171 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 53 previous comments
- It's thepiratebay.se now, you clever pirate.
If the government creates something, who else would hold the rights/patents.
I'm not sure what points you're stretching for anymore, I'm also not sure you really understand what I'm saying.
I generally don't like piracy, I generally do like the idea of copyrights. I don't like current copyright law, I do like content creators to have control of their work while also allowing an agreeable amount of freedom for the end user. I think that copyrights should be reformed to bring it closer to that ideal, and perhaps adopting some of the values of popular creative licenses like creative commons would be a a good start.Mar 13, 2012
- Very well said. I definitely fall into that middle class demographic who would rather pay for something as long as I can get it conveniently. For example, I think it's ludicrous that the only way I can legally see HBO shows online is to have a full premium cable package which includes it, instead of a stand-along subscription to just HBO content online. I'd certainly subscribe to such a service if I didn't otherwise want to have cable.Mar 14, 2012
- It is also not a copyright problem. Neither ACTA, SOPA nor PIPA will save the business model but only increase the collateral damage.Mar 14, 2012
- "Patents and copyrights aren't to promote innovation..."
The authors of the Constitution would disagree. Yes, patents and copyrights are monopolies to their originators, but they exist only in order to help progress. They are not welfare for creators.
U.S. Constitution I.8.8: "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;"Mar 14, 2012
- What is interesting to me is that at a fundamental level, copyright directly conflicts with free speech. In the United States, copyright law was brought into existence with a very conscious understanding that some universal rights were being diminished for the sake of increasing the incentive to create. It was only cautiously adopted, with an understanding that it may be better for the greater good (not the good of any one individual or corporation).
Fast forward to today, most Americans are ignorant of the history of the law and its gradual perversion over the decades. Powerful lobbies have created a runaway train, and the most disturbing part, to me, is how readily the top brass will serve the highest bidder to the detriment of 'we the people'.
For me, and surely many others, torrents are poetic justice. It is the internet, turning the free speech knob back up to 10. What is troublesome, though, is that the only real way to prevent sharing is through either the invasion of privacy, or by attempting to change the very structure of the internet. Neither of these things seem to be for the greater good, nor do they seem to matter in terms of creating incentive.
This is good reading:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.htmlMar 14, 2012
- OK! I can accept criticism when it is on target and I apologize if my earlier posts seemed inconsistent and misleading. Let me clarify my position this way!
While I deplore priracy because it is contenptuous of the effort that individuals and groups put into the production of a quality product and think that there is good reason to prosecute any malicious misappropriates legitimate production rights to block development of useful comodities I ALSO agree that U.S. copyright laws do not protect production rights as much as they further limit production rights.
If there is a middle ground between producers and manufactureres and the consumers who might compromise the ecconomics of production then we need to redefine how production rights are awarded not by restricting who may produce but rather by restricting the price that producers pay for the privelage of contributing. Because the technology of piracy allows more people to be productive it is useful but because it is too often abused to cripple the productive efforts of others the problem is not with the technology but rather with the unreasonable restriction of production rights. That said there is still the problem of regulating illicit productions.
Case in point! When Microsoft came out with Vista the Chinese responded with production of a pirated version of XP with most of the useful features of Vista and it was a stable OS that could be used off-line even in the US without being challenged by Microsoft. Without a doubt the Chinese knock off worked very well indeed where it's use was not restricted by law. One could argue that the competetion with Microsoft was fair enough because both Microsoft and the Chinese Republic had every resonable right to meet market demand as competitors, and that copyright laws did nothing to popularize or diminish the use of these respective systems in their exclusive domains. The question of how their competition influenced either's the ability to produce their products is arguable in more than one legal system.
If cybrenetic piracy did not appeal to a large number deprived individuals only seeking to compete with larger firms by use of techniques that are cost effective for the scale of thier opperations we would not need to question the validity of laws restricting production rights. One could also make a case that piracy was only a mechanism of production used to produce another entirely different system and that the only real issue was trade mark infringement!Mar 14, 2012