^Does anyone really want to pull down their pants and jerk off while sitting in a chair that thousands of other dudes have already sat and jerked off in though? Personally I'm glad there are no more theatres. That's just bad hygiene. You're asking for all sorts of skin rashes on your ass from all the bacteria that would inevitably fester in those seats. Yuck.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Sep 10 2008 : 4:20AM
The idea that you can't tame the web is a popular idea but not really true. Look at China, the dissidents are able to do a little via the net, but not enough to actually have an effect. To call them the 'past' doesn't address the reality of what over a billion people are living under. Check out this article about the ways in which the government could control the web, if they cared to. Edited by - BlackSix on 9/10/2008 4:21:18 AM
This might be one of the few times we fully agree. I don't know where the idea comes from that the internet is impossible to control but it's complete BS. The fact that porn and pirated movies and songs are out there only demonstrates that the powers that be just can't be bothered to fully police it at the moment. Not that they couldn't if they were willing to sink enough resources into it. The internet is complicated and harder to control than radio or television but it's only a matter of time.
It's a naive thought that criminality in any form could ever be 'tamed' or fully controlled. Also, it's funny how America seems to look up to China in so many ways... despite officially condemning this totalitarian communism.
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Sep 10 2008 : 8:46AM
...think about the attendant boost in sales for raincoats & newspapers....
They don't need to fully wipe out crime (or anything else). All they have to do is make it not worth the trouble and the risk. That won't stop everybody but it will stop most people.I don't look up to China. Nor am I in favor of totalitarianism. All I'm saying is if you push the powers that be in that direction, they will clamp down and make you wish you hadn't. The really determined pirates probably won't be hurt too much but the web will change considerably. Give them an excuse for censorship and they'll gladly take it.
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Sep 10 2008 : 9:18AM
Courtesy of Walt Disney, me and my fellow chums in Miss Foster's 4th grade glass started reading Hardy Boys mysteries. I, as did the others, started getting them as gifts. Soon said gifts began to be shared between us. Thus began my descent into a life of thievery and debauchery.
You photocopied them and handed them out for free? I don't think they really have much of a problem with you giving your only copy to a friend. What seems to piss them off is when you let 10,000 of your friends make a perfect copy of your copy. One person pays $20 for a movie and then thousands of people get it free. You wouldn't be upset about this if it was your movie? Edited by - randomprecision on 9/10/2008 9:46:48 AM
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Sep 10 2008 : 11:30AM
Good link. It's just a very complicated issue. On one hand I wish the Paul McCartney's of the world all the money due them for their creations on the other thought of the government having the ability and right to control everything it takes to enforce these things is just to scary to contemplate.
No, not at all. The "first-sale doctrine" provides that you can use any authorized copy of a copyrighted work for any purposes you wish other than copying and distributing it. You can sell your copy, trade it, donate it, start a for-profit or not-for-profit library with it, use it for toilet paper, burn it, or throw it in the ocean. In addition, the "fair use" doctrine, as set forth in the Copyright Act and elaborated in case law, allows you to copy your copy for certain non-competitive and non-commercial purposes (including posting reasonably-size excerpts on ADT for discussion, commentary, praise, satire, or ridicule).
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Sep 10 2008 : 12:09PM
Bob, as usual the voice of reason above the noise. (You too, Licker) This has turned to a very good thread, thanks to the two of you.
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - Sep 10 2008 : 12:24PM
Microsoft's serial code registrations for license registrations. It might not 100% of the people from using copies illegally, but it is absolutely a deterrent that works for more than an instant.
I should add that "ideas" (or ("solutions") are not themselves copyrightable. Only specific, "fixed expressions" of ideas are subject to copyright protection. An example: "Boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, girl dies, and boy grieves" is not copyrightable: "LOVE STORY" (ugh!) is.
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Sep 10 2008 : 1:17PM
I don't know if you had the time to look a the link that licker provided (Parable of the right to read.), but I found it provocative & am interested in your thoughts, as much a part of the business as you are.
[Link]
NewRomancer Deactivated User
under THEIR avatar 738 Posts 7/08
Posted - Sep 10 2008 : 1:19PM
"it is absolutely a deterrent that works for more than an instant" Not much more... All things that can be cracked get cracked in moments... and there's never going to be a way to stop that. Enforcement will always be scrambling to even play catch-up to the 'pirates'. And in the end, anyone who wants something for free will be able to get it with just a few mouse clicks... It's pointless to rail against it. "the link that licker provided (Parable of the right to read.)," Reads like some lost chapter to "The Handmaids Tale" or "Fahrenheit 451"
Edited by - NewRomancer on 9/10/2008 1:26:37 PM
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
All you are saying here is that you are one of the people who downloads titles illegally and the thought of it going away upsets you. That's the only reason why I can see that you constantly berate anyone's opinion on controlling the matter with statements like it's pointless to rail against it or accusing people of yelling at the tide. The sad thing is if this stealing continues to surge and causes lower and lower production values and massively decreased material I suspect you will be one of the first ones complaining despite your constant standing up for illegal downloading as acceptable. You've already condemned watermarking, although it is a direct byproduct of a practice that you consider acceptable. If you stand up and state that illegal downloading is acceptable and people need to stop complaining and worrying about it then you have to stop condemning alternate means that companies try to utilize to attempt to possibly sell something to those utilizing this practice. Someday a company, or several companies working in conjunction, will come up with methods that work in cutting down this type of activity. Be it through some sort of digital lock or through some sort of prosecution. Just because laws haven't caught up with the internet yet doesn't mean they won't.
[Link]
NewRomancer Deactivated User
under THEIR avatar 738 Posts 7/08
Posted - Sep 10 2008 : 2:24PM
"All you are saying here is that you are one of the people who downloads titles illegally and the thought of it going away upsets you." I have said no such thing. I have stated before, I'm not saying it's right or wrong... I'm saying that it's here to stay, like death and taxes. Or even better, like drugs.... no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many 'locks' are in place as 'deterrents', not one single person who wants drugs ever has to go very long or very far without getting drugs... The war against it is a total WOMBAT. (Waste Of Money Brains And Time) "if this stealing continues to surge and causes lower and lower production values and massively decreased material" Just like people said that cassette tapes would do to the music industry? History provides evidence that this isn't likely to happen. Quite the reverse. In order to compete for the consumers $$, companies will be forced to improve what they do and how they do it. Again, given that there's no solid evidence that downloading is having any negative impact on the porn industry, to the exclusion of other possible factors. "Someday a company, or several companies working in conjunction, will come up with methods that work in cutting down this type of activity." Doubtful, but I'll grant maybe... But I'm sure as hell not gonna hold my breath waiting for that to happen... It's also possible that angels will come down from the heavens and make all our sex organs just a little bit bigger.... I think the latter is way more likely.
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Sep 10 2008 : 2:55PM
Perhaps, but at what personal cost to privacy? What agency of the federal government should be charged with this? Certainly there would be audits of some kind. These are not really easy issues to deal with. What is fair compensation? How long should a copyright exist. And, just as important who gets to enforce them? Thinking of what some believe is the the current damage to the porn industry due to piracy, what do you suppose the effect on sales would be if the government started administration some sort of sale registration? Some sort of database somewhere that validated your right to have a copy of Whose Your Daddy is a very sticky thing to contemplate (I'm not sure whether the pun is intendeded or not).
Some people in this thread have defended unauthorized file-sharing of porn on philosophical grounds. There's not much to say to those people except to note one's complete disagreement. Other people, by contrast, have defended the practice based upon what they believe are empirical grounds -- namely, that there isn't sufficient evidence to establish that the practice has a measurable impact upon DVD and subscription sales. Assuming (for purposes of argument only) that this assertion is correct, there still may be a logical fallacy at work: Whatever the economic impact of unauthorized file-sharing may be at present, it remains an illegal act. The illegality of the practice itself exerts a chilling effect on the number of people who do it, the way they do it, and the extent to which they do it. The impact on content creation would likely be far worse if unauthorized copying were to be legalized. On that basis, I think the empirical argument for unauthorized file-sharing is shaky.
No but your arguments come across as someone who has something to lose if this practice gets driven out of the mainstream indicating that you practice it. Whether you intend to or not, you come across as someone who is partaking in this activity.This doesn't work. How is a format, that degrades with each copy made that required people to actually know someone who had the original or Nth generation degraded copy comparable to people making an exact copy with no loss and distributing it to the entire world including people who they will never know? They aren't even close by a longshot.
How much privacy do you think you have now? Credit card companies and banks keep charge of transactions. There are security cameras everywhere. Your IP number can be tracked. I can keep going here.I don't know what system would work well, but without trying any none will work guaranteed. If scientists didn't try various chemicals we wouldn't have Keflex. If a database as you suggested became the norm, do you really think that the database would look up, "Clam Digger is attempting to view Whose Your Daddy, authorize?" or do you think it would more look like "12250000411114, 45633335888888aa1b, authorize?" However, due to just the sheer volume of movies, albums, etc out there I think a database system like that isn't possible at the time. I still think the answer lies more on shutting down the "mainstream" distribution systems and at least forcing the practice back underground. Remove temptation of the easy free fix to the general populous just as door locks removes the temptation for the average person on the street.
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Sep 10 2008 : 5:50PM
And you come across as someone who is intent on shouting down, by irresponsible accusations, mis-characterization of comments, or any other means necessary, anyone who is expressing a point of view which is not in lockstep with your own. Edited by - Harri Patel on 9/10/2008 5:51:20 PM
When it comes to stealing, no one is going to change my opinion on the fact that it is wrong. And I tell people when they are doing it that it is wrong. It's not just on internet forums. I've worked with people who said they download movies for free asking why the hell do I pay for DVDs. I tell them they are slimeball crooks as well. As a paying customer I have the right to inform people they are thieves. It cost me money when they steal. Be it from a stolen download or be it a physical DVD, the paying customers pay for theft in the end. As for my opinion I form about those who stand up for illegal downloading, all I can say is you are judged by the company you keep. If someone gets murdered and three people who likely could have done it. There is DNA from the killer at the scene. Two offer up DNA freely and the third claims violation of privacy and refuses, who is the likely suspect? It could be a fourth person did the crime but the one who refuses the DNA looks guilty. Same goes here.
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - Sep 10 2008 : 10:34PM
ClamDigger- I just read that link. IF Microsoft does not abuse its power, I in theory don't have problems with the DRM controlling they are doing with Vista. I always ask people who are so concerned about privacy whether they're concerned about authorities abusing power, or if they're concerned about being caught doing whatever they were doing that was wrong. Abuse of power certainly exists in today's society, and that makes a situation where all of our actions are monitored and controlled a little scary. But in a society where it seems more and more people have no morals, I actually don't know what the solution is. I've always felt that if something wasn't good enough quality for me to want to pay for it, I just don't buy it. I don't steal a Versace dress because it's too ugly to wear. Just like I don't steal a digital song because it's too horrid to listen to.
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - Sep 10 2008 : 10:34PM
Edit to add: I do however, listen to samples provided by music companies to figure out if I like the song well enough to would like to buy a copy of it. Edited by - tricia_devereaux on 9/10/2008 10:35:44 PM
I remember a time when everyone knew someone who knew more about computers, had a DSL line and would buy hundreds of CD-Rs each month. I do believe 'open' p2p protocols will be exterminated eventually, after being hounded to a point where people don't feel motivated to inititate projects like those again. But how to control probably millions of small private networks? How do you effectively hunt those without violating people's integrity? Seems to me that the killing of torrent sites etc is more of a statement from the companies than anything else. Reading this thread it's quite obvious that it's about the principle, that mine is mine, the damage linked to filesharing is not the issue even though it's claimed to be.
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - Sep 11 2008 : 2:13AM
^ My beliefs about the principles and the effects of this situation were come to separately, but draw the same conclusion.
[Link]
NewRomancer Deactivated User
under THEIR avatar 738 Posts 7/08
Posted - Sep 11 2008 : 10:34AM
"your arguments come across as someone who has something to lose if this practice gets driven out of the mainstream" Not in the least... Because if I did 'file share' (something that is legal in my country) I would do it, content in the knowledge that it was NEVER going to go away anyway... So I'd have nothing TO lose ever. "This doesn't work." It's exactly what was said when blank cassette tapes were flooding the market... Or when blank CDs and CD burners got really affordable... "Remove temptation of the easy free fix to the general populous" Except that the very nature of the internet won't ever allow you to 'remove it'. No matter what security you attempt to introduce, in 2.3 seconds some 11 year old will have cracked it and spread it like wild-fire across the entire internet. You want to 'drive it back underground' but nothing ever works that way... you cannot put the genie back into the bottle once it's escaped.... and nowadays no matter what bottle you have, someone will let it out. "I have the right to inform people they are thieves" And they have the right to tell you you're wrong. "It cost me money when they steal." That, I'm sorry, is nothing more than a crock... "I do believe 'open' p2p protocols will be exterminated" I'm not holding my breath that that will ever happen, but if you'd like to, go right ahead... "it's about the principle, that mine is mine" Then keep it to yourself, because that's the only way it'll stay yours.
for the americans who have participated in this thread, maybe you should support the baucus-hatch bill. read the details of it here: http://www.senate.gov/~finance/sitepages/leg/LEG%202008/091008%20IP%20bill%20section%20by%20section.pdf and while you're at it, read the 2008 special 301 report.
NewRomancer@ If you had read everything I've cared to post in this thread it would be obvious that I'm not really taking any party here, I'm merely questioning. We have already seen many open p2p networks go down, I still mourn Audio Galaxy... it was the perfect place for music lovers like me and I still buy music based on the mp3-collection I gathered during that time, I now have hundreds of CD-Rs that I want to go through to find those tracks I was too hurried or too immature to hear properly . Without filesharing I would be so much more ignorant about music. This could of course apply to porn, that one single devoted customer is worth a lot during several years to come. I don't think those buying mainstream are as reliable and consistent as addicts like myself.
[Link]
NewRomancer Deactivated User
under THEIR avatar 738 Posts 7/08
Posted - Sep 12 2008 : 9:43AM
"We have already seen many open p2p networks go down" For every one that goes down, there are others to take its place...
^^^ That's pretty much the case with all criminal behavior. So what's your POINT -- other than to state (restate, restate again, and restate ad nauseam) the obvious?
To properly understand the legal relationship between the U.S. Constitution's intellectual property clause, on the one hand, and congressional copyright legislation, on the other hand, the Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft is crucial. Wikipedia.com (excerpted below) provides an excellent summary of the decision:
[Link]
NewRomancer Deactivated User
under THEIR avatar 738 Posts 7/08
Posted - Sep 12 2008 : 3:38PM
"other than to state (restate, restate again, and restate ad nauseam) the obvious?" If it's so obvious why does it seem some need it repeated so often... "the U.S. Constitution's intellectual property clause" Fortunately, the US Constitution doesn't govern the internet in anything CLOSE to entirety.... No one countries should.
Of course we all know that courts are happy to twist the meaning and reject the intent of the constitution to support their own political opinions. That is why presidents like to stack the supreme court with judges whose bias matches their own. There was a dissenting opinion in the case that makes far more sense than the majority decision. I excerpt it here:The clause states the purpose: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". There is no possible way that this can be served by a time limit any longer than 30 years. That is perfectly adequate to allow anyone to earn a reward for their creative work. You don't ever promote progress by allowing unproductive drones to make money through sitting on the work of dead people. If you pay a plumber to install a new shower in your house, you don't expect him to bill you again for the installation next year and the year after. You don't expect your great grandchildren to be paying an annual fee to the plumber's great grandchildren in 120 years time. Sure, an author gets some special privileges a plumber does not have, but 120 years? Give me a fucking break! In the case of computer software, there are good arguments to have the limit as low as ten years, or even have no copyright at all. This is because all software is derivative of works that have gone before it, so the more effective copyright is, the more it stifles progress. It is also a very dubious moral position to encourage people to profit from a derivative work, while preventing the development of new derivations. This is why most significant progress in computer software in recent years has come from the free software movement. It is also why major companies like IBM and SUN have invested billions in the "copyleft" concept, also known as "open source" of "free software".
I'm glad that the Disney company still can profit from "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" (1937). Otherwise they wouldn't restore it and release it in such a good DVD edition. Just compare the film with another animated classic from that era. Fleischer's "Gulliver's Travels" (1939) is public domain. And we are still waiting for a quality DVD release of this film. The people you call "unproductive drones" are the people who went the extra mile to give the fans the great "Snow White"-DVD.
Ah! What an interesting example. A story that was copyright to Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm. Jacob died in 1863, add 95 years to that and you get 1958. So it would have been ILLEGAL under present law for Disney to have made his movie in 1937 without paying a huge wad of money to Grimm's descendants. You give the present law your full support, so what you are saying is that Disney committed an act of "piracy" when he made Snow White. You are also saying that all the money Disney made in the process was "stolen" from the Grimm family. In fact, by your standards, you are condoning what you would call Disney's "immoral stealing" of the Grimm family's "intellectual property". The movie Snow White was referred to as "Disney's folly" while in production, and was expected to bankrupt his studio. If it had been burdened with a massive liability for copyright royalties, it's possible he might never have been able to finance it. So if todays laws had been in place , it could be that this movie would never have been made. Applying different standards to Disney and Grimm for the same story is an act of hypocrisy.
Actually I put it in quotes because I don't support the use of the term, but the brothers Grimm were authors of the book in which the modern, popular version of the story was first published, so they would have held the copyright. Of course, the work was public domain at the time that Disney used it, but Juha's insistence that the current law is the only right and moral solution means he wishes that it had been copyright at that time.
Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm collected and published fairy tales. The didn't invent them. And please explain why it is good for the community that Fleischer's "Gulliver's Travels" (1939) is public domain? Max Fleischer used to be Walt Disney's biggest competitor in the 30s. We should preserve his memory. But the shitty public domain DVDs erase him from film history.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Sep 13 2008 : 3:36AM
I guess they should stop shutting down those child porn forums too, what's the point right? I'm not saying downloading is as anywhere as evil as child porn, but by your logic we should just give up because we'll never be able to eliminate it entirely.
Introducing Lady LorReign
Posted - Sep 10 2008 : 12:30AM