Vote Up
1
Votes
Vote Down

As evidenced here and here.

Look freetards, nobody blames Stallman for his stance against DRM, user restrictions and user tracking. Though you might disagree with his preference for isolating himself from the problems instead of fighting them, as for example avoiding to watch DVDs because they have DRM, instead of making a FOSS DVD ripper, because it kinda defeats the purpose of having a computer.

Anyway, we don’t blame Stallman for those. What we blame Stallman for is his stupid “proprietary software == evil” ideology, and his “if you don’t agree with me and release your software as proprietary, you are deemed evil too” way of thinking.

Oh, and if you think that the only way to save yourself from DRM, user restrictions and tracking is by avoiding proprietary software, you 've fallen to Stallman’s trap. Stallman’s trap basically boils down to “free software can’t have DRM, user restrictions and tracking” (wrong, tivoized “free software” can have DRM, user restrictions and tracking) and “all proprietary software must have DRM, user restrictions and tracking somewhere”.

PS: And no, not all proprietary software DVD players suck DVD CCA’s cock. There are proprietary DRM-free DVD players, and here in Europe, there are even DRM-free hardware DVD players (imported from China). DRM doesn’t have to do with free or proprietary software, get over it already. DRM is something the DMCA basically mandates for US software that wants to work with the DVD-Video and Bluray-Movie formats. Even Ubuntu is forced to bundle or recommend LinDVD so that it can legally ship to the US.

Related Trademarks

#1 Posted by garegin on Mar 22, 2012 10:56 PM

gpl3 prevents tivoization. besides the device maker can use freebsd and call it a day.

#2 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 24, 2012 9:18 PM

Richard Stallman is right. First of all, proprietary software makes NO F|_|CKING SENSE. We live in a world where anyone can copy anything with a $300 netbook. You seriously want to try to enforce artificial scarcity in a world like this? Ha hahaha.

So it forces MAFIAA and companies like Mafia$oft to copy restrictions with increasingly draconian measures. That is where the evil comes from. You simply CAN NOT have true properitary software without widespread censorship and monitoring of people's private dealings. This is why we get things like SOPA and PIPA or the various other bills that keep cropping up. Properitary software (and culture) always, always leads to evil things.

Of course you can't see this kurkosdr, because to you all software is free (or semi-free in FSF's lingo) software anyway. You are an admitted pirate, but what you are doing is flatly illegal and one day you will get a nastygram in the mail, so maybe you'll realize what you are doing is illegal and get you punished.

#3 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 24, 2012 9:29 PM

When you read the BS kurkosdr writes about, always remember that he is in fact, a freetard. It's bizarre. 

If you read the propagranda of the pro-copyright organizations these days, they have decided the word "freetard" means "pirate". And quite frankly it makes sense, because pirates think they should get everything for free.

kurkosdr is one of these people. Of course, Winbreds don't care about hypocrisy as long as the moron continues to put down "anti-freetard" TMs like this one, he'll be welcomed as a insightful genius. Really sad.

#4 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 25, 2012 7:08 AM

We live in a world where anyone can copy anything with a $300 netbook.

And that's why you don't have rights to decide what other people do with your fruit of labor? Can I randomly barge into your home if it happens to be located in the bad side of the town, too?

You seriously want to try to enforce artificial scarcity in a world like this?

It's not about "artificial scarcity" or any doubious FSF double-speak slogan of the day - it's about the very fundamental principle of a free society that you are not obliged to give away your fruit of labor for others to enjoy just because someone else says so.

So it forces MAFIAA and companies like Mafia$oft to copy restrictions with increasingly draconian measures.

You have all the rights to refuse to pay for movies, music, software or whatever you feel objectionable without resorting to do what you have just mentioned with "a $300 netbook". What you don't have, however, is the moral high ground to claim that whatever reaction you get is "draconian" just because you don't believe there will or should be negative reactions as a result of your piracy shenanigans.

If you read the propagranda of the pro-copyright organizations these days, they have decided the word "freetard" means "pirate".

And, given what you haven written here, it does indeed make perfect sense, doesn't it?

#5 Posted by administrator on Mar 25, 2012 7:58 AM

Adam, if you don't like, then boycott the media companies.  You're free to refuse their content.  But we all know the kiddies can't actually refuse something; They want their cake and to eat it too.

Pirating music and movies only proves to them that their content is desirable so they should protect it harder then ever.

 

#6 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 25, 2012 1:36 PM

I'm sorry Flyinging_Toaster, but the Internet doesn't give a rats ass about your fabricated rights. It just sees packets with zeros and ones. Hence MAFIAA/Mafia$oft's long term war to destroy the Internet itself.

#7 Posted by Gesh on Mar 25, 2012 4:41 PM

 It just sees packets with zeros and ones.

 

And this is why nobody is giving 'rats ass' about FSF and the religious wars they are waging.

#8 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 25, 2012 6:24 PM

the Internet doesn't give a rats ass about your fabricated rights

Then why should "MAFIAA" or "Mafia$oft" give "a rats ass" about yours, then? Pot, say hi to the kettle!

#9 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 25, 2012 6:31 PM

Oh, and by the way, if you think getting paid for your fruit of labor is some sort of fabricated rights, then why don't you show the world how to live their lives by reviving one particular, lost profession from the 19th century?

It's called "slave labor", in case you are still wondering.

#10 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 25, 2012 6:46 PM

What a crazy overreach. Slave labor is FORCED labor. Nobody is forcing you to make anything.

If you want to keep something to yourself, keep it to yourself. Don't commit it to a fixed form. Because once you do, it no longer belongs to you. It belongs to everyone. And it will be shared, modified, manipulated, and built on top by other people all over the world. That's just the fact of the information age.

#11 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 25, 2012 7:15 PM

What a crazy overreach. Slave labor is FORCED labor. Nobody is forcing you to make anything.

No, it's not. Ever heard of "voluntary slaves"? They have existed as far back as since the establishment of the Roman empire, in case your knowledge of history fails you.

If you want to keep something to yourself, keep it to yourself.

Again, this is about as valid for an argument as that you can simply barge into someone's home because the immediate neighborhood is full of burglars.

That's hardly something as moral as you claim it is.

#12 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 25, 2012 7:23 PM

Well I guess everyone working for a wage is a slave. Wage slave. Okay. (Actually even more so, so many people hate teir jobs and only do it for the money). Personally I think it's an overreach, but if that's "what you mean", whatever.

I don't understand how your analogy makes any sense to what we are discussing. The fact is, and you will see even copyright maximalists say this, there is no real copyright anymore. I hear the saying "15 minute copyright" because that's how long it takes for a popular album or other creative work to end up on a filesharing site. And no one is going to take the steps to do anything about it, because cure is worse than the disease. So quite frankly, you're f|_|cked.

#13 Posted by FibberMcGee on Mar 25, 2012 8:25 PM

And do you know what will happen when it gets to the point that people begin to think they cannot make a living creating software, music or stories? Fewer people will do so, and fewer of those things will be made. You realize that Linux and much of Open Source is subsidized heavily by companies that make money selling other things (whether it be mainframes and support contracts like IBM, or heavily detailed user information like Google).

I'll link to what I wrote here.

#14 Posted by administrator on Mar 25, 2012 8:38 PM

Adam, without paying jobs, the scut work that nobody likes doing never gets done.

Most developers want to do the "glory code" and then ignore or abandon projects when it comes time to do maintenance.  Even with open source, new people to the project rarely want to do the boring stuff. More often, new people insist they could do better and try to rewrite the whole project, only to stumble on the same "boring maintenance".

JQuery actually had to run a lottery to encourage people to fix the boring bugs where people won prizes like video games and laptops.  Guess who footed most of the bill for that; Microsoft.

#15 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 25, 2012 8:58 PM

Yes yes I know all the justifications for copyright. There are actually only three that are repeated in different ways. Both you and FibberMcGee are using the Anglo-Saxton philosophy of copyright, ie. copyright is to encourge the creation of new works. This is the big one is the USA and UK. Flying_Toaster is using the more obsecure Lockean philosophy of copyright which I guess more popular in the 18th century and doesn't really form the basis of any country's copyright policy. There is also the continental philosophy of copyright which is popular in countries good ol' Napoleon had a hand in conquering.

All are well in good, but as I said before - it's all irrelevent. Copyright doesn't mean anything without enforcement, and copyright can be enforced without monitoring people's private dealings and other draconian measures. We can argue about copyright all you want but the fact, it's meaningless unless you are willing to face the consequences of its enforcement and in my expirence very few people are. So it's a hollow law.

#16 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 25, 2012 9:12 PM

can = can not

#17 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 25, 2012 11:08 PM

Copyright doesn't mean anything without enforcement, and copyright can be enforced without monitoring people's private dealings and other draconian measures.

Two things:

1) "Draconian"? Sure - show me the Soviet-style gulags for copyright infringers and then we talk about "draconian measures" in all their gory details.

2) So you don't think barging into someone's home uninvited is wrong so as long as there are no laws to keep you in line? That does say a lot about your view on privacy, doesn't it?

#18 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 25, 2012 11:17 PM

we -> we shall

#19 Posted by kurkosdr on Mar 26, 2012 5:21 AM

When you read the BS kurkosdr writes about, always remember that he is in fact, a freetard.

I am not a freetard, I am a freeloader

Freetard: Everything should be free and if it's isn't free I am not touching it

Freeloader: Can i have a copy for free? If yes, thanks. If not, I will pay.

In other words, a freetard declares having copyrighted stuff for free his right, and refuses to touch something that is not free, a freeloader gets copyrighted stuff because he can get away with it. In other words, a freeloader doesn't consider it a right to have stuff for free, but he gets stuff for free because he is sort on ethics (i admit it). A freetard on the other hand, has perverted ethics (everything should be free).

there is no real copyright anymore. I hear the saying "15 minute copyright" because that's how long it takes for a popular album or other creative work to end up on a filesharing site.

[citation needed] Microsoft's activation/WGA/WAT scheme forced me to buy a copy of XP, Vista and Seven, because I don't want to get into activation hell and lose Windows Updates. Sure, most of my friends and my friendly neighborhood pirate shop claim they have the ultimate crack that fools Windows Update, but I don't buy into it. All cracks are eventually discovered by Windows Update. Before the activation scheme,  was pirating all my copies of Windows, with the serial number on the CD-R label for easy passing around to friends. So yeah, DRM in software can help enforce copyright, either you like it or not. Same for that Ubisoft DRM that requires constant net connection which didn't got cracked beyond level 2 for months.

 

Where DRM doesn't work is for movies and music, thanks to the analog hole (which is completely plugged by CGMS-A/macrovision becuase of TV tuners) and the HDMI->Conponent loophole. All DRM in movies and music does is prevent format shifting (boo) and used by hollywood studios to enforce their downright wrong region lockout. But music and movie cartels are jerks anyway (i ll mention again region lockout), so it's a kind of divine justice to have their content copied and not being able to do anything about it.

#20 Posted by kurkosdr on Mar 26, 2012 6:22 AM

(which is completely plugged by CGMS-A/macrovision becuase of TV tuners) = (which is not completely plugged by CGMS-A/macrovision becuase of TV tuners)

#21 Posted by garegin on Mar 26, 2012 12:16 PM

i run a windows server without updates and no activation. i'm sorry but my company is not going to shell 800 dollars just so I can do remote installs through wds. especially when they made it harder to do installs for 2000/xp.

#22 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 26, 2012 7:49 PM

"I am not a freetard, I am a freeloader"

No kurkosdr, you are a freetard.

#23 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 26, 2012 7:57 PM

At least the Stallmans of the world WANT to make the world a better place. That is the goal. Even if you disagree with the ideology or think it is not genuine or whatever. 

But you sir, are nothing more than unethical evil piece of sh!t with subhuman morality. Because you admit that you agree that you doing something blatently wrong and you do it anyway.

#24 Posted by administrator on Mar 26, 2012 10:14 PM

It doesn't want to make the world a better place, he wants to mould the world in his image; Force it to bend to his will.

Plenty of misguided leaders of the world have wanted, or at least claimed to have wanted, a better world/country/society, and force everyone else to suffer for their ideology.

The problem is, ideology doesn't mix with reality.  Ideally, I'd be a millionaire, but reality says otherwise.

#25 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 26, 2012 10:46 PM

Richard Stallman is a penniless 50 year old idealist. If he had megalomanic dreams he would become a CEO or Exec of a major company instead of founding the FSF. He choose poverty because he rather live a life of poverty than profit from an unethical and backwards system.

#26 Posted by administrator on Mar 27, 2012 12:06 AM

He's no more an idealist than the rest of the sheltered nerds out there. He's used to a very guarded ecosystem and that's not what the rest of reality is like.

Nobody has a problem with Stallman's lifestyle; He can do as he pleases.  However, people take issue with him trying to impose his system of beliefs on others.  The same way people dislike Jahova's Witnesses trying to convert people to their religion. Or vegetarians who insist on peddling their lifestyle at every meal.

He's prey's on other peoples' ideology to bend them to his will.

#27 Posted by administrator on Mar 27, 2012 12:08 AM

He has little to do with freedom and everything to do with making people do as he wishes.  You're living proof of this Adam; You drank the Kool Aid and you're about as un-free as you can get.

Ironically, you believe the exact opposite, but that's the great thing about belief; It tends to fly in the face of reality, no matter what the outcome.

#28 Posted by kurkosdr on Mar 27, 2012 4:25 AM

"

It doesn't want to make the world a better place, he wants to mould the world in his image; Force it to bend to his will.

Plenty of misguided leaders of the world have wanted, or at least claimed to have wanted, a better world/country/society, and force everyone else to suffer for their ideology."

+1. If you want to make money of your work, with Stallman, you are essentially getting the RIAA-from-hell, were the distributor-publisher gets everything and the authors get nothing. And I am not talking only about software. Just look at his stance regarding software manuals.

#29 Posted by Gesh on Mar 27, 2012 4:51 AM

@Admin

Nobody has a problem with Stallman's lifestyle

Parrots and dead plants have problems with Stallman's lifestyle. And the poor sods, who are organizing conferences and want him to speak there. :)

#30 Posted by administrator on Mar 27, 2012 6:01 AM

Okay okay, most people don't have a problem with his lifestyle.

#31 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 27, 2012 5:21 PM

Administrator,

"Impose their beliefs on others" lol okay. Did Stallman put a gun to your head? If not, he is not imposing his beliefs on you.

#32 Posted by administrator on Mar 27, 2012 5:38 PM

Stallman didn't, but he certainly convinced you to.

#33 Posted by administrator on Mar 27, 2012 5:38 PM

Rarely do dictators do their own dirty work.

#34 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 27, 2012 11:46 PM

Stallman is a dictator now? Interesting! I must have missed the news of the glorious coup d'etat. What country did he manage to takeover?

#35 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 28, 2012 3:34 AM

Stallman is a dictator now?

I don't know about other people here, but I am more than happy to settle on the label "cult leader" as it most definitely befits Stallman's "freedom as I tell you" mantra.

Oh, and just a reminder of our previous convo:

1) "Draconian"? Sure - show me the Soviet-style gulags for copyright infringers and then we talk about "draconian measures" in all their gory details.

2) So you don't think barging into someone's home uninvited is wrong so as long as there are no laws to keep you in line? That does say a lot about your view on privacy, doesn't it?

Now, I believe you still owe me some proper answers to those gaping holes in your logic.

#36 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 28, 2012 3:20 PM

Yes I view monitoring of people's communications and extra-judicial censorship of entire websites draconian copyright enforcement. The thing is, copyright cannot work properly without these kinds of things because anyone can violate copyright from the comfort of their own homes, it's not an easy law to enforce without slamming down hard on personal liberty.

#37 Posted by DrLoser on Mar 28, 2012 4:13 PM

In that case, Queef, copyright is not working properly: because there is no extra-judicial censorship of entire websites involved at all.

You will, of course, be overjoyed to learn that little fact.

After all, being a freetard is all about accentuating the positives, isn't it? Never once about puddling around in the negatives.

It would be a terrible, terrible thing if Linux fans did nothing but bang on about imaginary negatives, whilst ignoring the total absence of positives in their Operating System of choice, wouldn't it?

A miserable life for a thrusting young man like yourself, that would be.  How's the exemplary 100% all exam questions answered no questions I am paid by a humongous corporation to take as much time off as I need thing going for you, btw?

Does it pay for running two blogs, or only one? I'd hate to see the old one die through sheer lack of financial backing.

#38 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 28, 2012 8:57 PM

Yes I view monitoring of people's communications

And why should anyone care about that? As you said,

All are well in good, but as I said before - it's all irrelevent. Copyright doesn't mean anything without enforcement

Remember - you have already written off the principles and philosophies behind copyrights as irrelevant on the basis of lack of "enforcement", and now all the things you say about "draconian measures" and privacy are nothing more than statements of your own philosophy. I am sorry, but shouldn't all that be considered worthless as well on the basis of, as you yourself put it, lack of "enforcement"?

I am sorry, but you just can't have your cake and eat it too.

#39 Posted by administrator on Mar 28, 2012 9:04 PM

According to the Stream, Adam is "mostly a Java developer" and is concerned about "large methods" in the source code examples I showed him.

I mean, I know the guy is just a caricature at this point, but still; Large methods?  Since when does 15-20 lines count as "large", especially coming from a Java developer?

My only assumption is that the methods he writes are completely empty.

#40 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 28, 2012 9:07 PM

Yes copyright is very weak without enforcement. Millions of people access and share the sum of human knowledge and culture with no real repercussions every day. 

So you have to ask yourself, is copyright more important than a free and open Internet? You can't have both. What we have now is mostly honor system copyright on a somewhat free and open Internet. But we will never have anything other than a honor system copyright as long as the Internet and computers work the way they do. Real enforcement would require monitoring what people do on the Internet on a massive scale.

#41 Posted by administrator on Mar 28, 2012 9:12 PM

Yeah, and Google is up for the challenge.

#42 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 28, 2012 9:13 PM

I mean, I know the guy is just a caricature at this point, but still; Large methods? Since when does 15-20 lines count as "large", especially coming from a Java developer?

LongPHPCodez™. 'Nuff said.

#43 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 28, 2012 9:14 PM

@Administrator

May I recommend the book "Clean Code" by Robert Martin. It would be a very insightful read for you.

#44 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 28, 2012 9:33 PM

So you have to ask yourself, is copyright more important than a free and open Internet? You can't have both.

Ignoring the obvious false dichotomy, what exactly does a so-called "free and open" Internet mean to anyone without "enforcement"? Again, do you even realize you have already backed yourself to a corner by rejecting the relevance of principles and, at the same time, trying to build your argument on the basis of so?

What we have now is mostly honor system copyright on a somewhat free and open Internet. But we will never have anything other than a honor system copyright as long as the Internet and computers work the way they do.

Look - I think I have seen enough of this same ol' arm-waving of yours. Had you had any concrete evidence to back up your assertions, wouldn't you have produced at least some of it here instead of simply hoped that people would be impressed or intimidated by the mere presence of your shiny teeth?

#45 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 28, 2012 9:37 PM

May I recommend the book "Clean Code" by Robert Martin. It would be a very insightful read for you.

May I recommend the book Java: a Beginner's Guide. It would give you at least some concrete knowledge of the language to substitute your empty hand-waving.

#46 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 29, 2012 4:52 PM

The fact that anyone can go right now to Pirate Bay and gain access to world's largest content repository? How are you going to stop that? TPB uses magnet links, FYI. There is no way to stop piracy without somehow removing the free and open nature of the Internet. Even SOPA/PIPA as overreaching as they were would have done little to stop piracy because they didn't go far enough. 

So copyright quite frankly, is in an honor system. We can argue all day about how wrong it is to download all the movies, music, books, software you want with no limits (for free!). But that won't stop anyone from doing it, and certainly not kurkosdr. Who, despite being an "anti-freetard" readily admits he doesn't give a sh!t about following the law when it comes to copyright.

#47 Posted by DigitalAtheist on Mar 29, 2012 4:58 PM

 "So copyright quite frankly, is in an honor system."

So, do you have any honor, at least to yourself, or do you try to pretend that what you are doing is totally legitimate?

#48 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 29, 2012 5:00 PM

I don't pirate. Not because I have anything against it, but piracy gives the idea of artifical scarcity-backed culture credence it doesn't deserve. Using FOSS and Creative Commons stuff is far more damaging.

#49 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 29, 2012 5:08 PM

The fact that anyone can go right now to Pirate Bay and gain access to world's largest content repository?

Mostly irrelevant, but I'll bite.

The reason Pirate Bay was able to exist at all in the first place was simply a loophole in the Swedish copyright law that the mere linking to pirated content was not considered illegal distribution of copyrighted material. Had they tried that stuff in the US the site would be strangled at birth hard and fast.

It's not as much an "honor system" on the Internet as how much individual WTO treaty nations honor copyrights as a principle.

So copyright quite frankly, is in an honor system.

This is like saying that your local grocery store runs on an honor system as long as the cops aren't watching. Sure that's some fascinating logic you have got there.

#50 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 29, 2012 5:12 PM

There is technological countermeasures like magnet links that would make TPB hard as hell to stop. I'm sorry, but you just can't do it, even with the law on your side. PS: TPB was ruled illegal in Sweden.

 

Maybe in Sweden you can steal from the grocery store too. What anarchy they have going on in that country. 

#51 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 29, 2012 5:16 PM

Hey Flying_Toaster,

Do we have the replicator technology yet to copy a box of Cheerios?

"You wouldn't download a car." Hell yes, I would if I could.

#52 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 29, 2012 5:18 PM

There is technological countermeasures like magnet links that would make TPB hard as hell to stop.

Again, this is like arguing that your trouser pockets are countermeasures to grocery store clerks as long as no one is standing next to you.

I don't see that as an legitimate argument for those getting caught shoplifting, though.

#53 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 29, 2012 5:21 PM

Personally I see nothing wrong with making a copy of an orange or what f|_|cking stupid grocery store anology you are trying to make.

#54 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 29, 2012 5:26 PM

"You wouldn't download a car." Hell yes, I would if I could.

So, would you ogle at some girl changing or showering if you could see through walls like Superman?

Again, it's been very cute of you rejecting the relevance of principles and, at the same time, trying to build your argument on the basis of so.

#55 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 29, 2012 5:29 PM

No, but I'd most certainly download a car. And I'd go to the grocery store, make a copy of all their food and replicate it a billion times over and give it to the starving children of Africa. 

I know, very f|_|cking unethical behavior. Sorry!

#56 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 29, 2012 5:35 PM

No, but I'd most certainly download a car. And I'd go to the grocery store, make a copy of all their food and replicate it a billion times over and give it to the starving children of Africa.

That's nice of you. But could you tell me why you wouldn't look through some girl's clothes with your X-ray vision provided you had such?

#57 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 29, 2012 5:37 PM

Because that's a violation of privacy? What does that have to do with 3D printing, btw?.

#58 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 29, 2012 5:39 PM

How is that nice Flying_Toaster? I could have made the poor grocery lose theoretical dollars. Why won't you think of the farmers!!! =(

#59 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 29, 2012 5:42 PM

Because that's a violation of privacy?

But sure the thousand others with the same ability would go, "Hell, yeah! Why not?" After all, college frat boys are everywhere.

Now wouldn't that make privacy, say, "obsolete"? 

#60 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 29, 2012 5:48 PM

Consider a food store with 10,000 items. Using copyright math, I may have just costed the food industry $150,000,000,000,000 dollars of lost revenue. That's more jobs than there are humans on this planet. Over 9000% unemployment, you idiot. All this economic choas I cause and you dare say this is a "nice of me"? The end of civilization itself? What the f|_|ck is wrong with you. 

#61 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 29, 2012 5:55 PM

Using copyright math, I may have just costed the food industry $150,000,000,000,000 dollars of lost revenue.

You are still trying to avoid my question:

But sure the thousand others with the same ability would go, "Hell, yeah! Why not?" After all, college frat boys are everywhere.

Now wouldn't that make privacy, say, "obsolete"?

Come on now - just answer my questions and we shall talk in all the grand details about those anti-copyright soundbites. After all, as long as the Internet still exists, pretty much nothing can stop this convo from going.

#62 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 29, 2012 6:04 PM

You are going off at some strange irrelevent tangent about privacy. Privacy and copyright are different things. And no, privacy is not obsolete, although you shouldn't be suprised that if you put something up on the Internet or publish it in fixed form you lose your rights to keep a secret.

#63 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 29, 2012 6:11 PM

You still haven't addressed the part where I say:

But sure the thousand others with the same ability would go, "Hell, yeah! Why not?" After all, college frat boys are everywhere.

C'mon now, it's not like I was the one started with the hypothetical here.

Although you shouldn't be suprised that if you put something up on the Internet or publish it in fixed form you lose your rights to keep a secret.

That's strange. It's has never occured to me that software companies have made their entire portfolios of products available on BitTorrent.

#64 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 29, 2012 6:12 PM

Again, maybe you fail to understand this. Privacy and copyright are not the same thing.

#65 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 29, 2012 6:18 PM

Again, maybe you fail to understand this. Privacy and copyright are not the same thing.

Likewise, I can say the replication of foodstuff is not the same as the duplication of software, then, can't I?

 

#66 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 29, 2012 6:28 PM

Both when you duplicate software and when you duplicate something physical you are making something was scarce and making it a little less scarce.

In fact I could have made the same analogy replacing food with "AIDS drugs", and it would have been as relevent to Africa. AIDS drugs (like many drugs) are something that have an artificial scarcity which happens to give developing countries a really hard time.

#67 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 29, 2012 6:35 PM

And yes the artifiical scarcity of software can cause harm. Arguably more so than the scarcity of movies and music, even though software may have some artistic expression, most software is utilitarian.

Not even exactly sure how software can even be allowed to have copyright to begin with, copyright is a law for protecting artistic expression. It isn't suppose to cover things that have major useful purposes, like drugs or clothing.

#68 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 29, 2012 6:39 PM

Both when you duplicate software and when you duplicate something physical you are making something was scarce and making it a little less scarce.

Interesting. By introducing X-ray vision, would I not, by the same token, make privacy more "obsolete", then? Explain.

In fact I could have made the same analogy replacing food with "AIDS drugs".

Does a piece of software cure AIDS now somehow? Sure that's some fascinating insight you have got there.

#69 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 29, 2012 6:43 PM

Oh yes. Software touches EVERYTHING. Bioinformatics software can help produce new drugs. If use of such software is restricted, than less drugs would be made. Copyright is a law of restriction, the only right it provides to authors is the right to make something less useful for everyone else. It's just bad thing to have in this world where everyone could potentally have access to the sum of human and knowledge and culture otherwise.

#70 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 29, 2012 6:48 PM

Bioinformatics software can help produce new drugs.

Ah... So it doesn't actually cure anything. It merely helps producing drugs that can potentially make your ailments go away. At the mean time, unspecified man-hours have already been put in producing that piece of software.

Now one can only wonder what the catch is in all this...

#71 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 29, 2012 6:49 PM

Every book, every movie, ever piece of software ever made could be made available to all the world. All the world's knowledge. All the world's culture. Available to all, even the poorest of people, with no limitations.

Even if you are a richest man in the world you could never have this legally under the system of copyright. The only thing stopping this is copyright.

#72 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 29, 2012 6:57 PM

Every book, every movie, ever piece of software ever made could be made available to all the world. All the world's knowledge. All the world's culture. Available to all, even the poorest of people, with no limitations.

And now you are reducing yourself to anti-copyright soundbites again. Is that all you know when someone asks you a question, no matter what it is?

To remind you, this is what I asked specifically:

By introducing X-ray vision, would I not, by the same token, make privacy more "obsolete", then? Explain.

#73 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 29, 2012 7:07 PM

A soundbite you cannot dispute. Because this a world where all of human knowledge and culture could become available to all of humanity. A world where access to all knowledge and culture is not a privilege, it's a human right. And all humans could get access to this. It's like giving every single human on this planet access to their own Library of Congress, only greater than that. No longer would knowledge become scarce, and we know knowledge is power. The last gasp of any modern tyrant is to turn off access to the Internet.

This is the world we can have, and actually in reality we already have. If only people would like you would let go of your 19th century printing press and wake up to reality of the information age.

#74 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 29, 2012 9:43 PM

A soundbite you cannot dispute.

No, it's a soundbite that is being disputed right here rigth now on this very website.  Do I need to repeat #comment_10408 until it somehow sticks to your head?

Because this a world where all of human knowledge and culture could become available to all of humanity

You are confusing the dissemination of knowledge and the expansion of so. Sure, it takes a person no more than a megaphone to announce a piece of information, but in order to for that information to exist, it has to come from somewhere. Remember - neither megaphones nor the Internet has the ability to create information on it own. So, tell me - where do you think information comes from? Explain.

On top of that - even though I loath having to repeat myself for the third time - where is your answer to the following question?

By introducing X-ray vision, would I not, by the same token, make privacy more "obsolete", then? Explain.

#75 Posted by kurkosdr on Mar 30, 2012 5:49 AM

Adam has a point though, that modern copyright law is broken. Copyright law has been extended and extended to the point it has gotten ridiculous. 90 years before a work falls into public domain? WTF. You need 90 years to make money of your work? Stuff like old DOS games and other abandonware is still copyrighted? Why?

IMO, if the "copyright holder" has made a return of investment and 3-5 years have passed, the law should allow free copying of the work. I am voting for the Pirate Party the next elections.

#76 Posted by kurkosdr on Mar 30, 2012 5:54 AM

Oh, and as regard the X-ray vision, Sharp has made a series of phones with infrared sensors that allows you to see through summer clothes in bright sunlight (the infrared sensor was originally intended for night vision). Would I use the feature if I had one? Yes.

#77 Posted by Linsuxoid on Mar 30, 2012 1:31 PM

Copyright law has been extended and extended to the point it has gotten ridiculous. 90 years before a work falls into public domain?

And again, when you pay for a license you don't buy INFORMATION, you buy no more than that - a LICENSE. It makes sense to keep information copyrighted as long as it's relevant. And relevancy is a main trait of information that allows to sell licenses. Nobody (almost) needs year old stock quotes but a lot of people fight for and heavily invest in microsecond old ones. Nobody (almost) is interested in last month's news. To recap, all you get is 1) a license 2) to use *relevant* information.

In a modern software world that would be something around 20-30 years (pretty much nothing that old is still relevant), but Mickey Mouse is still largely relevant so Disney doesn't want to release their asset into public domain. It's like requesting everyone to release their manufacture plants into "public domain" after certain period (and, please, don't start that stupidity about "information vs material world" again). Now, do I like it (especially having old DOS abandonware still copyrighted because of Mickey Mouse)? No. Do I see where it comes from? Yes. Would I like to have everything for free? SURE!!! Do I think it's possible on a modern level of production? Nope.

#78 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 31, 2012 12:28 PM

" makes sense to keep information copyrighted as long as it's relevant"

Sure. I want to be the ancenstor of the original person who created the Roman alphabet. So I can sue all your asses for copyright infringement.

#79 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 31, 2012 12:47 PM

ancestor*

#80 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 31, 2012 1:02 PM

@kurkosdr

I see what you are trying to do, freetard. You think they wouldn't pick up on it. But 90 years? Copyright lasts 95 years.

First you'll claim 90 years. Than 89 years. And before you know it, you confuse everyone to thinking copyright lasts 5 years. It's a stupid freetard mind trick. But it won't work.

PS: You have to pay me for the use of my Roman alphabet, freetard f|_|uck. The going rate is $1 per letter. Where should I invoice you?

#81 Posted by DrLoser on Mar 31, 2012 1:18 PM

@Lil' Sis:

Consider a food store with 10,000 items. Using copyright math, I may have just costed the food industry $150,000,000,000,000 dollars of lost revenue. That's more jobs than there are humans on this planet. Over 9000% unemployment, you idiot. All this economic choas I cause and you dare say this is a "nice of me"? The end of civilization itself? What the f|_|ck is wrong with you. 

Sanity, possibly? You're confusing perfectly elastic demand with purely theoretical concepts of mathematical infinity, aren't you?

So, let's get this straight.  You don't believe in principles (say, ethical) when it involves copyright. (Unless the copyrighted article costs something to produce, ie is physical.)

But you do believe in principles (say, ethical) when it comes to the government telling you what to do, ie don't break copyright laws, because that would be Draconian.

There's no obvious consistency in any of this, apart from your repeated belief that "Artifical Scarcity" is wrong.  So, OK, let's ignore everything else you babble about.  Let's consider the perfect example of Artificial Scarcity.  It affects everybody.  It affects far more people than are affected by draconian laws to protect bit-twiddling over wires.

I'm talking about Fiat Currency.

Now, even you cannot deny that fiat currency is an example of Artificial Scarcity.  Ignoring the costly technology used to "sign" a bank note as an authoritative dollar or euro or pound or whatever, the actual cost of the item in question is negligible.  In fact, it's even better than that, given the "theory" of Artificial Scarcity.

Copying bits is an O(n) operation.  Given a sufficiently latency-free network, it's an O(log n) operation.

Copying bank notes, on the other hand, is (theoretically, because outside pre-Weimar Germany or Zimbabwe, no sane person is going to accept a bank note denominated in the billions of billions of billions), an O(1) operation.

Well, if Artificial Scarcity actually means anything at all, let's see you try it.  Just print out an arbitrary currency of your choice. (See? Just like with FOSS, you have a choice!)

As a huge plus on this one, it would be very moral indeed.

There are a lot of poor countries that need to be freed of Artificial Scarcity when it comes to money in the people's pocket.

Bits'o'foss? Less so.

 

#82 Posted by kurkosdr on Mar 31, 2012 6:37 PM

In a modern software world that would be something around 20-30 years (pretty much nothing that old is still relevant), but Mickey Mouse is still largely relevant so Disney doesn't want to release their asset into public domain. It's like requesting everyone to release their manufacture plants into "public domain" after certain period (and, please, don't start that stupidity about "information vs material world" again).

Unfortunately, copyright law has "for limited time" written on it, not "till it's no longer relevant". Aka, if the "limited time" expires, it doesn't matter if it's still relevant, it will enter public domain. See, you don't "own" a copyrighted work, in the same sense you own a home or a television (that will never fall into public domain). You "have the rights" for a copyrighted work for "limited time". This is why you don't have to pay a "copyrighted work tax" like you have to pay property taxes. Of course, Hollywood wants to have it both. They want to treat their copyrighted works as if they are "property" which they will own forever (the DRM mechanisms are based on the assumption copyright will last forever), and don't pay any kind of taxes for the copyrighted works they have the rights too.

And yes, if Mickey Mouse passes the 90 year mark and the Hollywood-friendly Democrats aren't in office, it will enter the public domain, whether it's still relevant or not.

Sure. I want to be the ancenstor of the original person who created the Roman alphabet. So I can sue all your asses for copyright infringement.

I am afraid that "Roman Alphabet" of yours is a derived work of the the Greek alphabet. Anyway, Adam King is basically right. Copyright should not (and do not) last forever.

#83 Posted by kurkosdr on Mar 31, 2012 6:38 PM

do not = does not

#84 Posted by DrLoser on Mar 31, 2012 7:12 PM

@Kurkos:

I am afraid that "Roman Alphabet" of yours is a derived work of the the Greek alphabet.

Hee hee. I couldn't be bothered to point it out to him, and I'm glad you did.  Let's not get into the Phoenicians here, because the Greek alphabet is the way to go.  Never quite understooed what Cyril and Methodius were up to on that -- I notice, in passing, that Wikipedia is presently advertising their script as a product of the First Bulgarian Empire, as opposed to the Principality of Kiev, but what do you expect from Wikipedia?

... Anyway, a side note.  Are there any possible ways left for Lil' Sis to show it's total ignorance?

#85 Posted by DrLoser on Mar 31, 2012 7:13 PM

And, sadly perhaps, you are wrong.

Anyway, Adam King is basically right. Copyright should not (and do not) last forever.

It doesn't.

#86 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 31, 2012 8:02 PM

It doesn't.

Or we can try Ohio Ham's nonsensical catchphrase, "It does and it doesn't". It's pretty useful when you need to pretend that you actually know something.

Lil' Sis should give that a whirl some time.

#87 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 31, 2012 8:04 PM

Those Romans were a bunch of greedy f|_|cking pirates, stealing their alphabet?

No wonder their empire fell. We can't know for sure, but I think the invasion of Rome was lead by MAFIAA lawyers with a time machine.

#88 Posted by DrLoser on Mar 31, 2012 8:05 PM

And that proposal for forging bank-notes, little sister of mine?

Don't let Ayn Rand down.  Consistency is about the only virtue you have left.

#89 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 31, 2012 8:12 PM

Speaking about derivatives, how the f|_|ck do you derive from a fruit. Can any of the copyright grocery analogy experts around here explain this to me? 

Is that like going to a supermarket and quickly genetically engineer legs on the orange so it can walk out the door by itself. That would be very criminal, I think. Only a freetard like kurkosdr would even considering committing such an atrocity like that. 

#90 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Mar 31, 2012 8:18 PM

Can any of the copyright grocery analogy experts around here explain this to me?

But I thought that responsibility belonged to replicator analogy department!

#91 Posted by DrLoser on Mar 31, 2012 8:20 PM

@Lil' Sis:

How's the printing press going, then?

Gawrsh, Dopey, I needs a knock-off Chinese slave labour Replicator!

What a useless twerp you are.

#92 Posted by DrLoser on Mar 31, 2012 8:25 PM

Well, there's atrocities and then there's atrocities, I think, Lil' Sis.

But even if I could genetically engineer a perambulating orange (don't patent it, for Gawd's sake!) ...

... Even if I could do that, and the orange walked out the door, I don't see it as criminal.

As the basis for a very fine joke, yes: particularly if the orange is Jewish.

But hardly as a joke.  Incidentally, you have no sense of humour whatsoever, do you? Typical.  Go see a proctologist about that.  Anyway.

As atrocities go, I'm cool with a properly self-motivated orange.

And your point would be, my little incompetent and inexcusable forger?

#93 Posted by DrLoser on Mar 31, 2012 8:27 PM

Hardly as an atrocity.

Fsck us all, Admin.  How many times do we have to beg you for a five minute edit window?

#94 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 31, 2012 8:33 PM

Flying_Toaster,

I know you are trying to be cheeky stupid, but here is a <a href="http://store.makerbot.com/replicator.html">replicator</a> for you. Yes bitch, get ready for a new can of worms in this debate. And here is your example of a derivative. That's right bitch, I don't even need to make analogies.

PS: If you are going to make an analogy make it about cars not f|_|cking string cheese. Nobody f|_|cking cares about food theft except stupid petty idiots who don't know how it is to not be able to afford food.

#95 Posted by Adam_King on Mar 31, 2012 8:35 PM

ZOMG a derivative of a physical item. Call the f|_|cking presses, reproducing physical goods isn't some kind of stupid sci-fi fantasy anymore.

#96 Posted by DrLoser on Mar 31, 2012 8:47 PM

Dollar bills, little gorgeous blonde haired sister of mine.

Dollar bills.

Now, please.

Better still, twenty dollar bills. (The forgery of choice about ten years ago.)  Better still, five hundred dollar bills.  Take this "Artificial Scarcity" thing to its limit and prove us all to be the imbeciles we most evidently are!

Print! Print! Print!

Oh, I see you're using an HP printer.  I'd recommend Epsom: they do watermarks so much better.

#97 Posted by DrLoser on Mar 31, 2012 8:54 PM

@Lil' Sis:

ZOMG a derivative of a physical item. Call the f|_|cking presses, reproducing physical goods isn't some kind of stupid sci-fi fantasy anymore.

I'm afraid it is.  I've tried to replicate you, but the machine just barfs up.  I get some sort  of twisted plastic mess that just sits there like Jeff Goldblum at the end of the (excellent) Cronenburg remake of "The Fly," weeping "Please kill me!"

The damn machine isn't working.  I felt sorry for Jeff Goldblum.

If only artificial scarcity worked, I could feel artificially sorry for you, lil' sis.

#98 Posted by kurkosdr on Apr 2, 2012 6:44 AM

BTW, when I hear about currency without artificial scarcity, bitcoin with it's "automatic inflation" comes to mind (there is some artifical scarcity in bitcoin too, but not an absolute one). I am sure Average Joe will be thrilled to know that the salary he got 1st of the month is subject to "automatic inflation", or that anyone can literaly print (mint) coins with his durdenstation.

No wonder the thing bombed, leaving those libertarians who conceived it scratching their heads. Meanwhile, people who had realized from day 1 that Bitcoin is a bubble and treated it as a bubble and not as the next big thing, walked away with a quick buck (in real currency) right before the crash.

#99 Posted by Linsuxoid on Apr 2, 2012 4:08 PM

@Kurkos,

Unfortunately, copyright law has "for limited time" written on it, not "till it's no longer relevant"

Yes, I understand what the letter of the law says. I still feel the spirit is to not force anyone to release valuable assets and that fscking Mickey Mouse screws everybody. As for "property tax" - it's actually a good point, but I think IP is more of "means of production" than of "real estate". You don't expect Intel to release its assembly lines into public domain once they fully amortize, do you?

As for "let's patent alphabet" or "let's patent fundamental science" - it's totally another system (based on public interest optimization again): we have slow and ineffective but completely free for everyone once done (everything paid upfront with taxes) grant system. I don't want government to be in charge of making movies or producing software. At least not all of those (as far as I know there are some private fundamental reasearch - in pharma and biotech to name some - and they operate pretty much same way as other IP holders).

#100 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Apr 3, 2012 7:50 AM

BTW, when I hear about currency without artificial scarcity, bitcoin with it's "automatic inflation" comes to mind (there is some artifical scarcity in bitcoin too, but not an absolute one).

The Bitcoin "economy" is hardcoded to have a ceiling of "21 million units":http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/37619/page2/ in existence, and, as far as I am aware, there is no mechanism for controlling how many units there are in circulation. I'll simply let you do the rest of the math there.

#101 Posted by DrLoser on Apr 3, 2012 8:04 AM

Ow, my head hurts.  When will these stupid Gold Standard twits grow up?

It's certainly different. "Elaborate controls to make sure that currency is not produced in greater numbers is not something any other currency, like the dollar or the euro, has," says Russ Roberts, professor of economics at George Mason University.

One more college to scratch off my list for an economics degree, then.  Mind you, I've already scratch "economics degree" off the list.

#102 Posted by DrLoser on Apr 3, 2012 8:05 AM

(It's "automatic deflation," Kurks, but you're right and it's stupid either way around.)

#103 Posted by Gesh on Apr 3, 2012 8:20 AM

I have a vague idea what bitcoin is, is it worthy get involved with it?

#104 Posted by DrLoser on Apr 3, 2012 8:22 AM

Let's just say that it's the sort of idea that would appeal to Pog.

There's a thought - PogCoin.  I'm sure he can get oiaohm to implement it for him and use the spare Beast cycles (when not propagating the Prairie Pineapple) to act as a central clearing point.

But no, to answer your question, there are so many things obviously wrong with the idea that the mind just boggles.

#105 Posted by Flying_Toaster on Apr 3, 2012 8:50 AM

I have a vague idea what bitcoin is, is it worthy get involved with it?

Here's my advice: -

1) If your goal is to make money out of gaming the system, then the answer is "yes" depending whether you have the adequate financial backing to deal with the risks. And there are plenty of things you can do with a currency grey market.

2) Or, if you are thinking about simply using Bitcoin for trading goods and services other than illegal firarms/drugs and human trafficking, then the answer is a definite "no".

#106 Posted by Gesh on Apr 3, 2012 9:01 AM

Thanks - both of you. I think I'll stay away from it.

#107 Posted by FibberMcGee on Apr 3, 2012 4:23 PM

One more college to scratch off my list for an economics degree, then.  Mind you, I've already scratch "economics degree" off the list.

Oh, I went to this school for a while (not in the econ dept, though). As far as general education, it's OK, but the law school and the economics school are as right-wing as they come. (In fact, the law school is one of many that is funded by the ever present Koch family. As for the economics school -- they employ Walter E. Williams. Nuf, said.)

#108 Posted by kurkosdr on Apr 4, 2012 7:07 AM

I still feel the spirit is to not force anyone to release valuable assets and that fscking Mickey Mouse screws everybody.

Well, Disney won't have to release Mickey Mouse (the trademarked character) if the original Mickey Mouse movie enters the public domain. The only thing that would happen is that people can make derivative works of the original Mickey Mouse movie, and considering how much the damn mouse has changed since then, nobody will confuse those derivative works with the real Mickey.

 

The real reason the Mickey Mouse copyright extensions happened is that the "I own it" mentality is so powerfull in Hollywood, that they don't want to release even that little thing.

#109 Posted by Linsuxoid on Apr 4, 2012 2:12 PM

Well, Disney won't have to release Mickey Mouse (the trademarked character) if the original Mickey Mouse movie enters the public domain

Oh, I've totally forgot about TMs (no kidding)

You've actually convinced me with this one - I don't see any plausible reasons to extend copyright to 90 years (in fact even half of that looks like a stretch). I think that providing like 20-30 years of "default" copyright coverage with the right to extend it (free of charge or for a fee - that's open for discussion) every 5 years for those who care (99%+ will not and Disney will have their Mickey Mouse for the rest of eternity without buying politicians and screwing everyone else).

#110 Posted by Linsuxoid on Apr 4, 2012 3:01 PM

Well, Disney won't have to release Mickey Mouse (the trademarked character) if the original Mickey Mouse movie enters the public domain

Oh, I've totally forgot about TMs (no kidding)

You've actually convinced me with this one - I don't see any plausible reasons to extend copyright to 90 years (in fact even half of that looks like a stretch). I think that providing like 20-30 years of "default" copyright coverage with the right to extend it (free of charge or for a fee - that's open for discussion) every 5 years for those who care (99%+ will not and Disney will have their Mickey Mouse for the rest of eternity without buying politicians and screwing everyone else).

You must be signed in to leave comments.