-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Pirate Party UK
- Thread starter Tsunamie
- Start date
Th1sWasATriumph said:
Well, in this case would it not be the rights of the few for the everyone else? Also, it's not there right by definition. We know from past systems that you can train people to do these jobs from any background. Some people are more adept at the job then others but give me a kid from Africa living in squaller and a good education system and he;'s better then the typical "Chav" on our street.
As for the justification question, is this not what politicians do on a daily basis? They remove your rights to privacy under the guess that they are protecting you. However our legal system implies due course yet anti terrorist laws implementation means that they assume you to be guilty unless proven innocent.
So either way that statement can also be applied to the enforcers of copyright law. Given that a person on the other side of the planet could have come up with the same idea, even thow he is complete isolated from you. The original creator of the idea. Much like Darwin and the fact that th theory of evolution sprang up all around the world.
Th1sWasATriumph said:
Thats a by product, much like our NHS system and how it works now. The concept is that information is suppose to be free. Much like free information services I am sure you use every single day. The core ideals held behind the reforms the PPI want to put forward are socialist in nature. You can see this tone in the link below concerning abolishing patent rights and how the system has been shown to work very well.
Th1sWasATriumph said:
Tried looking for the article on the BBC web-page but could not find it again. However I have been told by friends that the article was simply highlighting the success different musical schools which was teaching people how to be professional musicians. (IE the school's in London started off as a bunch of musicians who pooled there money to build a professional studio that they would use to produce there own music,)
The irony here is that if the abolishment of patents was pushed through. The monopoly on the electronic equipment that costs $20,000 would no longer exist and that the equipment would be manufacture at rock bottom prices.
This relates quiet well, given that your implication that human nature is unchangeable or unmanageable. History is riddled with our cultural evolution. We learn not to do things when we suffer the consequences of the action. In this case, we know greed is good in small doses, as it's apart of our survival instinct. We also know that greed in large quantities is incredibly harmful. As most corruption in government is caused by greed, obesity and wastefulness is a byproduct of greed. The list goes on.Th1sWasATriumph said:
So far I have mainly confronted the monetary value of argument. You have issues with the model I have put forward? Show me the issue's you see in the model? After all, is it not in yours interest and mine to have a system that appeases as many people as possible? And here is the grip for you, a democracy is based on the opinion of the many. If many feel that they should not buy art, they can vote to have laws in order to bring that into effect. I already understand the overall negative effects of complete abolishment. There is a thread on the UK board where I have to defend the current manifesto against people that want to change the word reform to abolishment. Even if I want abolishment, I must have a good reason for it, ergo the current debate with you.
You seem to be promoting the status quo, which is something I disagree with. I do feel these ideals are for our best interest not only as a nation but as a species. I maybe idealistic, but I don't see that as fault since I am also pragmatic about the current situation. I don't assume the world will be suddenly a peaceful heaven where scientists are pushing the boundaries of knowledge and we all happy like on Star Trek universe. However I don't think it's out of our reach to get there and I would rather spend my life building the step that takes us there than stare at that utopia from a distance.
Digitised,
I ahve already discussed this matter and shown that not to be the case.
http://www.piratpartiet.se/an_alternative_to_pharmaceutical_patents
Shapeshifter
New Member
By the way:
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-wins-and-enters-the-european-parliament-090607/
I haven't made up my mind yet about these pirate parties. It's clear that many of their patent and copyright abolishment plans are way over the top. The point is, piracy is not the only thing they stand for. For example, in Germany the government passed a law that forbids the use and posession of linux tools like nmap. This shows, that the ones deciding things that have an impact on information technology business, have no idea whatsoever what they are talking about. The law was nicknamed the "hacker law" because e.g. nmap is a tool that is used to perform port scans to check for vulnerabilities. nmap is a vital tool for any serious server admin to check the system for leaks. Those computer illiterates who decide on matter like these should not be allowed to do so. Now everytime I travel to Germany with my lap top, on which I have nmap installed, it makes me a criminal. What a joke. The point I was getting at is that the pirate party consists of many technology-versed people. It really wouldn't hurt for some computer experts to take a seat in the government... Fact is that information technology works differently in many ways opposed to classical business. Copyleft, freedom of software patents - all those things have proven good for the information business. The thing many "pirates" seem to misunderstand is that what works for software, doesn't necessarily work on medicine or other technology and research.
edit: About nmap, it's the same as if you would forbid the use of knives in the kitchen, because you can also kill people using them.
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-wins-and-enters-the-european-parliament-090607/
I haven't made up my mind yet about these pirate parties. It's clear that many of their patent and copyright abolishment plans are way over the top. The point is, piracy is not the only thing they stand for. For example, in Germany the government passed a law that forbids the use and posession of linux tools like nmap. This shows, that the ones deciding things that have an impact on information technology business, have no idea whatsoever what they are talking about. The law was nicknamed the "hacker law" because e.g. nmap is a tool that is used to perform port scans to check for vulnerabilities. nmap is a vital tool for any serious server admin to check the system for leaks. Those computer illiterates who decide on matter like these should not be allowed to do so. Now everytime I travel to Germany with my lap top, on which I have nmap installed, it makes me a criminal. What a joke. The point I was getting at is that the pirate party consists of many technology-versed people. It really wouldn't hurt for some computer experts to take a seat in the government... Fact is that information technology works differently in many ways opposed to classical business. Copyleft, freedom of software patents - all those things have proven good for the information business. The thing many "pirates" seem to misunderstand is that what works for software, doesn't necessarily work on medicine or other technology and research.
edit: About nmap, it's the same as if you would forbid the use of knives in the kitchen, because you can also kill people using them.
Th1sWasATriumph
New Member
Tsunamie said:
Utterly, utterly incorrect. You don't NEED to listen to music, or watch films, or all the kinds of mainly recreational media that are the main target of torrent sites and illegal downloads. It is your choice. So why should the artist give up their rights because people like you want it for free? It's not something you require for life, it's not something you desperately need, it's a consumer product. You choose to enjoy it, you damn well pay the artist for their time.
It's NOT the rights of the few for everyone else. If you want to enjoy art, you give some respect to the people supplying it. After all, you have a choice. You don't HAVE to listen to music, watch films, use software et al. But if you want to . . . pay up.
That is no different to the arguments used by Muslims . . . "You think we're bad? Look at christians!" So, because my government is a bit fucked, that makes it fine for other parties to have lax morals? I am discussing YOUR party. Not theirs.
Ah, neatly encapsulating the entirety of human endeavour into "information", avoiding any of the niggling subdivisions. Maybe "information" should be free . . . but should entertainment? Well, according to you it should be. Mainly because you have a personal view of how things ideally should be even if it alienates the majority of the creative community.
So now it's not communes . . . it's schools? Which, of course, you have to pay to benefit from. It's still exchange of money for services, which seemingly is what you want to escape.
HOW? Who would do these things?
So now greed is good, up until the cutoff point that you decide? Why are you unable to see that the consequences of YOUR actions, and of the PP, would be stagnation of the creative industries? People don't download stuff for free as some kind of statement. They download for free because they CAN, easily and practically untraceably, and then try to retrofit a moral stance to this theft. Artists provide a service that should be paid for, as it's their JOB. Your explanations are simply incoherent when pitted against reality.
Meh. That is, of course, your opinion and nothing more. I don't think you really understand how it will affect the people whose rights you are attempting to dissolve.
Shapeshifter -
There is true. There is also another side of this which frustrates me. I was recently in the conversation on IRC concerning the method of publicizing the issue of laws that harm knowledge/cultural advancement. The main issue we have come to is the follow.
Pirate Party is seen by most as a bunch of people that want things for free. (Free content to the user) This is true in some cases, since the PPI actually want to get ride of copyright and patents and replace it with things like CCL or GNU. Which are models that show creative getting paid. However some of the leadership of the other PP have made a suggestion. Create an ambiguous image, however have firm locked down policies with research studies proving the change in laws work. This means perpetuate an negative image that gets media attention to get our name out there. Then simply inform the person once they are interested or concerned about what we are doing. You see, a little of me died in the conversation as the talk became more about the politics and less about how we can structure the law to be fair to all. It also creates a mis-understanding with people like Joe as they keep spewing out the same thing over and over again about creative people not getting paid as demonstrated above in the previous posts. Model's such as copyright "flat rate" or ISP based levies on content have also been tested.
Examples of such models have been listened to by media groups and they are testing these things out.
http://www.drmwatch.com/ocr/article.php/3738481
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/05/11/the-world-is-going-flat-rate/#money
These are only a few of the other models I elicited to. I kept harping on about hyper distribution because thats currently in use. China and India are promoters of such technology which is currently driving there ISP/telecommunication services. Most famously the TV over IP services which are several decades a head of the UK. BT are currently testing such system and don't expect to even roll out until 2014.
Let me however make this very clear, there are pitfalls to all the systems proposed at the moment. You gain one thing and lose another. The primary reason or ideology behind the reason for copyright reform or patent abolishment is simple. It has to many harmful effects compared to the other models. It is also subject to abuse and harms nations economies because it hampers small business start ups. I am more then happy to also go into length on how the model also address large cooperation taking over manufacturing process due to the ability to purchase raw material on a cheap basis. (IE. There are several ways this can be prevented. Tax breaks for new start ups and so on)
All in all, I am unhappy to some extent with some of the PP's members and leaders in other national parties because of there stance on the ambiguity they intend to spread to get attention. However, in the next 3-4 months I have been told the PPUK will drop the practice if the ends are not met. The Machiavellian philosophy of "the ends justify the means" has been applied and if they get results. I guess I will have to just sit down and shut up. Luckily most people in the UK seem to be aware of the effect the DMCA has on free speech, probably due to the recent MP expenses scandal.
1>The companies have painted the entire things of intellectual property with the same brush.
a> Music, movies (media), these are things that can be produced for free to the consumer. This does not mean that money can not be made from it. This choice is made due to the measures that would be required to enforce prosecution of people that break the law. It changes the law to assume guilt over innocents. For me the choice is that we either move to a state like China where every packet is inspected (which in itself kills off free speech) or we move to a free form (which is less regulation on information).
b> Software is listed under patents, There are web-pages detailing why EU has been resisting external forces for the UK to enforce this - http://www.softwarepatents.co.uk/intro/no_software_patents.html
Medical patents and concept patents (example for business models) are also similarly harmful. Pat
Patents have been clearly abused and cause a large amount of harm to our social and technological development.
Err... no. I am discussing what the government has to do in order to enforce the desire for creative material to be profited from by an economy. I then outline my case to state that these rules and enforcements have an overall negative effect on the nations economy because of the restrictions that would have to be put in place. I then state that the alternatives that have been presented so far generally entail the consumer to pay through different means or the money for the product comes from different source. All in all, I feel I have conveyed that point quiet clearly given that I have now mentioned 3 different models which one of them the media companies themselves are now looking into and testing.
PS. I have the opinion that there isn't really an morals in this debate when talking about copyright. A few posts ago you were some how justifying corporate greed and stating that it's unrealistic or near impossible to change human nature (or in short excessive greed).
Well, the let me be frank here. I pay for a lot of media that I consume (I consume a lot of Chinese/Japanese media). As an activist for the PP, I can not promote illegal downloading, nor can I be prosecuted for illegal downloading. As explained earlier, the effect of enforcing the laws to few specific monopolies for personal gain I am more than happy to Alienate them if it means that algorithms that are patented by a small software house is preventing scientists at CERN from being able to create more advanced technology. I only debate about the copyright side of things because your intent on trying to justify excessive greed. Or justify a system that allows excessive greed to occur. I personal more intrested not in the monetary value, however the technological gains and cultural gains. You have kept you debate in the realm of artists. This is apart of culture, it is not the primary reason for culture. Like you said, entertainment is optional, I go to cinema's because I want to have a massive 50 meter screen in front of me which I can't fit in my house and I want to feel the foot steps of the dinosaur under my seat.
Culture more than just entertainment, are you trying to justify restrictions for one industry which effects so many others for a monetary value?
Err no. I do not want to simply escape having to pay for everything. I made it very clear at the beginning why I support the PPUK. There primary issue is privacy/free speech. What comes after that is patent law and then copyright. PP's policies vary from nation to nation on copyright and what they want to achieve primarily because of the primary concern which is privacy/patent law. The reason it's so controversial is because the changes in most cases mean the consumer is not the source of the financial gain for creative.
The costs of the $20,000 sound system or software is due to the monopoly on either the Algorithms used in software or the design of a circuit board. If copyright was reformed/abolished any manufacturer can produce the Hardware/Software with out having to pay royalties. This prevents the monopoly the creator or corporation has on manufacturing a product. This in turn means that the success of a business is not based on discovering a method first. However more enthusiasm is placed on quality of the product.
I am also curious on why you need a professional studio in the first place. Do you plan on mass producing CD's yourself for distribution?
1> From the out set of this debate. I have made it clear that the PP was formed because of the flaws in the current system. The laws are extremely restrictive and do a lot of harm to society as a result. The reason I entered into this party is due to the primary objective. Copyright needs to be changed to achieve this objective. This results in losses and gains. The gains being more than the losses. To try and a please people in the section that suffer loses, we worked out how they can still earn money through there artistic abilities and found several models that will happily pay the artists more then the average amount for the UK living standard. These models however distribute wealth as a result and create a more completive environment because everyone is on even footing. It also means the possible maxim gain is decreased. We justify these changes from the gains in other area's such as free speech/privacy and culture.
2> Even if people use this to gain media for free. As shown through several different models the artists still get paid. Arguably not as much as they could if they were apart of the monopoly, however as pointed out, all your promoting is greed and in most cases excessive greed which you intend to enforce with a monopoly. The media companies are fully aware of the power of copyright which is why the send lobbyists to the EU to push there agenda, because more restrictive rules means more money for the media groups.
Well the thing is I am trying to understand. The thing is that while talking to publishers and other organizations such as media labels. I got this impression, before they knew what I was trying to do they laid out how there system works.
Example, publishers.
We already know people prefer real books over ebooks. Culturally it's the equivalent to vinyl. It's retro or cool or a sub culture which is still fueled by consumerism. It was explained to me there are two models. One where they pay the write a flat rate for the book which they publish.
1 roll out they make very little money, they recoup this cost in the second print run of a book which is where they make all there own money. They recoup there costs after around 5-10 years. This is within the 10 year reform we have laid out as a party. Everything after that is simple a matter of building up a collection of copyrighted books over a few decades and the publisher suddenly makes money for essentially doing nothing.
The other model works much the same except works under a royalty system.
Summary, I will not deny that some party leaders have contemplated the top down approach to the argument. Which is to argue the point of copyright first instead of showing the implication copyright has on free speech or privacy and the issues caused by it. To an extent this is intensional to engage the public and generated populist cause. I was in the minority that voted again this tactic, for two simple reasons. People loss interest when you talk about privacy and free speech. It's not as a far reaching topic as making media cheaper or enforcing a system where the consumer does not pay.
As for understanding the effects of the laws I am trying to change on the people. I feel I have a pretty good understanding. I am not so bold to implicate that I understand every single little detail. This is kind of why I am debating with you. I am interested on seeing how people industry act when they understand how this effects them. I am also fully aware of the industries this will help grow in the UK and understand that many people coming out of university will get jobs from it.
There is true. There is also another side of this which frustrates me. I was recently in the conversation on IRC concerning the method of publicizing the issue of laws that harm knowledge/cultural advancement. The main issue we have come to is the follow.
Pirate Party is seen by most as a bunch of people that want things for free. (Free content to the user) This is true in some cases, since the PPI actually want to get ride of copyright and patents and replace it with things like CCL or GNU. Which are models that show creative getting paid. However some of the leadership of the other PP have made a suggestion. Create an ambiguous image, however have firm locked down policies with research studies proving the change in laws work. This means perpetuate an negative image that gets media attention to get our name out there. Then simply inform the person once they are interested or concerned about what we are doing. You see, a little of me died in the conversation as the talk became more about the politics and less about how we can structure the law to be fair to all. It also creates a mis-understanding with people like Joe as they keep spewing out the same thing over and over again about creative people not getting paid as demonstrated above in the previous posts. Model's such as copyright "flat rate" or ISP based levies on content have also been tested.
Examples of such models have been listened to by media groups and they are testing these things out.
http://www.drmwatch.com/ocr/article.php/3738481
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/05/11/the-world-is-going-flat-rate/#money
These are only a few of the other models I elicited to. I kept harping on about hyper distribution because thats currently in use. China and India are promoters of such technology which is currently driving there ISP/telecommunication services. Most famously the TV over IP services which are several decades a head of the UK. BT are currently testing such system and don't expect to even roll out until 2014.
Let me however make this very clear, there are pitfalls to all the systems proposed at the moment. You gain one thing and lose another. The primary reason or ideology behind the reason for copyright reform or patent abolishment is simple. It has to many harmful effects compared to the other models. It is also subject to abuse and harms nations economies because it hampers small business start ups. I am more then happy to also go into length on how the model also address large cooperation taking over manufacturing process due to the ability to purchase raw material on a cheap basis. (IE. There are several ways this can be prevented. Tax breaks for new start ups and so on)
All in all, I am unhappy to some extent with some of the PP's members and leaders in other national parties because of there stance on the ambiguity they intend to spread to get attention. However, in the next 3-4 months I have been told the PPUK will drop the practice if the ends are not met. The Machiavellian philosophy of "the ends justify the means" has been applied and if they get results. I guess I will have to just sit down and shut up. Luckily most people in the UK seem to be aware of the effect the DMCA has on free speech, probably due to the recent MP expenses scandal.
Th1sWasATriumph said:
1>The companies have painted the entire things of intellectual property with the same brush.
a> Music, movies (media), these are things that can be produced for free to the consumer. This does not mean that money can not be made from it. This choice is made due to the measures that would be required to enforce prosecution of people that break the law. It changes the law to assume guilt over innocents. For me the choice is that we either move to a state like China where every packet is inspected (which in itself kills off free speech) or we move to a free form (which is less regulation on information).
b> Software is listed under patents, There are web-pages detailing why EU has been resisting external forces for the UK to enforce this - http://www.softwarepatents.co.uk/intro/no_software_patents.html
Medical patents and concept patents (example for business models) are also similarly harmful. Pat
Patents have been clearly abused and cause a large amount of harm to our social and technological development.
Th1sWasATriumph said:
Err... no. I am discussing what the government has to do in order to enforce the desire for creative material to be profited from by an economy. I then outline my case to state that these rules and enforcements have an overall negative effect on the nations economy because of the restrictions that would have to be put in place. I then state that the alternatives that have been presented so far generally entail the consumer to pay through different means or the money for the product comes from different source. All in all, I feel I have conveyed that point quiet clearly given that I have now mentioned 3 different models which one of them the media companies themselves are now looking into and testing.
PS. I have the opinion that there isn't really an morals in this debate when talking about copyright. A few posts ago you were some how justifying corporate greed and stating that it's unrealistic or near impossible to change human nature (or in short excessive greed).
Th1sWasATriumph said:
Well, the let me be frank here. I pay for a lot of media that I consume (I consume a lot of Chinese/Japanese media). As an activist for the PP, I can not promote illegal downloading, nor can I be prosecuted for illegal downloading. As explained earlier, the effect of enforcing the laws to few specific monopolies for personal gain I am more than happy to Alienate them if it means that algorithms that are patented by a small software house is preventing scientists at CERN from being able to create more advanced technology. I only debate about the copyright side of things because your intent on trying to justify excessive greed. Or justify a system that allows excessive greed to occur. I personal more intrested not in the monetary value, however the technological gains and cultural gains. You have kept you debate in the realm of artists. This is apart of culture, it is not the primary reason for culture. Like you said, entertainment is optional, I go to cinema's because I want to have a massive 50 meter screen in front of me which I can't fit in my house and I want to feel the foot steps of the dinosaur under my seat.
Culture more than just entertainment, are you trying to justify restrictions for one industry which effects so many others for a monetary value?
Th1sWasATriumph said:
Err no. I do not want to simply escape having to pay for everything. I made it very clear at the beginning why I support the PPUK. There primary issue is privacy/free speech. What comes after that is patent law and then copyright. PP's policies vary from nation to nation on copyright and what they want to achieve primarily because of the primary concern which is privacy/patent law. The reason it's so controversial is because the changes in most cases mean the consumer is not the source of the financial gain for creative.
The costs of the $20,000 sound system or software is due to the monopoly on either the Algorithms used in software or the design of a circuit board. If copyright was reformed/abolished any manufacturer can produce the Hardware/Software with out having to pay royalties. This prevents the monopoly the creator or corporation has on manufacturing a product. This in turn means that the success of a business is not based on discovering a method first. However more enthusiasm is placed on quality of the product.
I am also curious on why you need a professional studio in the first place. Do you plan on mass producing CD's yourself for distribution?
Th1sWasATriumph said:
1> From the out set of this debate. I have made it clear that the PP was formed because of the flaws in the current system. The laws are extremely restrictive and do a lot of harm to society as a result. The reason I entered into this party is due to the primary objective. Copyright needs to be changed to achieve this objective. This results in losses and gains. The gains being more than the losses. To try and a please people in the section that suffer loses, we worked out how they can still earn money through there artistic abilities and found several models that will happily pay the artists more then the average amount for the UK living standard. These models however distribute wealth as a result and create a more completive environment because everyone is on even footing. It also means the possible maxim gain is decreased. We justify these changes from the gains in other area's such as free speech/privacy and culture.
2> Even if people use this to gain media for free. As shown through several different models the artists still get paid. Arguably not as much as they could if they were apart of the monopoly, however as pointed out, all your promoting is greed and in most cases excessive greed which you intend to enforce with a monopoly. The media companies are fully aware of the power of copyright which is why the send lobbyists to the EU to push there agenda, because more restrictive rules means more money for the media groups.
Th1sWasATriumph said:
Well the thing is I am trying to understand. The thing is that while talking to publishers and other organizations such as media labels. I got this impression, before they knew what I was trying to do they laid out how there system works.
Example, publishers.
We already know people prefer real books over ebooks. Culturally it's the equivalent to vinyl. It's retro or cool or a sub culture which is still fueled by consumerism. It was explained to me there are two models. One where they pay the write a flat rate for the book which they publish.
1 roll out they make very little money, they recoup this cost in the second print run of a book which is where they make all there own money. They recoup there costs after around 5-10 years. This is within the 10 year reform we have laid out as a party. Everything after that is simple a matter of building up a collection of copyrighted books over a few decades and the publisher suddenly makes money for essentially doing nothing.
The other model works much the same except works under a royalty system.
Summary, I will not deny that some party leaders have contemplated the top down approach to the argument. Which is to argue the point of copyright first instead of showing the implication copyright has on free speech or privacy and the issues caused by it. To an extent this is intensional to engage the public and generated populist cause. I was in the minority that voted again this tactic, for two simple reasons. People loss interest when you talk about privacy and free speech. It's not as a far reaching topic as making media cheaper or enforcing a system where the consumer does not pay.
As for understanding the effects of the laws I am trying to change on the people. I feel I have a pretty good understanding. I am not so bold to implicate that I understand every single little detail. This is kind of why I am debating with you. I am interested on seeing how people industry act when they understand how this effects them. I am also fully aware of the industries this will help grow in the UK and understand that many people coming out of university will get jobs from it.
Th1sWasATriumph
New Member
Tsunamie said:
And you wonder why people have no idea what you're talking about.
And why SHOULD they be? You are coming from your own personal political bias with this one. They could be produced for free, sure! But why SHOULD they? If it wasn't for the fact that so much media could be downloaded for free, nobody would have any kind of serious argument for legalising it. Hell, a whole bunch of people started killing people and we can't track them down - it's illegal, but why not just go with it? Completely the same. That is the bottom line. It's illegal, and just because it can be done easily doesn't mean it should be and we need a reform to allow it to happen.
I was acknowledging that greed exists and it's quite a fundamental part of human nature. That's not a justification. However, you are yet to properly justify what you want to happen beyond "information should be free". All you have is a personal perspective.
No, BUT YOU WANT TO BRING ABOUT A STATE OF AFFAIRS WHERE YOU CAN GET IT ALL WITHOUT IT BEING ILLEGAL.
I am obviously discussing the aspects that would potentially impact me and other artists. However, the PP WOULD impact such aspects even if there are other aspects to be considered, and my opinions on copyright and patents extend beyond entertainment. Individuals have a right to retain copyright or patent to their work.
Th1sWasATriumph said:
It's certainly a byproduct, though. You mentioned cinema . . . how would all this be set up? Download movies for free but pay for cinemas? Pay for gigs but not for albums? It's all very diffuse. How about physical media, dvds and cds etc - would they be free? Would only downloading be free? Would physical media be abolished? What about films OF gigs?
Me personally? I don't. Not right now. I'm fortunate enough to be in a position where I control every part of my music in high enough quality to make distribution feasible. However, that's just me, so it would be a mistake to try and pick apart my argument based on my minority position. There are plenty of bands whose only option is to record in studios (I've been in that position as well) or plenty of solo artists who don't have good enough equipment to record in their own homes.
No it's not! It's not "retro" or "cool" to read a paper book instead of an ebook. It's more convenient, far cheaper in the short term (especially considering how much punishment a book can take compared to an electronic reader). People prefer the feel of books. Books are not battery powered. The list goes on.
Th1sWasATriumph said:
I spoke out against this in the meeting. Unfortunately it means statements like the ones Joe makes are kind of common.
Th1sWasATriumph said:
Again, I point to the benefits in other area's from legalizing it. Since any information on the Internet that is tracked to the extent of DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) Technology or other methods violate the rights of the innocent and make them a target for abuse. The GHCQ in the UK is under a lot of pressure legally to enforce the due process laws we have in place in our constitution. For that to be changed, you would have to ask for the legislation to be changed which would implicate the policy that someone is guilty until proven innocent. This would mean the government can easily push through ID cards as mandatory and it's not the state's job to prove your innocents it would be your own. This in itself has a huge implication on free speech and personal liberties.
Th1sWasATriumph said:
No... now where near the same. I have heard this argument so many times. Bootleg DVD's fuel terrorists. I looked into the studies for this and they are full of it. There is a reason why thief has a financial fine or community service instead of actual Jail time like say Mass murder. There is a direct visible harm to the people that the crime is committed against. At the beginning of this thread, a link was provided by another poster showing that piracy helped increase sales of the junk the distribution companies sold.
Th1sWasATriumph said:
No that is not the bottom line. The bottom line of the entire argument is that copyright creates monopolies and harms society. Effects that would not exist if specific changes where relaxed or completely removed. Theft of media has no only shown the increase in sales of the legitimate stuff. It is like free advertisement. The difference is that if people like it, they will buy it. Much like Vinyl and books.
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/ip01462.html
There are other studies of this nature in the EU. In the previous post I linked the study from the Green Block of the EU parliament shows studies of other business models working.
Th1sWasATriumph said:
Where I have indicated where is good in some cases and bad in others. The system I want to change promotes excessive amounts of greed which can harm an economy and personal liberties. This is not a personal opinion, there have been case studies for this. Some of which I have already linked to you directly and others have linked for you to read. Most of them in the free speech realm or legal precedences like "due course".
Th1sWasATriumph said:
You keep stating this and I keep acknowledging it saying yes this is true. I also state that this is a result of benefits in other area's such as personal liberties and our legal system. For example how you go about prosecuting someone.
Th1sWasATriumph said:
That assumes that no one else on this magical planet filled with over 6 billion people were incapable of creating this content you speak of.
Th1sWasATriumph said:
1>You assume cinema's can't function without the media distributions contracts? Since the service of a Cinema has exist long before Hollywood existed they will do just fine. Cinema's will pay a flat rate as they always do.
2>Under PP the media would still be under copyright until the copyright ran out. Which would be 10 years after the release of the media if the PP legislation reform is passed. Under my preferred system all content attainable through the Internet is free, people can donate or pay what every they feel. Physical mediums such as CD's and DVD's will still be sold for profit because as consumers we like our thing to be physical. The irony here is that when the Internet came out they said it would be the death of books. Books are still around, they also said cd's would be the death of Vinyl and yet they are making a come back because of the retro sub-culture. So to answer your second question is that physical mediums will never be abolished because we as a nation are consumers. The two first answers should have answered your third. As it's a very clear framer work showing you why the model still makes money.
Th1sWasATriumph said:
Your minority position? As I have outlined the cost of the required equipment is artificially high because of copyright and patent's. Also, like I said earlier. Due to the need for cheap high quality musical gear, things like mini decks came out for DJ's. Several hundred times cheaper then professional ones and produce almost the same quality of music. I am also still confused why you require high quality file? Can you elaborate?
Th1sWasATriumph said:
http://www.palmpower.com/issues/issue200206/ebook0602001.html
This is a short list of ebooks vs paper books. Ebooks have more benefits and you will find that ebooks are actually more durable. The reason books are preferred is a cultural aspect. A thing a society thinks is better. Much like the war between beta and VHS tapes or Blue ray vs HD DVD. The choice is arbitrary and does not always follow a product that is better. Consumerism model creates jobs, the basis for capitalism in America and UK stop monopolies in an industry from occurring by law because they know it's harmful to economic growth.
So, this thread is 11 years old, and I'm resurrecting it. 'Why? Why not create a new thread?' I hear you cry! Well, it's because the positions on both sides of this discussion are a worthwhile read, and even if I did create a new thread on this same topic, I would include a link to this zombie one anyway and people would likely read it and quote/respond to posts within it. It was never locked and I see no reason why it should be, it just died out.
Given the amount of time gone by since the last post, and all the technological advancements which have occurred in the decade+ since this was last discussed here (high capacity, affordable hard drives, high speed internet, countless torrent sites and legislation passed regarding their use etc) - What say you?
Given the amount of time gone by since the last post, and all the technological advancements which have occurred in the decade+ since this was last discussed here (high capacity, affordable hard drives, high speed internet, countless torrent sites and legislation passed regarding their use etc) - What say you?
BrachioPEP
Member
I say great idea, for this and no doubt other threads. More power to the beast is arising.