Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Falkvinge)   "What The Swedish Pirate Party Wants With Patents, Trademarks, And Copyright." A sensible approach to fixing a broken system. ™ⒶⓇⓇⓇⓇⓇⓇ   (falkvinge.net ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Pirate Party, trademarks, The Coca-Cola Company, software patents  
•       •       •

1786 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Oct 2012 at 12:24 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-13 12:25:42 PM  
Oh come ON. That wasn't even funny.

Greenlight my gold headlines. Not the crap ones.

/ashamed subby
 
2012-10-13 12:34:23 PM  
Legalize file-sharing and other non-commercial sharing of culture between private individuals, both up- and downloading. As a direct consequence, search engines like The Pirate Bay will also be legal, as nobody can be charged with "aiding and abetting" an activity that is fully legal in itself (the file-sharing between private individuals).

makes sense to me.
 
2012-10-13 12:38:22 PM  
Oblig in any thread about copyright or file sharing:

Link
 
2012-10-13 12:49:15 PM  

JaeSharp: Oh come ON. That wasn't even funny.

Greenlight my gold headlines. Not the crap ones.

/ashamed subby


Worse is when you have a sub that gets comments in the 2-3 digit range and it goes red. Even if it is a train-wreck ...
 
2012-10-13 12:51:34 PM  
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrticles of infringement, mateys!
 
2012-10-13 01:12:11 PM  
From the study discussed in the article - A closer look at the historical and international evidence suggests that while weak patent systems may mildly increase innovation with limited side-effects, strong patent systems retard innovation with many negative side-effects. Both theoretically and empirically, the political economy of government operated patent systems indicates that weak legislation will generally evolve into a strong protection and that the political demand for stronger patent protection comes from old and stagnant industries and firms, not from new and innovative ones.

Completely true.

Intellectual property protections were written into the Constitution to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." That's fantastic, and I believe that it works, as they wrote it.

And then the IP holders and lobbyists got a hold of things. The best example is copyrights. Copyrights have grown from a base period of 14 years in length as designed by the founders to a base period of life plus 70 years in length, with no end in sight. The intent of original IP protection in the Constitution has been subverted for a profit protection scheme by special interests that undercuts innovation and societal benefit to the public that the IP clause is intended to promote.
 
2012-10-13 01:21:36 PM  

Emposter: From the study discussed in the article - A closer look at the historical and international evidence suggests that while weak patent systems may mildly increase innovation with limited side-effects, strong patent systems retard innovation with many negative side-effects. Both theoretically and empirically, the political economy of government operated patent systems indicates that weak legislation will generally evolve into a strong protection and that the political demand for stronger patent protection comes from old and stagnant industries and firms, not from new and innovative ones.

Completely true.

Intellectual property protections were written into the Constitution to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." That's fantastic, and I believe that it works, as they wrote it.

And then the IP holders and lobbyists got a hold of things. The best example is copyrights. Copyrights have grown from a base period of 14 years in length as designed by the founders to a base period of life plus 70 years in length, with no end in sight. The intent of original IP protection in the Constitution has been subverted for a profit protection scheme by special interests that undercuts innovation and societal benefit to the public that the IP clause is intended to promote.


Well, at least with Copyright, you have one man to blame. Walt Disney. How would Disney survive if Mickey were in the public domain (like he should have been decades ago).
 
2012-10-13 01:32:54 PM  
Our pre-industrial patent & copyright system is broken and cannot cope with digital technologies.

Patent trolling nearly doubled in five years, study finds
 
2012-10-13 01:39:01 PM  
So, I spend a couple million dollars in R&D creating a cool, unique software product. I spend a couple million more marketing it. And the world should be able to legally download copies of it for free rather than buy it from me.

No, that won't stifle innovation. Not a bit.
 
2012-10-13 01:39:32 PM  
NPR did an interesting interview segment on the current state of patent law and how it crushes innovation. Ideas are being patented with no demonstrated application solely for the purpose of suing someone who eventually builds an application of the idea that looks like it might be profitable. Companies exist for no other reason than to accumulate patents and then sue other companies who later invent a product that might infringe that patent.

Our entire approach to intellectual property has gotten completely out of hand.
 
2012-10-13 01:41:49 PM  

tomWright: JaeSharp: Oh come ON. That wasn't even funny.

Greenlight my gold headlines. Not the crap ones.

/ashamed subby

Worse is when you have a sub that gets comments in the 2-3 digit range and it goes red. Even if it is a train-wreck ...


That happened to me once. I never got over it.
 
2012-10-13 01:43:21 PM  

Quadruple Entendre: So, I spend a couple million dollars in R&D creating a cool, unique software product. I spend a couple million more marketing it. And the world should be able to legally download copies of it for free rather than buy it from me.

No, that won't stifle innovation. Not a bit.


Why would you spend that much on a product and not include a means of securely licensing it so that simply downloading the bits is a pointless exercise?
 
2012-10-13 01:47:32 PM  

Quadruple Entendre: So, I spend a couple million dollars in R&D creating a cool, unique software product. I spend a couple million more marketing it. And the world should be able to legally download copies of it for free rather than buy it from me.

No, that won't stifle innovation. Not a bit.


And neither will the patent troll that comes after you. And neither will the life + 70 that nobody will be able to touch it.
 
2012-10-13 01:49:41 PM  

Quadruple Entendre: So, I spend a couple million dollars in R&D creating a cool, unique software product. I spend a couple million more marketing it. And the world should be able to legally download copies of it for free rather than buy it from me.

No, that won't stifle innovation. Not a bit.


Could be worse. You could have spent a couple million developing a product, a couple million more marketing it, and no one wants to buy it due to your overzealous protection.

Then you're haunted in your next endeavor too - "Oh, you worked on that flop? Yeah... We'll get an intern instead."

/like Spore, for example
 
2012-10-13 01:51:35 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Quadruple Entendre: So, I spend a couple million dollars in R&D creating a cool, unique software product. I spend a couple million more marketing it. And the world should be able to legally download copies of it for free rather than buy it from me.

No, that won't stifle innovation. Not a bit.

Why would you spend that much on a product and not include a means of securely licensing it so that simply downloading the bits is a pointless exercise?


People who make their living selling ideas have a lot to lose when "copies" are easly made. Safeguards aside.
 
2012-10-13 01:52:26 PM  

Quadruple Entendre: So, I spend a couple million dollars in R&D creating a cool, unique software product. I spend a couple million more marketing it. And the world should be able to legally download copies of it for free rather than buy it from me.

No, that won't stifle innovation. Not a bit.


You are falsely implying that this is a push to abolish patents and leave no alternative protection mechanism. You really should read at least the summary of the paper linked in the article, which promotes the replacement of patents with a system less open to abuse, not replacement of patents with intellectual property anarchy.

"Hence the best solution is to abolish patents entirely through strong constitutional measures and to find other legislative instruments, less open to lobbying and rent-seeking, to foster innovation whenever there is clear evidence that laissez-faire under-supplies it."
 
2012-10-13 01:58:48 PM  

Quadruple Entendre: So, I spend a couple million dollars in R&D creating a cool, unique software product. I spend a couple million more marketing it. And the world should be able to legally download copies of it for free rather than buy it from me.

No, that won't stifle innovation. Not a bit.


Which is exactly why Linux never became more than a side project by Linus Torvalds and Google went bankrupt less than a year after they started. Also, the USSR never fell, and now controls all of Asia after a brief and bloody war with the Chinese that resulted in the two powers merging. Bill Gates died in a car accident at the age of 10, and never went on to create Microsoft. As a result, they weren't there to give Apple $250 million in the 90s and Apple went out of business.

Oh sorry, I thought we were talking about things that happen in alternate realities.
 
2012-10-13 01:59:42 PM  

Emposter: Intellectual property protections were written into the Constitution to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." That's fantastic, and I believe that it works, as they wrote it.


There's also no Berne Convention or WIPO in the Constitution, which is why when the U.S. was a booming, developing country, we tended to ignore the hell out of everyone else's IP.

Of course, modern developing countries can't be allowed to do this, or it might adversely impact the Microsoft, Pfizer, Monsanto, and others.
 
2012-10-13 02:00:16 PM  

Quadruple Entendre: So, I spend a couple million dollars in R&D creating a cool, unique software product. I spend a couple million more marketing it. And the world should be able to legally download copies of it for free rather than buy it from me.

No, that won't stifle innovation. Not a bit.


And maybe it isn't millions. I have a friend who created a little widget for truck cabs. He spent years working on it in his spare time, went through the effort of getting a patent, selling rights to companies. It was a lot of effort, and he makes a whopping $1500 a month on average from it. He certainly isn't rich, and has to keep his day job. I guess all the effort he put himself through means nothing to the people who think he should be required to just give up all rights to it.
 
2012-10-13 02:14:52 PM  
 
2012-10-13 02:26:22 PM  

bglove25: Well, at least with Copyright, you have one man to blame. Walt Disney. How would Disney survive if Mickey were in the public domain (like he should have been decades ago).


Pretty easily, as The Mouse had become a figurehead for Disney (rather than an active character) by the 1950s.

What's really depressing is that through legal maneuverings, Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, a character Walt Disney created almost a century ago, is still under copyright, and the rights were only returned to Disney in the last few years. The character was basically held hostage by various rights holders for decades.

Emposter: Intellectual property protections were written into the Constitution to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." That's fantastic, and I believe that it works, as they wrote it.

And then the IP holders and lobbyists got a hold of things. The best example is copyrights.


Patents and copyrights are really two different things (at least in this country). Washington and Franklin pushed to make sure there was a patent system in the Constitution so that it would be easy for someone to be granted a monopoly on their invention or improvement so they could make money off of it and have legal recourse if someone tried to steal their idea.

On the other hand, we didn't pass a copyright law in this country until the 1880s. The only real downside of not having a copyright law was that there was no way for anyone to make a living as a writer, as any successful book was immediately pirated. Mark Twain was one of the leaders in the fight to get a copyright law passed, in large part not because he felt that he was losing money here (he was) but because our lack of a law meant that Europeans wouldn't enforce their copyright laws on American IP, so Twain wasn't seeing any European royalties, which were substantial. He recognizing and made it clear that the copyright should only be granted for a limited period of time (I think he pushed for 30 years).
 
2012-10-13 03:00:13 PM  
I can think of no one more qualified to rewrite the law than those who break it the most.
 
2012-10-13 03:04:41 PM  

falcon176: I can think of no one more qualified to rewrite the law than those who break it the most.


There's an argument to be made that the best way to fix a complex problem is to give it to someone who actually understands it. It's clear that legislators world-wide have no understanding of how IP laws work or what is and isn't legal under them. The folks who actually run file-sharing websites know exactly what side of the law they're on at any given time.

Back when we set up the Security and Exchanges Commission in this country, we but Joseph Kennedy in charge of it for the same reason: he was the biggest stock manipulator of his era, so he knew exactly what rules had to be passed to stop what he'd been doing for years.
 
2012-10-13 03:06:56 PM  

falcon176: I can think of no one more qualified to rewrite the law than those who break it the most.


Series of tubes guy. He's more qualified. Because he's not a dump truck.
 
2012-10-13 03:10:44 PM  
There's way too much common sense in that article.
 
2012-10-13 03:12:11 PM  

falcon176: I can think of no one more qualified to rewrite the law than those who break it the most.


I can think of no one more qualified to rewrite the Jim Crow laws than those who break it the most.
 
2012-10-13 03:14:34 PM  

12349876: Series of tubes guy. He's more qualified. Because he's not a dump truck.


Blessedly, he got drummed out of the Senate and then died in a plane crash.

/Sen. Ted Stevens was his name
 
2012-10-13 03:42:33 PM  

Quadruple Entendre: So, I spend a couple million dollars in R&D creating a cool, unique software product. I spend a couple million more marketing it. And the world should be able to legally download copies of it for free rather than buy it from me.

No, that won't stifle innovation. Not a bit.


um...they're already downloading copies of it for free....
 
2012-10-13 03:53:16 PM  
Emposter: Intellectual property protections were written into the Constitution to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." That's fantastic, and I believe that it works, as they wrote it.

And then the IP holders and lobbyists got a hold of things. The best example is copyrights.

Patents and copyrights are really two different things (at least in this country).

Copyrights is the best example because the idea of increasing length (copyright) is easier to show in one or two sentences to the average person glancing at a thread than the idea of increasing breadth (patents). 14 (with another 14 extension) to life plus 70 is a huge, obvious change that anyone can appreciate. Once you get into abuse of what is or isn't useful, or has or hasn't been done before, is or isn't theoretical, etc. you stop writing a few sentence posts and start writing journal articles, and I didn't really feel like it.
 
2012-10-13 03:54:21 PM  
Whoops, I'm not responding to myself, I just accidentally lost Dwight_Yeast's name during the copy/paste.
 
2012-10-13 04:20:32 PM  
Most of this makes sense to me EXCEPT the idea that you should make file sharing completely legal. What is the point of a 20 year copyright (which I agree is more sensible than what we have today) if everyone can copy the album for free?
 
2012-10-13 04:27:20 PM  

falcon176: I can think of no one more qualified to rewrite the law than those who break it the most.


Pirates are people too.
 
2012-10-13 04:40:39 PM  

Bill Frist: Most of this makes sense to me EXCEPT the idea that you should make file sharing completely legal. What is the point of a 20 year copyright (which I agree is more sensible than what we have today) if everyone can copy the album for free?


Well, those who freely give their work away (whether it's Linux or a Radiohead album) would argue that copyright allows them to retain creative control over what they make.

Emposter: Copyrights is the best example because the idea of increasing length (copyright) is easier to show in one or two sentences to the average person glancing at a thread than the idea of increasing breadth (patents). 14 (with another 14 extension) to life plus 70 is a huge, obvious change that anyone can appreciate. Once you get into abuse of what is or isn't useful, or has or hasn't been done before, is or isn't theoretical, etc. you stop writing a few sentence posts and start writing journal articles, and I didn't really feel like it.


I think that patents and copyrights are simple enough concepts that anyone should be able to understand them. In fact, when both were created, they were simple enough that anyone who could read and write could understand them.

They've been made needlessly complex not to protector those who create art or new ideas, but to protect large corporations who are afraid of losing their IP.

While the Disney company deserves most of the blame, Irving Berlin shouldn't be forgotten as the person who pushed throughout his life to have copyrights extend ad infinitium.

The public domain is critical to our society, and to the art it creates, and copyright laws now mean that less and less passes into public domain. Imagine where English-language culture would be if the Shakespeares still controlled the rights to William's plays!
 
2012-10-13 04:51:50 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Bill Frist: Most of this makes sense to me EXCEPT the idea that you should make file sharing completely legal. What is the point of a 20 year copyright (which I agree is more sensible than what we have today) if everyone can copy the album for free?

Well, those who freely give their work away (whether it's Linux or a Radiohead album) would argue that copyright allows them to retain creative control over what they make.


Radiohead CHOOSES to give digital versions away (and that's something they can do since they made enough money through traditional means....), but if an artist doesn't choose to give their work away for free the Pirate Party's platform is still basically "fark you, you don't have control over your art, the public does)
 
2012-10-13 04:53:52 PM  

Emposter: From the study discussed in the article - A closer look at the historical and international evidence suggests that while weak patent systems may mildly increase innovation with limited side-effects, strong patent systems retard innovation with many negative side-effects. Both theoretically and empirically, the political economy of government operated patent systems indicates that weak legislation will generally evolve into a strong protection and that the political demand for stronger patent protection comes from old and stagnant industries and firms, not from new and innovative ones.

Completely true.


I disagree... In particular, I haven't heard any political demand for stronger patent protection from old and stagnant industries like the buggy whip manufacturers. We also see plenty of such demand from new and innovative industries, like consumer electronics, internet-based retail, social media, etc.. that are far from stagnant, but are exploding with new ideas daily.

And then the IP holders and lobbyists got a hold of things. The best example is copyrights. Copyrights have grown from a base period of 14 years in length as designed by the founders to a base period of life plus 70 years in length, with no end in sight. The intent of original IP protection in the Constitution has been subverted for a profit protection scheme by special interests that undercuts innovation and societal benefit to the public that the IP clause is intended to promote.

Copyright term is too long, but particularly because of the bundle of rights involved. In particular, I think the terms should be separated out for copying and distribution, and for derivative works. For example, if you want a free copy of Star Wars because you don't want to pay for it, that's relatively morally indefensible. However, if you want to make a board game based on Star Wars, or a musical based on Star Wars, you're creating something new. Similarly, if you want a free copy of Justin Beiber's latest album (good god, why?), that's simply being cheap. But, if you want to sample a beat from some track as part of creating a new work, that's creative and should be encouraged.
That said, derivative work protection should exist - the artist who created the first work should get the first opportunity to remix it. But, say, 3-5 years later, that should expire, and it should be free for all.

This would be a compromise that would let the **AA associations keep their long term protection against copying and distribution and ability to commercially exploit a work, while giving artists the freedom to use those works in new and interesting ways.
 
2012-10-13 04:58:53 PM  

Emposter: You really should read at least the summary of the paper linked in the article, which promotes the replacement of patents with a system less open to abuse, not replacement of patents with intellectual property anarchy.

"Hence the best solution is to abolish patents entirely through strong constitutional measures and to find other legislative instruments, less open to lobbying and rent-seeking, to foster innovation whenever there is clear evidence that laissez-faire under-supplies it."


a.abcnews.com
"And an example of those instruments would be?"

assets.rollingstone.com
"Something that's 'Not patents'."

www.esquire.com
"Fark me."
 
2012-10-13 04:59:22 PM  

Weaver95: Legalize file-sharing and other non-commercial sharing of culture between private individuals, both up- and downloading. As a direct consequence, search engines like The Pirate Bay will also be legal, as nobody can be charged with "aiding and abetting" an activity that is fully legal in itself (the file-sharing between private individuals).

makes sense to me.


Unless those files represent your ideas and hard work. Sorry if I had the brains and creativity to think of an idea first- you'll either compensate me for my intuition of wait farkin' seven years and jump at that bone with the rest of the non-creative hyenas.
 
2012-10-13 05:09:09 PM  

clowncar on fire: Weaver95: Legalize file-sharing and other non-commercial sharing of culture between private individuals, both up- and downloading. As a direct consequence, search engines like The Pirate Bay will also be legal, as nobody can be charged with "aiding and abetting" an activity that is fully legal in itself (the file-sharing between private individuals).

makes sense to me.

Unless those files represent your ideas and hard work. Sorry if I had the brains and creativity to think of an idea first- you'll either compensate me for my intuition of wait farkin' seven years and jump at that bone with the rest of the non-creative hyenas.


so what happens when those files get openly traded anyway? sure, go ahead and pile on the laws...but you CANNOT stop file trading. do you understand these words? you CANNOT stop it. pass more laws. won't matter. pass MORE laws...files still get traded. make file trading punishable by death....files will still be traded. nuke the ENTIRE west coast...files will still be traded. Destroy ALL of north america! files...will still be traded.

do you get it? you CANNOT STOP FILE TRADING!

so if you can't stop it, you can try to do the next best thing and maybe find a way to make it work for you.
 
2012-10-13 05:13:23 PM  

Weaver95: clowncar on fire: Weaver95: Legalize file-sharing and other non-commercial sharing of culture between private individuals, both up- and downloading. As a direct consequence, search engines like The Pirate Bay will also be legal, as nobody can be charged with "aiding and abetting" an activity that is fully legal in itself (the file-sharing between private individuals).

makes sense to me.

Unless those files represent your ideas and hard work. Sorry if I had the brains and creativity to think of an idea first- you'll either compensate me for my intuition of wait farkin' seven years and jump at that bone with the rest of the non-creative hyenas.

so what happens when those files get openly traded anyway? sure, go ahead and pile on the laws...but you CANNOT stop file trading. do you understand these words? you CANNOT stop it. pass more laws. won't matter. pass MORE laws...files still get traded. make file trading punishable by death....files will still be traded. nuke the ENTIRE west coast...files will still be traded. Destroy ALL of north america! files...will still be traded.

do you get it? you CANNOT STOP FILE TRADING!

so if you can't stop it, you can try to do the next best thing and maybe find a way to make it work for you.


... or, start hosting stuff online, accessible only by applications that provide DRM and require always-on connections. Know how Diablo III needs a connection, even for single player mode? How about if that applied to your media player, too?
That's a way that I could see the content providers going, even though it would suck for consumers.
 
2012-10-13 05:28:03 PM  

Theaetetus: Weaver95: clowncar on fire: Weaver95: Legalize file-sharing and other non-commercial sharing of culture between private individuals, both up- and downloading. As a direct consequence, search engines like The Pirate Bay will also be legal, as nobody can be charged with "aiding and abetting" an activity that is fully legal in itself (the file-sharing between private individuals).

makes sense to me.

Unless those files represent your ideas and hard work. Sorry if I had the brains and creativity to think of an idea first- you'll either compensate me for my intuition of wait farkin' seven years and jump at that bone with the rest of the non-creative hyenas.

so what happens when those files get openly traded anyway? sure, go ahead and pile on the laws...but you CANNOT stop file trading. do you understand these words? you CANNOT stop it. pass more laws. won't matter. pass MORE laws...files still get traded. make file trading punishable by death....files will still be traded. nuke the ENTIRE west coast...files will still be traded. Destroy ALL of north america! files...will still be traded.

do you get it? you CANNOT STOP FILE TRADING!

so if you can't stop it, you can try to do the next best thing and maybe find a way to make it work for you.

... or, start hosting stuff online, accessible only by applications that provide DRM and require always-on connections. Know how Diablo III needs a connection, even for single player mode? How about if that applied to your media player, too?
That's a way that I could see the content providers going, even though it would suck for consumers.


You do realize that you can get a cracked version of Diablo 3 that doesn't require an always on connection, right? To reiterate Weaver, you cannot stop file trading.
 
2012-10-13 05:28:11 PM  

Theaetetus: Emposter: You really should read at least the summary of the paper linked in the article, which promotes the replacement of patents with a system less open to abuse, not replacement of patents with intellectual property anarchy.

"Hence the best solution is to abolish patents entirely through strong constitutional measures and to find other legislative instruments, less open to lobbying and rent-seeking, to foster innovation whenever there is clear evidence that laissez-faire under-supplies it."

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]
"And an example of those instruments would be?"

[assets.rollingstone.com image 600x436]
"Something that's 'Not patents'."

[www.esquire.com image 614x400]
"Fark me."


Is that what was really said at the debate (minus the fark me)?
 
2012-10-13 05:29:12 PM  

Bill Frist: Radiohead CHOOSES to give digital versions away (and that's something they can do since they made enough money through traditional means....), but if an artist doesn't choose to give their work away for free the Pirate Party's platform is still basically "fark you, you don't have control over your art, the public does)


You asked what the point of a 20 year copyright would be if everyone can get an album for free. i gave you a perfectly reasonable answer. Even though they're giving it away, Radiohead still has control of how their music is used: the GOP can't play their songs at their convention or rallies without Radiohead's permission. You can't remix their songs and then sell them. Hollywood can't use their music in the movies without the band agreeing and getting paid.

Copyright is as much about control as it is about getting paid for what you create. I would argue that control is more important today.

And your explanation is not entirely correct: Radiohead chose to give their album away because they (like almost every band out there) saw very little of the money made from their album sales through traditional means. The money which allows them to do whatever they want came from live shows and touring. For bands which make their money that way, giving away a product (album) which induces people to come out and pay to see the band live makes good economic sense.
 
2012-10-13 05:32:01 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Theaetetus: Emposter: You really should read at least the summary of the paper linked in the article, which promotes the replacement of patents with a system less open to abuse, not replacement of patents with intellectual property anarchy.

"Hence the best solution is to abolish patents entirely through strong constitutional measures and to find other legislative instruments, less open to lobbying and rent-seeking, to foster innovation whenever there is clear evidence that laissez-faire under-supplies it."

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]
"And an example of those instruments would be?"

[assets.rollingstone.com image 600x436]
"Something that's 'Not patents'."

[www.esquire.com image 614x400]
"Fark me."

Is that what was really said at the debate (minus the fark me)?


There was a lot of "we have a plan for America, and it's not Obama's plan," "then what is your plan?", "It's not Obama's plan."
 
2012-10-13 05:34:53 PM  

Teufelaffe: Theaetetus: Weaver95: clowncar on fire: Weaver95: Legalize file-sharing and other non-commercial sharing of culture between private individuals, both up- and downloading. As a direct consequence, search engines like The Pirate Bay will also be legal, as nobody can be charged with "aiding and abetting" an activity that is fully legal in itself (the file-sharing between private individuals).

makes sense to me.

Unless those files represent your ideas and hard work. Sorry if I had the brains and creativity to think of an idea first- you'll either compensate me for my intuition of wait farkin' seven years and jump at that bone with the rest of the non-creative hyenas.

so what happens when those files get openly traded anyway? sure, go ahead and pile on the laws...but you CANNOT stop file trading. do you understand these words? you CANNOT stop it. pass more laws. won't matter. pass MORE laws...files still get traded. make file trading punishable by death....files will still be traded. nuke the ENTIRE west coast...files will still be traded. Destroy ALL of north america! files...will still be traded.

do you get it? you CANNOT STOP FILE TRADING!

so if you can't stop it, you can try to do the next best thing and maybe find a way to make it work for you.

... or, start hosting stuff online, accessible only by applications that provide DRM and require always-on connections. Know how Diablo III needs a connection, even for single player mode? How about if that applied to your media player, too?
That's a way that I could see the content providers going, even though it would suck for consumers.

You do realize that you can get a cracked version of Diablo 3 that doesn't require an always on connection, right? To reiterate Weaver, you cannot stop file trading.


So therefore Diablo III's DRM doesn't exist and normal consumers aren't inconvenienced and Sarah Palin's president.

I didn't say it would stop cracking or file trading. What it will do is eliminate most the casual file trading by people whose knowledge extends to "I use Kazaa, that's a crack right?"
 
2012-10-13 05:39:13 PM  

Theaetetus: So therefore Diablo III's DRM doesn't exist and normal consumers aren't inconvenienced and Sarah Palin's president.

I didn't say it would stop cracking or file trading. What it will do is eliminate most the casual file trading by people whose knowledge extends to "I use Kazaa, that's a crack right?"


I think he point was any DRM system invented can be cracked or circumvented.

The genii is out of the bottle; how do you propose to get it back in?

/I've asked that question of people a lot smarter than you, and none of them has had a workable answer.
 
2012-10-13 05:55:32 PM  
Weaver95:
do you get it? you CANNOT STOP FILE TRADING!

Of course not. But I fail to see how the solution is to make it even easier without risk.
 
2012-10-13 06:05:17 PM  

Theaetetus: I didn't say it would stop cracking or file trading. What it will do is eliminate most the casual file trading by people whose knowledge extends to "I use Kazaa, that's a crack right?"


So, your argument boils down to the equivalent of telling people to install more locks on their doors in order to prevent burglary. Never mind trying to find ways to decrease the likelihood of being the target of burglary, we just need more locks! That kind of thinking is why downloading a single movie or song illegally carries the same penalty as the possession of child pornography and why most DVD & BluRay movies carry multiple warnings about how horribly wrong illegal downloading is; we're basically letting the horse & buggy industry write our automobile laws.

As long as the entertainment industry makes it more difficult to buy their product than it is to obtain it illegally, piracy will remain rampant. The best way for the MPAAs and RIAAs of the world to combat piracy is to do a better job at content distribution than the pirates are. As it stands now, they're spending so much time, effort, and money trying to protect their "control" and revenue streams that they're alienating the very people that keep them in business, which means they will eventually entirely lose both their control and their revenue.
 
2012-10-13 06:15:08 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Theaetetus: So therefore Diablo III's DRM doesn't exist and normal consumers aren't inconvenienced and Sarah Palin's president.

I didn't say it would stop cracking or file trading. What it will do is eliminate most the casual file trading by people whose knowledge extends to "I use Kazaa, that's a crack right?"

I think he point was any DRM system invented can be cracked or circumvented.

The genii is out of the bottle; how do you propose to get it back in?

/I've asked that question of people a lot smarter than you, and none of them has had a workable answer.


I thought I just did answer it. You make it so inconvenient that regular folks can't, don't know how, or don't want to waste time to do so. Simultaneously, you also provide the same content to those regular folks via DRM'd apps, with subscription fees, banner ads, interstitial advertisements, etc. Those regular folks watch your provided content rather than pirating it, because it's so much easier, and your advertising-based resume stream is protected.
And finally, you have media players that provide easy access to the legal content, and are unable to play content that's not streamed from one of the content providers - like a more-locked down Apple TV that easily streams sources, but won't play MPEGs off your own server that weren't purchased.
Bam. You've just eliminated 99% of piracy.
For example, see Hulu, Netflix, Amazon streaming, Pandora, Slacker, iTunes, as well as CBS.com, NBC.com, etc. Music piracy is declining, because people can get music legally and easily. I predict you'll see the same trends in piracy of television shows and movies as more content providers move to ad-supported streaming.

Sure, there will always be some people out there who refuse to pay for anything, and will spend significant amount of time searching for torrents, configuring proxies, etc. But they wouldn't pay for anything anyway, so you don't really care. The key is stopping the ones who would pay or who will watch an advertisement from pirating, and you can do that by making it simpler and easier to get the content legally.
And if you really want to help that, then you flood the file sharing networks with content with names of popular television shows, movies, and is really just a bunch of goat.se images. Make it so that someone has to download and click on a dozen of those before they find the episode of Big Bang Theory that they really wanted to watch, provide it free on CBS.com, and it's game over.

So, I guess the real point is that you've been asking your question of the wrong people. That, and that there isn't anyone smarter than me. :)
 
2012-10-13 06:16:00 PM  

Teufelaffe: So, your argument boils down to...
As long as the entertainment industry makes it more difficult to buy their product than it is to obtain it illegally, piracy will remain rampant. The best way for the MPAAs and RIAAs of the world to combat piracy is to do a better job at content distribution than the pirates are. As it stands now, they're spending so much time, effort, and money trying to protect their "control" and revenue streams that they're alienating the very people that keep them in business, which means they will eventually entirely lose both their control and their revenue.


Exactly.
 
2012-10-13 06:23:51 PM  

Barumpapumpum: Weaver95:
do you get it? you CANNOT STOP FILE TRADING!

Of course not. But I fail to see how the solution is to make it even easier without risk.


Well, I fail to see how the solution is to put up ever-more-draconian roadblocks in an effort to defend a system that, as time goes on, it becomes more and more clear that it only serves to stifle creativity and innovation, rather than encourage it.
 
Displayed 50 of 86 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report