for currency, they DON'T have the right to simply expect people to buy their s**t simply because it's produced.""Hence, a pirated movie does not equal a loss of sale like Hollywood so gladly likes to claim."""I disagree, if you couldn't pirate that film (i.e. you have to buy it from a shop/online or watch it at the cinema/theater) then it absolutely is a lost sale, as you couldn't watch the film any other way. Why isn't this obvious to pirating retards?"As Radan said above, if I can't see the movie because I don't have the money, then I don't see the movie, simple as that. I'll wait until it's broadcast over the airwaves to my television set, and, hey, it's free anyway.If I have the money, and it's a good movie, i.e. rewatchable a few times, then I'll buy the DVD. If not, then I'll forget about it.""If the industry will keep repeatedly screw their few loyal customers over with ridiculously overpriced products that are way inferior to what people can get for free"""The problem is most of the time, people are getting something for free that shouldn't be free."No, the majority of people don't know jack about computers, P2P, and the fact that you can watch movies and television shows right on your PC.Show this to them and they're amazed, wondering how you did it and when this "new" tech came out, when most of this is old tech.Most of the time, people are watching television (free-to-air ring a bell?), going to the movies, buying DVD's, and otherwise being mundane consumers.""(why the hell do I need to watch 10 minutes of unskippable advertisement on a movie I had to pay $35 for?)"""So that the movie theatre can make a profit (and continue to show films), so that the staff that work there can EARN MONEY, so that the production studio can EARN MONEY etc, etc."I think the context of the following paragraph is fairly obvious,""As a personal note, I'd like to add that I think that both the music and movie industry got no one else but themselves to blame for the situation they currently are in. Their customers do not want to buy CDs or DVDs anymore. They want to be able to download the content from the Internet, and then be able to play it on whatever they want. If the industry will keep repeatedly screw their few loyal customers over with ridiculously overpriced products that are way inferior to what people can get for free (why the hell do I need to watch 10 minutes of unskippable advertisement on a movie I had to pay $35 for?) then they will soon find themselves without any customers at all.""Radan was talking about the ten minutes of "You wouldn't download a car", "s**t preview", "THX SOUND", "s**t Preview", etc, that comes on a lot of DVDs, not the movie theatre.If I wanted to watch previews, I'd go to a preview web site - or back when I was a kid, my parents would occasionally rent a VHS cassette that was NOTHING BUT PREVIEWS, making notes about what to watch."Have you ever sat and watched all those credits at the end of the film. They are very, very long and all the different types of equipment that are used. They all cost money, and everyone wants to make as much profit as possible. Business doesn't work otherwise. Do you really think actors/musicians/producers/directors would want to do their jobs for $60k a year?"Yeah, and how many of those poor bastards signed contracts giving them percentages of the Net profit when they should have been asking for a percentage of the Gross.The thing is, I don't care about those people. I care about the story, and if the story is s**t, I don't want to have spent more than ten bucks being bored out of my skull.Do you even know what half of those people do? I don't. Some of them could be doing nothing but running around getting coffee. Let the Director get his own f**king coffee. Look at the low budget films that are good but don't have huge crews and cast and tell me that every person on those credits of big budget films actually earned their pay.Tell me a story that makes me laugh, cry, feel empathy for the characters, really THINK, and entertains me, and I'll gladly pay for it - $30 for a DVD, on average, in AU.Try to bulls**t me with crappy plots, bad acting, and nauseating stereotypes, and I'll tell you to go stick that story up your arse.And, r3zonance, your bulls**t stinks even worse than the studios.
This is not only about the copyright issues. The Pirate Party is enjoying popularity because the judge in the recent Pirate Bay case also is a lobbyist for the music industry. Not very objective...
rattelerApr 23, 2009
"ive never understood how people justify stealing music."Article I: Section 8 Line 7 of the U.S. Constitution."The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;""The Congress..." the only branch of government allowed to make laws, and given that this was written under a fledgling democracy, the Congress should only make laws that would benefit ALL citizens."To promote the Progress..." this clearly means the intention is improvement. There are several way to improve things. One way is to reduce and simplify. Another way is to replace something entirely with something that performs the same task better. But in most cases, Progress and improvement comes from adding on to something that already exists. So what are we trying to improve?"...of Science and useful Arts," ... This section is a little vague, but if you argue that something is not Science or that it is not useful Art... you've just argued yourself out of your Constitutional protection entirely. Now, how do they intent to do that?"...by securing for limited Times" ... This is where the vagueness of the U.S. Constitution has been exploited to the fullest. "Limited" is far too vague. Jack Valenti, former head of the MPAA dared to suggest that Copyright be extended to "infinity minus a day." But, was that the intention of the Founding Father in this matter? If so... why mention "limited Times" at all? The duration was purposefully limited because because the founding fathers understood the need to reward those who improved science and art, as well as the need give back those improvement for others to benefit from.“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possess the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lites his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in-nature, be a subject of property. “ Thomas Jefferson, 1813And who was to be the beneficiary of these limited securities/"... to Authors and Inventors..." This is VERY specific. It is limited to only those who truly create. There is no protection for "rights holders" or provision for transfer of rights. This is back up with the following line."...exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;..." Not only does it limit WHO may have the exclusive rights, but it limits their exclusivity to ONLY work they have done.We can rephrase this to say that the intent is for Congress to improve inventions and art by allowing only those who create, a right to make use of their creations, for a small amount of time.So how can Congress grant any rights to these things? Congress is only the representatives of all the citizens of America. In order for Congress to have the power ti dictate exclusive rights, the People of the United States must have ownership of what they are allowing Congress power over.We The People... own ALL intellectual property. We must own it in order to have the right to grant anyone the right to use it.We have LOANED our property to those who have discovered a previously unknown facet of OUR property to reward them for the discover until a point where that property must be returned for everyone to use.Copyright Infringement is not stealing something that belongs to some one else, it is taking back OUR property before a point where WE collectively have deemed it was OK.It like borrowing a car you own from some one you've let it too for a prolonged period of time. The people who have NO Constitutional right to this material, are the people waging a war of terror on us with out court system.
daltonsApr 24, 2009
Eh, right to assembly or some such nonsense.
Closed AccountApr 24, 2009
So do I change my name to Roger yet?
celotilApr 24, 2009
r3zonance,""Copyright infringement is equal to me creating a new identical car as the one they are trying to sell"""That sounds more like an intellectual property rights issue, than copyright, but hey."Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright (and by extension Copyleft, or Creative Commons) are all part of Intellectual Property.""The actual act of copying it does not cost them a single penny."""The act of selling a copy, denies them profit, or put differently, STEALS the profit away from them. You see what I did there?"Wrong. If I see a nice car, and I can't afford to buy one, I will go without. Do you seriously believe that me not going into debt to buy one of those cars is denying the car manufacturer profits? What right do the manufacturers have in expecting people to buy their cars in the first place? What if, under the glossy paint job, it's a complete piece of s**t and people who bought one are furiously telling their friends,'It's complete piece of s**t! Don't buy one!'Is that stealing money from the manufacturers? No. It's exercising the fundamental right of Word of Mouth.Don't f**king try to tell me that my desire to not buy crap is denying some company the right to earn a profit. Companies have the right to provide a product or service in exchange for currency, they DON'T have the right to simply expect people to buy their s**t simply because it's produced.""Hence, a pirated movie does not equal a loss of sale like Hollywood so gladly likes to claim."""I disagree, if you couldn't pirate that film (i.e. you have to buy it from a shop/online or watch it at the cinema/theater) then it absolutely is a lost sale, as you couldn't watch the film any other way. Why isn't this obvious to pirating retards?"As Radan said above, if I can't see the movie because I don't have the money, then I don't see the movie, simple as that. I'll wait until it's broadcast over the airwaves to my television set, and, hey, it's free anyway.If I have the money, and it's a good movie, i.e. rewatchable a few times, then I'll buy the DVD. If not, then I'll forget about it.""If the industry will keep repeatedly screw their few loyal customers over with ridiculously overpriced products that are way inferior to what people can get for free"""The problem is most of the time, people are getting something for free that shouldn't be free."No, the majority of people don't know jack about computers, P2P, and the fact that you can watch movies and television shows right on your PC.Show this to them and they're amazed, wondering how you did it and when this "new" tech came out, when most of this is old tech.Most of the time, people are watching television (free-to-air ring a bell?), going to the movies, buying DVD's, and otherwise being mundane consumers.""(why the hell do I need to watch 10 minutes of unskippable advertisement on a movie I had to pay $35 for?)"""So that the movie theatre can make a profit (and continue to show films), so that the staff that work there can EARN MONEY, so that the production studio can EARN MONEY etc, etc."I think the context of the following paragraph is fairly obvious,""As a personal note, I'd like to add that I think that both the music and movie industry got no one else but themselves to blame for the situation they currently are in. Their customers do not want to buy CDs or DVDs anymore. They want to be able to download the content from the Internet, and then be able to play it on whatever they want. If the industry will keep repeatedly screw their few loyal customers over with ridiculously overpriced products that are way inferior to what people can get for free (why the hell do I need to watch 10 minutes of unskippable advertisement on a movie I had to pay $35 for?) then they will soon find themselves without any customers at all.""Radan was talking about the ten minutes of "You wouldn't download a car", "s**t preview", "THX SOUND", "s**t Preview", etc, that comes on a lot of DVDs, not the movie theatre.If I wanted to watch previews, I'd go to a preview web site - or back when I was a kid, my parents would occasionally rent a VHS cassette that was NOTHING BUT PREVIEWS, making notes about what to watch."Have you ever sat and watched all those credits at the end of the film. They are very, very long and all the different types of equipment that are used. They all cost money, and everyone wants to make as much profit as possible. Business doesn't work otherwise. Do you really think actors/musicians/producers/directors would want to do their jobs for $60k a year?"Yeah, and how many of those poor bastards signed contracts giving them percentages of the Net profit when they should have been asking for a percentage of the Gross.The thing is, I don't care about those people. I care about the story, and if the story is s**t, I don't want to have spent more than ten bucks being bored out of my skull.Do you even know what half of those people do? I don't. Some of them could be doing nothing but running around getting coffee. Let the Director get his own f**king coffee. Look at the low budget films that are good but don't have huge crews and cast and tell me that every person on those credits of big budget films actually earned their pay.Tell me a story that makes me laugh, cry, feel empathy for the characters, really THINK, and entertains me, and I'll gladly pay for it - $30 for a DVD, on average, in AU.Try to bulls**t me with crappy plots, bad acting, and nauseating stereotypes, and I'll tell you to go stick that story up your arse.And, r3zonance, your bulls**t stinks even worse than the studios.
Closed AccountApr 25, 2009
I am affraid change will not emerge in the US. But whatever the case, all this has awakened a sleeping giant.
jjmckayApr 28, 2009
Yar! May his noodly appendage touch you.
adamk890May 6, 2009
Way to fail Sweden way to fail.
danmellowMay 13, 2009
This is not only about the copyright issues. The Pirate Party is enjoying popularity because the judge in the recent Pirate Bay case also is a lobbyist for the music industry. Not very objective...