Nitpicky? Hell yes.
Started by LegendarySandwich, January 02, 2011, 11:10:21 PM
Quote from: "DJAkuma"Quote from: "Whitney"What about copyrighted material existing prevents the free exchange of ideas any more than it does in the "real world" and what about the internet entitles it to supersede established law?If I remember right the original intent of copyrighting was so that one could have a few years to profit off of their work before others could freely copy and improve on it, walt disney screwed it all up by pushing for copyrights to be extended far beyond what's reasonable. I doesn't prevent the free exchange of ideas but it slows it down some.
Quote from: "Whitney"What about copyrighted material existing prevents the free exchange of ideas any more than it does in the "real world" and what about the internet entitles it to supersede established law?
Quote from: "TheJackel"Quote from: "DJAkuma"If I remember right the original intent of copyrighting was so that one could have a few years to profit off of their work before others could freely copy and improve on it, walt disney screwed it all up by pushing for copyrights to be extended far beyond what's reasonable. I doesn't prevent the free exchange of ideas but it slows it down some.So you are saying that companies ought to be willing to give up their property ownership to you, as well as be limited by your standards as to how much they can make on a product? I didn't realize this was a Pirate Theocracy.. And far I can tell, a lot of software like games are mod friendly to which come with mod tools. It's irrelevant if you think X-product needs or doesn't need improvement as that is not an argument. I don't see anything beyond reasonable here.
Quote from: "DJAkuma"If I remember right the original intent of copyrighting was so that one could have a few years to profit off of their work before others could freely copy and improve on it, walt disney screwed it all up by pushing for copyrights to be extended far beyond what's reasonable. I doesn't prevent the free exchange of ideas but it slows it down some.
QuoteGeneric drugs only become available when the original manufacturerâ€™s patent expires. Drug companies are granted â€œpatentsâ€ on new drugs they discover or invent. A patent gives the company a monopoly for up to 20 years â€" during that time no one else can sell that drug. This does not mean, however, that drug companies actually get a full twenty years to sell the drug. They usually apply for a patent early in the process of developing a new drug. Only after the FDA has approved the drug can the company sell it. This usually takes at least a few years after the company has gotten its patent. So the real amount of time that a drug company can be the only one selling a new drug is less than 20 years. http://www.genericsarepowerful.org/learn?id=0011
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Yeah, but if I bought a bus ticket, I would expect to able to do what I want with it.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PMIn Asmo's grey lump, wrath and dark clouds gather force.Luxembourg trembles.
Quote from: "Asmodean"Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Yeah, but if I bought a bus ticket, I would expect to able to do what I want with it.And as a ticket holder is not at liberty to drive the bus or tune it or unscrew things or make blueprints to copy it, so is a CD buyer not at liberty to do those things with the information on the disk. The disk itself, however, is the metaphorical bus ticket, with which you can do what you want.
Quote from: "Stevil"Lack of intellictual property rights stifles innovation and removes incentive to produce a quality product.As file "sharing" gets more and more common we will find movies becoming only b-grade, we will find less and less quality musicians and bands.
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Actually, I am at liberty to do those things. The only thing that's stopping me is a law that rarely ever gets enforced.
Quote from: "Asmodean"You are at liberty to do whatever you want, even be it prohibited by the law, but using that liberty, you also forfeit the right to whine when the enforcers come to collect, no..?
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Nope. I can still whine if I want to. I'd just look like a damn fool.
Quote1. What is piracy?In this context piracy refers to copyright infringement, not to trademark violation,robbery committed at sea or counterfeiting.2. Pirates only want content for free!This is a common misconception about the piracy movement. Pirates are not againstartists getting support by buying their content, but the argument pirates made thatit should not be forced by the law.Pirates encourage consumers to support content producers, but they also want the sum of humanculture to be freely available to everyone. Information is a special resource in a way, since onceit is made it can be copied to everyone at basically zero cost. This is the reason that it can beeconomically shared to everyone, and there is no real reason to use the old scarcity based economicalmodels. Pirates have noticed that as technologies progress, so must laws, and a law based on thetechnological level of the Middle Ages does not make sense in the modern information age.3. Piracy is a form of communism, which has been "proven not to work".It is a fallacy to claim that anything which sounds like communism must therefore to be wrong,but in any case pirates are not generally communists. Pirate ideology attracts support from all sides of thepolitical spectrum. Pirates are also not against authors receiving compensation for their works,we actually encourage it! Many content producers have noticed that by supporting piracytheir profits have increased, since piracy is free advertising for them.The idea of communism is not related to information, since that can be copied to everyoneand no invidividual is losing resources because of this sharing. In a broader sense, communismis an economic structure where the state owns the means of production, which is not a goalin the piracy movement.4. Immaterial rights don't matter.There is a clear global trend, that information and 'intellectual property' is becoming moreand more important to the economy. Also, the development of technology is enabling people toto consume and produce more content than ever before. At the same time, various copyright organizationsare trying to fight the piracy movement as a threat to their profits, by throwing students into jailand sueing single parents.5. If piracy is legal, content producers won't get paid.According to a Canadian study, those who illegally download alot of music also buy it more.The study concludes that for every 12 downloaded songs, music purchases increase by0.44 CDs. Many downloaders have said that they simply want to preview their musicbefore purchase, and buy it if the CD turns out to be one they like.6. Piracy is stealing.Piracy is not technically nor legally stealing. Piracy is about copying information,it is not taking away anything from anyone. Legally speaking piracy is copyright infringement,which has no connection to stealing. It is also false that people who pirate never buy content,since according a recent study people who download a lot of music tend to also buy it a lot.Also, the argument was crafted through the use of propaganda, by calling copyrights and similarconcepts intellectual property. Since people understand the theft of property as morally wrong,the pro-copyright people wanted to equate piracy as theft,to make it look bad or morally wrong. In reality however,copyright is not 'intellectual property', but a monopoly created to prevent the freedom to make copies.7. Art would die if all copying would be legalized.Content producers can make money using the same exact ways as they used to,by selling the content, using advertising, selling fan-products and so on.In the future digital distribution will increase if people are given what theydemand (DRM-free products!), and studies have shown that piracy does not decreaseprofits.One study found that those who download music illegally buy 10 times more musicthan those who don't.Also, there exists millions of artists who do not create art for the purposeof making profit, but to express themselves, and release it for free for the publicto enjoy. Besides, in many countries (or in the past), internet downloading wascompletely legal, and it didn't stop people from buying music and movies, andincreased penalties and legislation has not decreased piracy at all, and whenpiracy has gone up profits have not gone down either.8. How does legalizing copying help arts?It helps the culture, since the more it is shared the more people can enjoy it,because currently they can afford only limited amount of it. It also makes it possiblefor the masses to use this content, create new remixes and mash-ups from it and thereforecreate new culture.9. Internet piracy costs the industry billions of dollars every year.Large corporations tend to calculate how many copies of their work has been downloaded,then simply claim that each of those downloads is counted as a "lost sale". This has twoproblems. Firstly, many people preview something by first downloading it, and then buyingit if they like the product. Secondly, most of these downloads are by people who wouldn'thave bought them in the first place. Hollywood profits have been steadily increasing evenwhen internet piracy has increased.10. Copyright is a form of human right.No it isn't: the freedom to earn money from your work is a human right, but you don't need copyrightfor that. Copyright restricts your right to do what you want with things you've bought - it's not aright, it's a restriction of rights.11. Without copyright there is no incentive to create content.Open source, mash-ups, youtube, community projects, Star Wreck, creative commons, etc.It is absolutely wrong to say that people wouldn't produce content without profiting,and besides, getting rid of copyright does not mean the end of commercial content producing.The western world produces about 1000 free songs per day, which is probably comparableto the amount of commercial music produced, if not more.12. Pirates are freeloaders who do not buy content.Studies  have shown that those who download a lot of music, also tend to buy it a lot.The myth that pirates are criminals who only 'steal' content has been constructed byvarious copyright organizations out of fear from piracy.13. Pirates are the reason Hollywood has declining profits.People often assume that piracy is the reason for declining profitsin the entertainment industry, but the facts tell a different story.In fact, in the year 2007 Hollywood reported a record breaking year for the movie industry.14. Piratism is illegal, therefore it is wrong.It is a fallacy to claim that if something is illegal, therefore it is morally wrong.There has been laws against freedom of speech, against blasphemy or homosexuality, buta modern society generally accepts these things. Even if it were the case that breaking the lawin itself is wrong, it is not an argument against the piracy movement. Our aim is not to encouragelaw-breaking, but to change the laws itself.15. Pirates are young people who don't understand how the society really works.Piracy movement is mainly supported by youth for the simple reason that they are the peoplemost affected by the copyright legislation. Older people use new technology less, and the youthhave also grown-up during the Internet age, where people took it for granted that information couldbe shared and edited to create new information.16. Pirates just consume content but never produce it.A main point in the piracy ideology is that it is not acceptable to protect the "rights" of the minorityof content producers by breaking the rights like privacy and freedom of speech from the majority.However, the assumption that no content producers support piracy is wrong. Content producers frommusicians like Trent Reznor to the creators of South Park support piracy.There also exists a huge indie community of video,music and game/software creators that releases their contentfor free.17. Analyzing internet traffic to detect piracy is okay if you don't break the law.In every case when a new privacy breaching law is proposed, the argument is alwayspresented that if you don't break the law you have nothing to fear. The problem withthis argument is that it allows the state to monitor everything from private communicationsto private life. A core argument for piracy is that to prevent it, in practice a totalitarianBig-Brother state is needed, and we are obviously against that. "The rights of" the copyright holdersmust never interfere with basic human rights such as the right to privacy. If the ISP's are forcedto install some basic packet inspecting technology at a high cost, pirates simply move to an encryptedP2P-network in an never-ending arms-race.18. New technology is not a reason to change laws.New technology has been a powerful force in changing laws in the past.For example, it used to be the case that property extented infinitely upwards from the land,but since the introduction of airplanes that law was obviously has to be changed, since it would'vebeen impractical to ask permission from the thousands of landowners every flight.We can use Moore's law to project the development of technology in the future, and it a few decadesyou can buy an mp3-player that has enough disk space to hold every single song ever made, and wirelesslytransmit it to everyone around you. In this situation the only real way to prevent copyright infringementis to implement a totalitarian big brother society, and even that will make it difficult to prevent piracyin the future. The next generation of p2p-networks like Freenet  will be totally encrypted,completely decentralized and it will be difficult to know who is sending what, orwhere the files are even coming from.19. Why don't you create a political party then?We have done that with great frequency. Also check PP-International.20. Artists should have rights too.The current copyright law is effective at restricting the creation of new art,since remixes and mash-ups can be illegal. One example is the illegal album The Grey Album,made by Danger Mouse (of Gnarls Barkley). In a free society, people would have the right tocreate new content by using old content.21. No artist supports piracy.Content producers from musicians like Trent Reznorand novelist Paulo Coelho to the creators of South Park support piracy.Alex Jones, an American radio host also advocates his fans to burn DVDs and distribute them for free. Michael Moore said after the leak of his movie: "I'm just happy that people get to see my movies.I'm not a big supporter of the copyright laws in this country...I don't understand bands or filmmakers...who oppose sharing, hav[ing] their work being shared by people, because it only increases your fanbase" .Sources:1. EFF: Hollywood's Record Year Shows MPAA's Piracy Folly2. The Impact of Music Downloads and P2P File-Sharing on the Purchase of Music: A Study for Industry Canada3. Nails frontman urges fans to steal music4. South Park Libertarians5. The Freenet Project6. Alchemist Author Pirates His Own Books7. Study: Free Music Downloaders Buy 10 Times More Music8. Alex Jones Tv 1/5:Open Phone Lines, 2:009. MTV.com, Michael Moore Brushes Off 'Sicko' Leakbh, retrieved 2007-07-12Last updated on 12.4.2010Questions? Comments? Email piracy (at) piracyfaq.com or nawitus (at) gmail.comThis site is released as public domain without any copyright, excluding the comment section.You may copy, distribute, modify, print or sell the contents of this page in any way, excluding the comment section, and the image banners.
Quote from: "Asmodean"Point 21: Yeah... And I can find a dozen names of artists who do NOT support piracy. You can not show a general trend with a few examples. You need statistics, the verified variety.