What´s about protected internet hääää? you should get access, are you out of your mind. fuck you. oh you ll see what the future will bring you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcP3V9bgUoI

“Emily of the State” a Canadian parody about the government snooping on citizens online.

This is the ultimate nightmare that we all most struggle against.

Please, neo, FFS. If you’re going to try and educate us poor ignorant fools, at least try and know what the hell you are talking about.

1> Theft: I deprive you of property, such that you no longer posess it.

2> Copyright infingement: I distribute a likeness of a work that you control distribution rights over.

1> Is a crime. I can be imprisoned for it.
2> Is not a crime. I can be sued for it.

Copyright infringement != Theft.

Stop stealing language.

Seriously, welcome back. I was really starting to worry we wouldn’t see your special kind of anti-logic around here any more. Often impersonated, but never convincingly.

I’ve been trying to put myself into your mindframe, the same way criminal profilers do with terrorists and perverts.

I think, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that you believe that society will be made to see the error of its ways. If that cannot happen by enforcing your views on morality, then it shall be decreed by technology and law.

And so I went on a journey to see how that could happen. How could one force the vast majority of the population to ignore common sense and conform to the wishes of dying business cartels?

It would certainly take legislation; to the point that would make a totalitarist regime blush. Every computer would have to become a state-authourised ‘network access point’. You’d have to log on with a fingerprint or retina scan. Logging on for someone else would be an imprisonable offence. God forbid, don’t even MENTION unsigned code. Linux would become a death sentence.

And then common sense kicked in.

The internet is not the wild west. Stuff that really needs protecting – banking, corporate VPNs, eCommerce – they’re doing just fine. It takes constant vigilence, but they are, and will continue to be, adequately protected.

The reason media is so universally pirated is because, as a basic instinct, society does not value it to that kind of level. It’s a commodity. You turn on the tap, you get water. You turn on the internet, you get music. Or films, or software, or eBooks… Try and change this and you will be opposed at every turn.

Faced with this kind of threat, people do not seek to change the law. They seek to change technology. And they’re better, quicker and smarter about it than you are. Or for that matter, the lawmakers.

You are seriously in the minority in your hopes here.

Not quite. Property rights protect the individual ONLY because the majority of the people agrees that property rights should be there. This majority of the people however could care less about your business model; your ‘property right’ does not have a basis in realism because most people regard your position on the matter to be absurd.

__

yes you are. you couldn’t care less about the content creators.
__

Pretty much everyone cares for the content creators. They are, after all, the band or people that the listener really likes. People who we DO NOT care about include but are not limited to:
- Label companies
- Corporate Executives
- RIAA
- RIAA
- RIAA
- etc.

__

This convoluted, unproven system is not the answer.
__

There’s plenty of cases where bands are able to succesfully launch an album based on donations. You probably lack the willingness to investigate this due to your ideological background. In any case, better to have a system that might work then one that clearly doesn’t work at all, correct?

__

The public does not have a right to distribute other people’s copyrighted work. this is a right that does not exist. please stop citing imaginary rights based on nothing. thanks!
__

Yes they do. Something that can be shared infinitely and effortly for non-profit and philantropical reasons should rightfully be done so by the public. The right to freedom of information DOES exist. In any case, it does not matter whether or not it exists. The internet is a place where all material CAN be shared because that is the very nature of it. Either deal with it or gtfo. If you try to destroy or corrupt the net, then yes you make people your enemy because the people ARE the net. That’s why sharing is pretty popular nowadays. Not because it is free but because sharing allows people to share ideas, information and culture with eachother. If you cannot respect that, then we cannot respect you.

The problem is that copyright takes away the rights of the public to favour a minority.

so does EVERY property right. what’s your point? that it’s bad? grow up.

i am not against creators being paid

yes you are. you couldn’t care less about the content creators.

but there are other ways to do that, one of which is the pledge system. the creator declares what they want to do and how much they want to do it. the public at large can then make pledges.

this convoluted, unproven system is not the answer.

there are other ways as well. and probably many that haven’t been thought of. but we need ways that don’t take away the publics rights

the public does not have a right to
distribute other people’s copyrighted work. this is a right that does not exist. please stop citing imaginary rights based on nothing. thanks!