What people are ignorant of is that the original intent of copyright protection was to allow the actual creator of intellectual property to have an opportunity to recover his or her investment of time and money needed to create said property plus a REASONABLE profit within their lifetime. After that time such property was to enter “the public domain” allowing the advancement of knowledge and competition.
Corporations never “die” and often stifle the advancement of a given art and competition in order to gain a monopoly that promotes excessive pricing and destroys competition, development and the advancement of any given art.

Most people expect someone else to “save them (the public)” from those who exploit political systems. That “someone else” is often the same “someone” who created, contributed or profited the problem in the first place!

Since politicians will never allow a REAL reformer to run for office it is up to the public to learn how to correct (lawfully) this problem.

Aside from keeping the “turnover” of politicians high (never vote for an incumbent) another tool (curiously not taught in government regulated schools) is JURY NULLIFICATION!

The original function of GRAND JURIES was to indite and prosecute agents of the KING for acts against people which they themselves had made “legal” for such “agents” to commit!

JURY NULLIFICATION of the KINGS LAWS used against people who refused to follow such “laws” (color of law – appearance of legitimacy) was a check against the abuse of power by government and its agents.

All this originated in the early 13th century and has almost been erased from history by these same “agents of government” today!

A basic “maxim” (truth) in law is that any law which violates the rights of the public or individuals is invalid from the moment of its inception!

Another truth is that if one is found to lie then everything said and done by that individual should be suspect and first treated as lie until proven otherwise!

We all know “that politicians never lie! (sic)” and since most “laws” have been hidden inside of “concealment legislation” they (“laws”) too must be judged as invalid in substance, content and intent!

“I’m saying most of the “down with copyright” crowd want to hide behind their anonymity to do whatever they want without repercussion. Life doesn’t work that way. Every action has a consequence, legal or otherwise.”

Yes, life doesn’t work that way. If you equal anonimity to privacy, which is a very fair comparison, I can’t do whatever I want inside the privacy of my house without expecting repercussion. I can’t assault members of my family inside my house just because I can do it privately. They have every right to charge me for assault. And I must submit to penalty after due process. HOWEVER, I do have a presumed and a legal right for privacy inside my own home for every matter, EVERY matter, and I CAN do unlawful activity inside my house and not expect to be caught. And the state does not have grant to surveil every house just because of this potential for crime coming from people’s privacy (remember the Big Brother). Moreover, I may do these things because I want to act criminaly, but I may also do these things because I do not agree with the laws that make these acts criminal. Internet, in the same manner as houses, works to let their users have some degree of privacy in the way of anonymity if so they wish. It is a presumed right, but it’s not clearly a legal one, and that’s where the problem begins. Criminal copyright monopolies are actively working in this uncertain area to bring more and more repressive laws and surveilance to the Internet, to turn it into a huge Big Brother where they can wiretap anyone and everyone for their own profit. Not only does this go against the presumed right for anonymity on the internet (which is what a lot of people are fighting for, not the right to “do whatever they want”), this would also turn the digital, Internet-connected society into a censored, unsafe and fear mongering one, completely disrespecting fundamental rights we ought to enjoy in the Internet as well, ALL TO THE PROFIT of these copyright monopolies that don’t want to brainstorm a bit and change their current profit model. The “down with copyright” crowd isn’t going against laws that could very rightfully benefit creation, inovation and a better society because we want to do whatever we want. No, we are going against those that wish to use these laws to impart their will on everyone else, and not even because they have a moral superiority to do so. They’d do this just to have more profit.

“Members of society do not have the right to choose to do what they want when it violates the law. You can be opposed to copyright all you want, but saying copyright violation isn’t immoral doesn’t make it not immoral.”

Members of society do have the right to choose to do what they want when it violates a law that is not moral or that does not contribute to the morals and betterment of society. Let me give you a very easy to understand example: There are some states in the USA that forbid sodomy. Ok, sodomy was probably considered and immoral behaviour when these laws came to be and that’s fine. However, nowadays it is not, and if my girlfriend wishes to be sodomized and I sodomize her, I am not going against any moral imperative of CURRENT society, nor am I commiting a violent crime, or a crime with victims. Yes, I am commiting a crime, that goes against a backwards and immoral law that should be reversed for the good everyone. Perhaps there could be a movement to make sodomy legal in every state in the US, and they would face opposition from those who still think sodomy is immoral and should be illegal. Same as with what we face when we are fighting for reasonable intellectual property laws. And in the same manner that a couple sued because of consentual sodomy, we also have the moral imperative and superiority to contest the actual laws, both the way they current are, and the way the corporations are shaping them to be. We are not saying current intellectual property laws are immoral just because we can. We are saying it because they ARE immoral, because we can show everyone who wants to listen WHY they are immoral and we can discuss alternatives that aren’t immoral and that we firmly believe will contribute to a much, open, free, creative, thinking, critic and overall much better society than what we have today and are heading to, if nothing is done to stop this.

So you go fuck yourself when you say all of us want to do whatever we want and aren’t any better than the corporations we’re against. We have the moral superiority, we have need to fight for our fundamental rights and we’re not going to submit everyone else into a police state just because we want to “have profit”, if you’d like to equal filesharing to having profit. I hope you now understand the difference between fundamental rights, crime, laws and where morals ought to go in this debate.

And go fuck yourself.

They also had a great deal of open sewage upstream. And slaves. And objects known as women. Forced religion, inbred royalty, and an aversion to many sciences. You can go ahead and keep those as well.

I was just mentioning to someone the other night how broken our Constitution is. It’s basically impossible to impeach a president now, because of how apathetic the majority of our populace is. Nothing to do with corruption or process, our society has had it so good for so long that we are too lazy to make changes.

Thomas Jefferson called it all. He definitely is the smartest of the Founding Fathers.

Members of society do not have the right to choose to do what they want when it violates the law. You can be opposed to copyright all you want, but saying copyright violation isn’t immoral doesn’t make it not immoral. As I said, people like you justify to yourselves so you don’t have to deal with the fact that you are thieves.

You currently have the right to use any copyrighted material in any personal, non-public way you see fit. I oppose any change to that. So I readily admit that there are things about the copyright laws and the system that need to be addressed. But as it is, you have the right to use the physical property you bought, NOT the content on it. You bought the disc, you can do whatever you want WITH THE DISC, not with the content on the disc. It’s that simple. You bought the tape, you didn’t buy the disc. SO YOU DON’T HAVE A DISC. That’s how it works, and it sounds perfectly fair to me. Besides, it isn’t like transferring it to disc gives you better quality. It’s still no better than the source. The only thing you avoid is the miniscule drop in quality from each playback. If you want to avoid that, YOU PAY TO PURCHASE A BETTER MEDIUM. Because THAT is your right (just as it is my right to decide whether or not I will charge you for an upgrade). You also have the right not to repurchase it if you don’t want to “buy it again.” But that choice has a consequence: You cannot legally own the property on any other medium. Such is life. Choice, consequence. Deal with it.

And thievery, anarchy — those are not innovations. I have absolutely no respect for people who believe they are. You don’t like the law? Change it! That’s what due process is for. And when you change it, make it fair to everyone (including the people who produce copyrighted material and those who consume it). That is what I support, not the people who only care about being able to do whatever they want regardless of how it affects others.

http://www.UnambitiousUs.com – The Online Magazine for Time Wasters

Movies, Games and Sports – now with YouTube Clip of the Day!
Get your own stuff published!
No ads, no bs.