Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Jun 2011 18:51 UTC
Internet & Networking It's official now. The signs had been there for a while now. While the west bangs on about the importance of freedom and democracy, they don't actually want anyone to have too much of it. The US, France, and the UK have jointly pretty much declared war on freedom on the web.
Thread beginning with comment 476801
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Goofy duffas.
by pantheraleo on Fri 10th Jun 2011 15:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Goofy duffas."
pantheraleo
Member since:
2007-03-07

You must be trolling.


I'm not trolling. I just don't know why he couldn't give a straight answer to what is a very straight forward question.

Fighting file sharing is the worse one because you really can't win and you just adding the resources of the massive, massive file sharing group against you.


If we allow file sharing of copyrighted material and don't prosecute it at all, it would be disastrous. I'm both a developer, and a published author. And I would simply stop doing both if file sharing were so rampant that I could't make any money doing them anymore. I'd love to do them both for free and simply give away my work. I really would. But unfortunately, those who think all software, music, etc. should be free don't seem to realize that housing and food is not free. If housing and food were free, I'd be more than happy to simply give away all my work. But again, if file sharing of copyrighted works were legal and was not subject to prosecution, pretty soon all the file sharers would find themselves with nothing to share when the game companies and such simply stopped creating new games because it was no longer profitable to do so.

Edited 2011-06-10 15:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Goofy duffas.
by jabjoe on Fri 10th Jun 2011 17:02 in reply to "RE[4]: Goofy duffas."
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

Sorry, but it was a troll argument.

You may well be against file sharing, but I bet you have, or still do, do it. Even if you deny it, I probably won't believe you. It's sometimes hard not to when the legit stuff is broken with DRM. I know very few who can who don't file-share/copy ever. Which invalidates them arguing for the current system. Copyright is a massive bag of worms that needs carefully tackling. Large sections of populations break the existing laws, and the existing laws are at least often seen not to serve their purpose, which was to encourage innovation. Copyleft however, seems to be a good model for innovation. Scrapping copyright (and thus copyleft) isn't a solution I support, but I do think the whole thing needs looking at. Perhaps the best thing to do is change the term it applies, and certainly not by making it longer. I also wonder if it's right a lone photographer has the same copyright laws as a massive transnational corporation. It's a massive can of worms, but what we have is broken and the massive transnational corporations are pushing governments to maintain it or even break it further.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Goofy duffas.
by pantheraleo on Fri 10th Jun 2011 17:29 in reply to "RE[5]: Goofy duffas."
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Sorry, but it was a troll argument.


No, it was not.

You may well be against file sharing, but I bet you have, or still do, do it.


Nope. I don't. It's not my problem whether you believe me or not. All of my music is purchased from either iTunes or Amazon. All of the software I have is legitimately licensed, or is open source. And I don't download torrents of movies.

I know very few who can who don't file-share/copy ever.


Again, whether believe me or not. I'm telling you the truth. I don't file-share / copy unless it is something that I am legally entitled to copy. As an author and developer myself, I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I supported copyright infringement.

There are definitely some blatant attempts at abusing copyright law. I agree. I'm a member of the Author's Guild. But I strongly opposed their attempts at forcing public libraries to pay royalties each time they loan a book. I saw that as highly destructive because it would have forced a lot of public libraries to close (many of which already operate on shoe-string budgets). And ensuring the children and the under-privileged have access to quality reading materials is more important than making a few extra bucks off royalties.

I also strongly opposed their legal action against Amazon when they claimed the text to speech capabilities of the Kindle violated copyright law, since I believed making more reading material accessible to the blind trumped any copyright concerns that might exist. And it was difficult me to see how the text to speech would have been harmful anyway. After all, it would have made books that weren't currently accessible to the blind much more easily accessible, and probably helped, rather than harmed sales.

So yes, I agree that there are some blatant attempts at abusing copyright law out there. But I do not think Copyleft is the answer. Almost everything that is licensed under a copyleft license really isn't all that innovative. Most of the time it just duplicates the functionality, often in a half baked way, of existing commercial copyrighted solutions. There are a few exceptions, sure. But there are very few actual "copylefted" products out there that support the idea that it fosters innovation.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Goofy duffas.
by pantheraleo on Fri 10th Jun 2011 17:40 in reply to "RE[5]: Goofy duffas."
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Sorry, but it was a troll argument.

[q]You may well be against file sharing, but I bet you have, or still do, do it.


Ok. I take that back. There is one thing that I do that is technically a copyright violation. I download SNES ROMs. But given that the game publishers don't even sell those cartridges anymore, and I *can't* buy them, that's one of those areas where I think copyright law is abused. It's not hurting the publishers if I download the ROMs because they don't even sell them anymore. So it's not even possible for me to buy them from the publishers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Goofy duffas.
by jabbotts on Sat 11th Jun 2011 15:53 in reply to "RE[4]: Goofy duffas."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Ah.. so it's not about child abuse, you just chose to bring that up out of the blue for laughs.

As for the use of DRM:

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/drm-is-counterproductive/...

Reply Parent Score: 2