@~18:00 The only reason you can make money with free distribution of art is because copyright is the norm. If copyright weren't the norm, you wouldn't be able to make money off of your podcasts/other free stuff.
SOPA, as bad as it seems is nothing compared to ACTA, (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) Insomuch because, although it has been in the making for years, it has completely bypassed the democratic process by being deliberately kept from the public. If you don't believe me go look it up. Canada, the USA, Singapore, S. Korea, Japan, new zealand, and morocco have already signed it.
Either SOPA is a conspiratorial attempt to censor the internet because communication is paramount for the uprising that have happened recently and will be for any future ones and they don’t want that.
Or it is an attempt of corporations to hold onto dinosaur business models, the head of Valve said it best to beat pirate sites provide a better service.
Best of all it turns out the companies pushing SOPA are the ones who had a monopoly on the pirating software go figure
No accountability on why entertainment industries are losing money. Most of the crap out there today - sucks. People buy quality - not just because they need to be entertained. People will find their own way to be entertained - especially if they dont have money to buy a stupid CD.
people are still going to get there info i'll give you all an example
when cocaine became illegal did people say '' oh it's illegal now we should just stop using it now''
No they said '' fuck that we want cocaine were going to get it!'' the point of what i'm saying is when there is enough demand for something people will be there to meet that demand and no one will stand in there way of delivering that product and making a profit off of it
Kinsella got me to throw another fiver on Louis CK's pile. Worth every penny too! That's definitely the way to go; provide real value to people, no strings attached and don't be a dick about it.
Less government spending, less taxation to American Citizens, a budget plan that works.
This man has been fighting for your personal freedom and the separation of congress from big business for years. He stands against draconian bills like SOPA, NDAA and the Patriot Act.
He has fought against the war on drugs, the foreign wars, and corporate bail outs.
YES! This is what I really think is stupid. That all those that pirate would buy the products if they couldn't pirate it. That is such a stupid argument.
A large part of all major media is for those in power to advertise to, propagandize, manipulate and control society. Hollywood, sports, the music industry etc want as many people to see and hear the "programming" as possible. Say 70% of people will pay, and 30% never will. They still want the 30% exposed to it. The 30% will always exist and they will always be allowed access to the media. All they are doing is trying to control where the money from the 70% goes. Same as the drug war.
@LeonidRozumenko , I wonder, can patent law prevent an inventor from selling his invention because some leading corporation believes it's too similiar to its own product? Answer: yes. Does it happen in practice? Answer: Yes, all the time. Question: who holds most patents and who is in a best position to acquire even more? Answer: leading corporations.
I paid 11 500 00 $ just for the PCT application (Patent Cooperation Treaty application) to protect my author-inventor's rights around the Earth for three years!!!
Yet, I can't find investors anywhere, though I paid to my patent agents for the Premium Site and for the marketing - to sell my ideas to the big companies
I am a pirate, very little on my computer is legitimate. That doesn't mean I have not purchased the software, movies, or music. It is simply easier for me to have everything on my computer. I would rather not dig through a box every time I want to watch a movie and sit through 15 minutes of un-skippable ads, and copyright warnings. Having my media server loaded with several terabytes of music and movies allows me to access all of my "illegal" media instantly with no bullshit, anywhere.
I once built and projected an early screening of a movie for a professional football team. The paranoid studio sent two security guards to wand the wealthy pro athletes as they went into the theater. I also had a guard literally sitting watching me as I broke the movie down, as if I was somehow going to make a quick copy of it in the film lab that I had hidden in the projection booth. As for trailers, studios require theaters to run their trailers on their prints as part of the rental agreement.
Warner Brothers also sent out faxes to theaters warning them not to let people make copies of the "Dark Knight Rises" trailer. I saw one of these faxes myself. The studios will send checkers to theaters to make sure that their trailers are programmed onto their film releases, because they desperately want people to see them, but then they complain if people make copies of those same trailers. Ridiculous. That's just free advertising, for crying out loud.
Theater employees don't get paid enough to give a damn. They can barely be bothered to kick out unruly kids, much less worry about what people are recording on their phones.
I used to buy a lot of CDs because of music that I discovered here on YouTube that had been used in people's videos. Then the corporations started getting aggressive about forcing these videos to be taken down. It shocks me how many of my favorited videos from the past disappeared. I rarely buy music anymore. The idiotic corporations have no idea how much business they may have lost from people like me. It's also a shame because some of those videos were quite creative works of art themselves.
@peterscottfrost Help us to block a bill called Stop Online Piracy Act. SOPA is a bill that would create America's first Internet censorship system. In a nutshell, it is similar like the censorship in China, Iran, etc.
#OpBlackout will not be silenced. We, #Anonymous, shall prevail!
h t t p s : / / w w w .youtube.com /watch?v =S1PeuX-gXp4
Here's a thought: The SOPA combined with the ability to detain american citizens without due process indefinitely passed only 2 weeks ago in The National Defense Authorization Act. ...chilling doesn't begin to define this. How bout waking up one morning to some gubment goons sacking all your computers, and your getting shipped off to cuba because you posted a video that was 'copyrighted'. These people are like ninja's...evil ninja's who strike in many places at the same time.
I download movies all the time. I can't afford to buy alot of films and in fairness theres a lot of drivle out there. Also the qulity from a compressed torrent is really bad at the best of times. If i find a film i really like i will go and buy it on dvd or blue ray to watch in all it's glory. So the more people see a film the more possible sales. After all when they get stale they'll end up on the box.
@kropotkinbeard1 Ugh... Cohen, really? The egalitarian weasel who took cheap shots at Nozick, fantasized about having refuted the argument that "inequality" arises from equal distribution by just means and failed to provide solid justification for coercive intervention?
If by "deeper truth" you mean unstructured argumentation, then I'm with you.
@Alhoshka Uhhh...Yes, ugh..Cohen, really. And "cheap shots at Nozick"? He was far too kind to Nozick in fact. And what "coercive intervention"? There is none. I recommend either making an argument against him. Few have done any worthy refutations thus far. Probably even fewer than have successfully refuted Chomsky. Virtually nil.
@Alhoshka "Egalitarian weasel"? I know of no one fitting this description. And I do hope your adding the "egalitarian" with weasel was in no way an attempt to infer than egalitarianism is a bad thing. That would be silly. As far as taking "cheap shots at Nozick" at Nozick I must simply laugh. If anything he was far too kind to Nozick and was obviously so. It was almost like a wise grandfather (Cohen) understandingly patting the head of a slightly intellectually challenged grandson. Nozick is..
@Alhoshka ...not even in the same ballpark as Cohen, either intellectually or morally. And thre is no "coersive intervention" to my knowledge. "Coerced" by whom? The free people who freely elect their free representatives? The libertarian paranoia of always being "coerced" is sad, infantile, and pathetic. There is tons of material out there easily demonstrating exactly why this is the case, not that any materials should be necessary. Re: "Unstructured argumentation, yes, for those who don't...
@kropotkinbeard1 "Coerced by whom? The free people who freely elect their free representatives? or worded differently, "dont be silly, its not lethal force if you chose who pulled the trigger!". We get to vote, an exercise where up to 49% of people's votes get ignored. We vote for under 0.000001% of public figures, each person shares >90% compatible views with less than 0.1% of the population. When a law is not totally corrupt, it is at best based on a shoddy compromise.
@Alhoshka ...understand the arguments, usually people who haven't really studied them all that much, and are confused by any structures which transcends anything they're used to, yes, it probably does appear "unstructured". Sort of like how anti-Chomsky droolers percieve his ideas as unstructured regardless of the fact that they are nothing but. Anyway, did you have an actual argument, or just want to whine about the evils of "egalitarianism"? (snore)
@kropotkinbeard1 It should have been called "against fascism". The guy is confused or completely aware of the distortion he is selling. Either way undeserving of anyone's time.
Apple is the evil company that pretends replace the current web with its App Store, selling us a paradigm of new way of interaction through a dumbest TV and Ipads, replacing the personal computing and forcing us to store our information in its cloud.
@superoptimo Yeah, Apple lost me with their no cash policy (not sure if this was on everything in their store or just one product but it does not matter), force me to use digital money and I will shop elsewhere.
Q: Steph, lets say I download all of your vids,and put them on one DVD. And then I sell those DVDs for $10 each. Are you saying that you deserve nothing out of that $10?
@Andybaby asking that question presupposes that preventing or penalizing the copying of the vids is the only possible solution to ensure the "author/creator" gets their "fair compensation". In short, its asserting that there can't possibly be another solution, or even interpretation of the problem itself, and this assumption is actually the only "rationale" provided for the proposed solution. Instead, I insist that there *are* other solutions possible, so that rationale is nonsense.
@Andybaby yes, you are presupposing - both that Stef gets nothing from your sales, and that there's anything legitimate that can be done about it. The former isn't necessarily true, and if the latter isn't true, the question is meaningless - i.e. you may as well ask me if I think its fair that you can take pictures of me and sell them without me being able to impose anything upon you for it.
My question doesn't 'presuppose' anything. My example explicitly states that Steph gets $0. My question is simple: is that fair? Does Steph have the right to any $ made from my sales of 'my' DVD? It's not like me 'taking pictures of you'. Its like me selling pictures YOU took.
@Andybaby I must disagree - you are selling copies of that which has value in all cases. The presuppositions are in $ as the only "return", and that there's any legitimacy in resulting imposition (i.e. "taking a cut"). Stef made his stuff available for free, you made copies and sold them. If Stef wanted to prevent that, he'd have to do something other than what he did. Asking about the "fairness" of that is like asking if its fair that we have to spend valuable time sleeping to be healthy.
@Andybaby Stef had the choice of how to release his material - if he chose to release it for free before making his DVDs available, he's obviously allowing for the possibility that you might do as you're proposing. As I indicated previously, "fair" doesn't really come into it, unless you presuppose some form of legitimacy to imposing some measure against the scenario.
@Andybaby sking that question presupposes that preventing or penalizing the copying of the vids is the only possible solution to ensure the "author/creator" gets their "fair compensation". In short, its asserting that there can't possibly be another solution, or even interpretation of the problem itself, and this assumption is actually the only "rationale" provided for the proposed solution. Instead, I insist that there *are* other solutions possible, so that rationale is nonsense.
Example 2: Billy starts a new website 'StephCentral', with your complete works: books, writings, vids - the lot. Every time you create anything, Billy immediately copies it and put it on his website. Billy makes $ from ads, generated by visitors attracted to the work YOU produced. There also is a big 'donate' button on Billys site; people give $ to Billy because his website is 'better' than your youtube one. He doesn't give you 1 cent. This doesn't bother you in the slightest?
@Andybaby I think everyone agrees this is atrocious behavior. Your forgetting a key component. In fact THE Key component: Force. Steph has every right to call the person who does what your proposing a complete tool, and a hack, and in the same sentence affirm his right to do with his computer as he wishes. Steph does not have the right to initiate force against someone peacefully sitting at their computer, and neither does anyone else.
The person 'sitting peacefully' at his computer is profiting from the work of another. What if someone peacefully walks into your home and takes the $100 bill you had saved? Does Steph not have the right to 'own' the work he toiled to produce?
@Andybaby if I steal a $100 bill from you, it mean that you dont have it anymore - hence theft of property. Copying or emulating an idea is not theft because it doesnt take it away from you. Thats a big difference. Theft of property can only be considered theft if you take a physical thing from someone else, If they still have it then you didnt steal it from them.
The availability of instant ,effortless digital copies does not take away the basic moral principle that: If you worked all day to write and record a song that would make you $100, and someone sells/gives a potential customer your work for free/cheaper, that *is* like someone taking the $100 bill a boss gave you. Even if we agree that 95% of downloaders wouldn't have bought the product anyway, that 5% might be the difference between making a living or not.
@Andybaby@Andybaby you are talking about two different things, one is morality and the other is law. They are opposites. For example it is moral to hold the door open for an old lady, however it is immoral to imprison,assault or steal money from someone for not holding the door open for an old lady. see the difference? it is always MORE immoral to enforce morality. Its ironic because the most immoral actions in our society are actually the enforcement of someones morality.
Interesting. Ok, just to get on the same page here, lets say you discover a $100 bill fell out of your pocket. You later find out that Sally saw you drop it, and took it. She says it's hers now. In most countries (legally) *you* 'own' the $100 bill ... are you saying it's immoral to forcibly retrieve the $100 from Sally?
@Andybaby In this case I lost a $100 bill and sally gained my $100 bill. So to transfer this to patent law imagine that what sally saw was my schematics on a new invention, if she simply learns my idea and trys to recreate it on her own then she did not steal because I still have my idea and schematics, if she stole my papers or opened up my head and took my brain then that would be theft. Again its not stealing something if the person still has that same something.
What if the schematic represented a lifetime of hard work and sacrifice? What if the law (when work began) was that the person *would* own the invention?
If he deserves 0 compensation, then isn't that like a new socialist government telling Ford "thanks for your years of effort creating this amazing car factory, but we've decided it's too important to be owned by one person. It belongs to the 'people' now, thank you comrade"?
Also controversial areas like DNA patents aside, IP laws make a distinction between owning an 'idea' (which you basically cant) and owning an expression of an idea (which you basically can). eg, I can sell my work *based* on Steph's videos, but not the videos themselves, which *he* owns.
@Andybaby again you confuse two different things. You cannot steal something from someone if they still have it. If I physically steal his videos or computer then thats theft. If I make a copy then I didnt steal his property since he still has it. Once you go down the road of "stealing" potential profit and potential income it will become clear how foolish IP laws truly are
@Andybaby Riddle me this. Would you actually go to another site, and pay real money to someone for content you know they didn't create, when the actual content creator offers it for free on a site you can trust? Your nuts if you answer yes. Your entire scenario is bunk. You've created a box to rot in, claiming there is no other possibilities. Don't be so narrow minded. Lastly, someone entering my home has to use force. Your comparing apples to oranges. False reasoning again.
@Andybaby Also: Your forgetting things like trust and reputation. Most people would prefer getting material and media from sites they trust. Any ripoff site immediatly stinks like old fish BECAUSE it is a ripoff site, and anyone visiting it will know this immediately. Only large conglomerate ripoff sites:piratebay, can do what they do because of economies of scale, they ripoff anything and everything. A site like you suggest would be too specialized, and would never gain traction.
@stefbot True, @Andybaby would be an advertiser driven by incentive, which would yield great exposure.
You would only gain Stef new viewers. All previous donaters would not pay you for a product that they get for free, so Stef's donations would not decrease.
You would be competing for spending of Stef's viewers if Stef's viewers wanted to watch the videos on DVD rather than online. In that case, you deserve that $10 because you have added value to society by giving freedom to the consumer.
@Andybaby It's gonna be pretty hard to sell DVDs for $10 of Stef's work. His fans all know where to get it for free, because he mentions it quite a lot (pays to advertise, even with free stuff).
@Andybaby, he deserves nothing out of those recordings since he isn't the owner of his ideas anymore after he has made them public. The only way he could directly benefit would be that he signed a private contract to explain his ideas to some of the interested people.
Juris prudence. The later usually takes priority. HOWEVER, it is always subject to the US constitution. Any law passed, no matter how new it is, must be compliant with the constitution. If there is a conflict between two laws, the later law prevails. If there is a conflict between a law and the constitution, then the constitution prevails.
Do you remember the " FALSE FLAG " 9-11 which gave birth to Home Land Security and the "Patriot Act" ? Here, two elements were put in place giving government more power to lock up the average Americans and impose Nazi rule.. Now this new ZIONIST law is still another platform to remove more rights of Americans. The government has the match lit waiting for the riots to start... and the Zionist's puppets are betraying all Americans.
In your example, the individual that is trespassing does not have permission to use your property. But if you were to sell your home and the buyer were to gather the blueprints, call a contractor down the street, send him the specs, and then allow him to duplicate the newly purchased home; where is the ("crime") violation of property?
I started pirating pc games after years of being very against it. My reason is that these big companys take the piss, they spend more time on advertising than on the actual game itself. Releasing unfinished, buggy and broken games.
BitTorrent downloads linked to RIAA, DHS IP addresses
RIAA Caught Pirating: "It Wasn’t Us." Really.
So despite their IP getting busted, they deny it was THEM. JUST LIKE SO MANY OF THOSE THEY HAVE SUED. The cunts who produce nothing creatively but reap the lawsuit rewards are GUILTY of what they accuse over. And when they give the same excuse as their defendants we are expected to believe them.
This is not about "balance". Copyright Nazis want no "fair use" etc.
Big insurance companies are very disinterested (in general) in making any kind of web-based innovations and instead feel much more confident bribing legislators. By effect their websites are not user friendly, and they don't look at reducing overhead through their websites. This actually offers a great opportunity to people who know how to make websites beautiful, functional and work FOR them to partner up with someone who understands the industry and make some nice money.
When I 'ahem' watch a movie more than once, I buy the DVD. There are many DVDs that I wouldn't have ever even considered buying if I hadn't had a chance to see it first.
Indeed. My rather sizable library of movies and TV shows exists only because I downloaded them first. Even some of the movies I don't like, I still buy. Not out of guilt for having illegally downloading them in the first place but because I like to have something physical to put on my shelf. I'm a collector. It's what I do. If it's on my media centre, it's on my shelf. ;)
SOPA will just put a digital iron curtain up around the US. This is just another 'Please wont some body think about the children' argument. Piracy, child porn, terrorism; these are the excuses our respective governments are using to reign in the flow of information to the citizenry. More divide and conquer strategies. If ever there was an example of the immorality of the state, here it is.
The great 21th century fallacy: Just because you buy something, does not mean, that you are buying a property of some kind. You buy what you value, but just because you value something, doesn't mean that IT can be "protected" from others. Digital content is like a service. If you value it enough, you will probably eventually buy it. If not, you will use it for free. Just my quick thought.
Okay, don't blame me if I don't have the best taste in music, but I watched the Blake Sheldon's Footloose video online for free off of Yahoo & I went to itunes and purchased the song. In fact, most of the music that I've purchased has been when I heard it on the radio and like the music and wanted to listen to it whenever I wanted. One major band allowed their fans to video tape their concerts and record sales of their CD went up since people wanted version that didn't have the audience noise.
Nullifying property and contract rights as Kinsella and Molyneux support *is* immoral. The reason to be against SOPA is not IP. It's a violation of the 4th amend. ISP's have no legal right to know what data is transmitted over their wires. Only by warrant should gov't be able to *discover* if copyright has been infringed. Kinsella is smuggling his anti-IP opinion into what is really a 4th amend problem. It's a misdirection that takes away from the real issue. Stealing IP is still stealing.
Why is only technological seniority protected? Why can't the first company to a particular market file for property rights, or the first company to employ a particular distribution method?
Apple had to take the risk and do the hard work to make and market the iPhone, and other companies can just make their own smartphones for cheap because they didn't have to deal with the bleeding edge. -
- Wal*Mart's command structure is a work of pure genius, and represented a lot of brainpower, a huge risk and a lot of expensive and error-prone experimentation to get just right, and now any other chain can just copy it.
You speak of principles: "property" and "theft." Upon what principle can you justify IP, without simultaneously justifying all other forms of mercantilistic protection based on seniority?
@PanzerDivisionBOM probably something to do with the fact that incremental improvement is always possible; it already takes a long time for others to transition from their existing system to a new proven system, there is usually sufficient ability for companies to keep trade secrets secret besides that, and the fact that this encourages innovation, without which monopolies form.
@PanzerDivisionBOM when i view some copyrighted material on my computer legally, I have made a copy of it in RAM and on my hard drive just in order to view it, and I as a user can do whatever I want with it after I possess it. You cannot tell where someone is allowed and not allowed to wear a shirt you sold them, and telling someone how they must use information is equally ridiculous. not only that, but it costs more to enforce than to sell more info and encourage legit buying
@PanzerDivisionBOM "Why can't the first company to a particular market file for property rights..." They can if they indicate 'patent pending' on their product. The clock starts on a patent when the patent application is filed. If the patent is granted two years later, the term started the day it was filed.
@PanzerDivisionBOM in theory i could buy an iPhone and configure it, customize it, and if not for copyright, I would be legally able to resell it to people. However, because it has an Apple logo on it, my useful service that people are willing to pay for would instead be illegal, merely because Apple says so. That would be like the engine company having Ford thrown in jail for using their engine in a Ford vehicle, wouldn't it?
But incremental improvement is possible in technology as well, and it takes time to employ technologies that someone else has developed, and driving down the prices of new technologies by competing with them is certainly a very valuable service. Try arguing that last one with someone who has had to pay for expensive patented medicines.
You speak of monopolies. The original definition of a monopoly, in the age before every crank -
- started pushing his own theory of market failure, was a letter of protection offered by a government to a firm, entitling them to call upon the state to prevent other firms from competing with them. This description fits IP to a tee.
Note also how your argument leaves the realm of principle as soon as it is examined, with much the same expeditiousness as the French Mercantilists displayed when arguing for their more obviously anti-Capitalist protections.
@PanzerDivisionBOM true, it is rather annoying to spend a ton of money on something only to have people copy it, but the path that drug patenting leads to is there being more money in treatments than in cures. If you can cure the disease, the competition does not get a chance to copy your medicine. The other thing is knowing a finished product is not the same as knowing the best process to manufacture it; for example take Intel's massive manufacturing advantage vs AMD in CPUs.
I'm frankly uninterested in utilitarian arguments on this point. Everyone and their dog has a different empirical theory on whether IP contributes to innovation, and people of opposing viewpoints frequently cite the same statistics as irrefutable proof of their correctness.
Rather, I think it is more fruitful to show how IP is just one more form of seniority, qualitatively no different from the guilds and tarriffs that free market advocates already oppose.
@~18:00 The only reason you can make money with free distribution of art is because copyright is the norm. If copyright weren't the norm, you wouldn't be able to make money off of your podcasts/other free stuff.
beauxq 4 weeks ago
SOPA directly translated into Swedish means "Trash/garbage"
Velv9001 1 month ago
SOPA, as bad as it seems is nothing compared to ACTA, (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) Insomuch because, although it has been in the making for years, it has completely bypassed the democratic process by being deliberately kept from the public. If you don't believe me go look it up. Canada, the USA, Singapore, S. Korea, Japan, new zealand, and morocco have already signed it.
tails22x 1 month ago
Who gives a fuck. This is taking place over in America... Fuck America
rankingtrevor 1 month ago
@rankingtrevor Yeah, because this definitely won't have any effect on any other country in the world. At all. Nope.
evanbunnell 1 month ago
Steph agreed with Stef so much I could literally picture him humping his leg.
rusedorange 1 month ago
Either SOPA is a conspiratorial attempt to censor the internet because communication is paramount for the uprising that have happened recently and will be for any future ones and they don’t want that.
Or it is an attempt of corporations to hold onto dinosaur business models, the head of Valve said it best to beat pirate sites provide a better service.
Best of all it turns out the companies pushing SOPA are the ones who had a monopoly on the pirating software go figure
/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc
darkblood626 1 month ago
I wasn't entirely sure at first which baldie was you! haha
gerwazjana 1 month ago in playlist More videos from stefbot
Why is our GOVT so wicked? And so crumbles democracy... this just sucks...
totoro1591 2 months ago
They are shooting themselves in the head if they push SOPA through...
totoro1591 2 months ago
THE GOVT LEARNS NOTHING... PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK!!!
totoro1591 2 months ago
OUR PRISON SYSTEM IS IMMORAL!!!
totoro1591 2 months ago
PROTECT FREEDOM!!! STOP SOPA!!! :)
totoro1591 2 months ago
No accountability on why entertainment industries are losing money. Most of the crap out there today - sucks. People buy quality - not just because they need to be entertained. People will find their own way to be entertained - especially if they dont have money to buy a stupid CD.
#SOPA - Fascism FTW
Shizzmoney74 2 months ago
SOPA infringes on my human right to click and download
aaaaaaa1 2 months ago
people are still going to get there info i'll give you all an example
when cocaine became illegal did people say '' oh it's illegal now we should just stop using it now''
No they said '' fuck that we want cocaine were going to get it!'' the point of what i'm saying is when there is enough demand for something people will be there to meet that demand and no one will stand in there way of delivering that product and making a profit off of it
Dan76135 2 months ago
dns protocol?..
har har
terry455 2 months ago
"had to write out a check, had to get a stamp....."
During that time, you also had to go to great lengths to copy material. Technology balances itself out on both sides.
jeffiek 2 months ago
Kinsella got me to throw another fiver on Louis CK's pile. Worth every penny too! That's definitely the way to go; provide real value to people, no strings attached and don't be a dick about it.
spamsponge 2 months ago
SOPA sounds as foul as TARP.
1977Melville 2 months ago
Watch this video:
watch?v=30-d2G3vrpE
the corps pushing SOPA wrote and pushed the file sharing software.
It's a setup, classic entrapment.
CheekyMonkey888 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Support Ron Paul.
Less government spending, less taxation to American Citizens, a budget plan that works.
This man has been fighting for your personal freedom and the separation of congress from big business for years. He stands against draconian bills like SOPA, NDAA and the Patriot Act.
He has fought against the war on drugs, the foreign wars, and corporate bail outs.
Vote for liberty this year. Vote for real change.
Thumb up and spread the message!
RapsAlive 2 months ago
YES! This is what I really think is stupid. That all those that pirate would buy the products if they couldn't pirate it. That is such a stupid argument.
DragonMountainFilm 2 months ago 5
I bet there's a lot of well paid jobs at SOPA.
ThePennydrop 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A large part of all major media is for those in power to advertise to, propagandize, manipulate and control society. Hollywood, sports, the music industry etc want as many people to see and hear the "programming" as possible. Say 70% of people will pay, and 30% never will. They still want the 30% exposed to it. The 30% will always exist and they will always be allowed access to the media. All they are doing is trying to control where the money from the 70% goes. Same as the drug war.
ThePennydrop 2 months ago
Comment removed
ThePennydrop 2 months ago
I wonder, could this Law protect an inventor from being robbed by some leading corporations?
LeonidRozumenko 2 months ago 18
@LeonidRozumenko , I wonder, can patent law prevent an inventor from selling his invention because some leading corporation believes it's too similiar to its own product? Answer: yes. Does it happen in practice? Answer: Yes, all the time. Question: who holds most patents and who is in a best position to acquire even more? Answer: leading corporations.
foldr 1 month ago
I am Leonid Rozumenko, - the inventor of the screenboards.
The name of my work, where I described this new for that time type of data entry devices:
UNIVERSAL MULTILANGUAGE MULTIFUNCTIONAL KEYBOARD
the very term the screen-boards was also created by me in this work to describe with the words what I had in mind.
My ideas passed international patent search as Inventive and Innovative
So it was (and it is!) my invention!
LeonidRozumenko 2 months ago
@LeonidRozumenko pics or it didn't happen....
imreloadin2 2 months ago
My ideas passed international patent search as Inventive and Innovative
So it was (and it is!) my invention!
I had American patent agents from "Invention Home"
and American patent attorneys from "James Ray and associates"
but Microsoft, Apple, Showcase, Accenture, Sony and others took my ideas for free as if I never existed and don't deserve any royalties.
so Bill Gates and Apple wizards, what are you doing???
LeonidRozumenko 2 months ago
How this idea came to me?
I studied programming in USA 12 years ago
plus, I know several European languages
and I like to write sometimes in one language, sometimes in another
so I thought how to create a tool for this purpose...
I thought about it and I thought about it... I went to bed with these thoughts
and a week or two waked up with this idea about the screen-boards.
LeonidRozumenko 2 months ago
then I supplied it with the GOOD QUALITY brainstorming.
Out of my ideas in this package came all existing screen boards,
Windows Ubuntu, extensions for the TV and much more!
My work covered all related to the screen-boards themes and gave them the PERSPECTIVE...
LeonidRozumenko 2 months ago
And it wasn't just the ideas which I shared! -
I paid more than 15 000 $ in the process!
I paid 11 500 00 $ just for the PCT application (Patent Cooperation Treaty application) to protect my author-inventor's rights around the Earth for three years!!!
Yet, I can't find investors anywhere, though I paid to my patent agents for the Premium Site and for the marketing - to sell my ideas to the big companies
but these "gentlemen" took it for free!
LeonidRozumenko 2 months ago
P.S.: the same applies to the Nexus One
which boldly advertises their product right here on YouTube.
the same applies to T-Mobile, Samsung and others
which continue to do it on TV
Gentlemen, check your conscience, - is it fair to leave the inventor of the screen-boards without any compensation?
LeonidRozumenko 2 months ago
@stefbot Youtube has added a Donate button that you can add under your videos, i'd suggest doing that! Just a headsup :-)
Unh0lymystic 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
extra income?
Try it FREE for 90 days!
check it out! * amazingautosystem.weebly.com *
MultiAhka 2 months ago
I am a pirate, very little on my computer is legitimate. That doesn't mean I have not purchased the software, movies, or music. It is simply easier for me to have everything on my computer. I would rather not dig through a box every time I want to watch a movie and sit through 15 minutes of un-skippable ads, and copyright warnings. Having my media server loaded with several terabytes of music and movies allows me to access all of my "illegal" media instantly with no bullshit, anywhere.
TheMasterFawkes 2 months ago
Laws are nothing other than commands from a group of humans that have the imagined right to hurt you if you disobey them.
furyofbongos 2 months ago
Comment removed
optionism 2 months ago
I once built and projected an early screening of a movie for a professional football team. The paranoid studio sent two security guards to wand the wealthy pro athletes as they went into the theater. I also had a guard literally sitting watching me as I broke the movie down, as if I was somehow going to make a quick copy of it in the film lab that I had hidden in the projection booth. As for trailers, studios require theaters to run their trailers on their prints as part of the rental agreement.
peterscottfrost 2 months ago
Warner Brothers also sent out faxes to theaters warning them not to let people make copies of the "Dark Knight Rises" trailer. I saw one of these faxes myself. The studios will send checkers to theaters to make sure that their trailers are programmed onto their film releases, because they desperately want people to see them, but then they complain if people make copies of those same trailers. Ridiculous. That's just free advertising, for crying out loud.
peterscottfrost 2 months ago
@peterscottfrost. WB trusts the dolts that run movie theaters to enforce this? Movie goers recorded the DKR prologue using their iPhone!
1977Melville 2 months ago
@1977Melville
Theater employees don't get paid enough to give a damn. They can barely be bothered to kick out unruly kids, much less worry about what people are recording on their phones.
Draginvry2 2 months ago
I used to buy a lot of CDs because of music that I discovered here on YouTube that had been used in people's videos. Then the corporations started getting aggressive about forcing these videos to be taken down. It shocks me how many of my favorited videos from the past disappeared. I rarely buy music anymore. The idiotic corporations have no idea how much business they may have lost from people like me. It's also a shame because some of those videos were quite creative works of art themselves.
peterscottfrost 2 months ago 24
This has been flagged as spam show
@peterscottfrost Help us to block a bill called Stop Online Piracy Act. SOPA is a bill that would create America's first Internet censorship system. In a nutshell, it is similar like the censorship in China, Iran, etc.
#OpBlackout will not be silenced. We, #Anonymous, shall prevail!
h t t p s : / / w w w .youtube.com /watch?v =S1PeuX-gXp4
Mbay771 1 month ago
Here's a thought: The SOPA combined with the ability to detain american citizens without due process indefinitely passed only 2 weeks ago in The National Defense Authorization Act. ...chilling doesn't begin to define this. How bout waking up one morning to some gubment goons sacking all your computers, and your getting shipped off to cuba because you posted a video that was 'copyrighted'. These people are like ninja's...evil ninja's who strike in many places at the same time.
indefiance24 2 months ago
I download movies all the time. I can't afford to buy alot of films and in fairness theres a lot of drivle out there. Also the qulity from a compressed torrent is really bad at the best of times. If i find a film i really like i will go and buy it on dvd or blue ray to watch in all it's glory. So the more people see a film the more possible sales. After all when they get stale they'll end up on the box.
tonedcos 2 months ago
Lets override SOPA by enforcing SSOPA (STOP STOP ONLINE PIRACY ACT)
HigherPlanes 2 months ago
Download DeSOPA for the Mozilla Firefox web browser.
Follow the link in this vid's description. /watch?v=GJx6tYbWeJk
barccy 2 months ago
How about some slightly deeper truth with hair:
G. A. Cohen - Against Capitalism - Part 1
youtube.com/watch?v=yA9WPQeow9c
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Ugh... Cohen, really? The egalitarian weasel who took cheap shots at Nozick, fantasized about having refuted the argument that "inequality" arises from equal distribution by just means and failed to provide solid justification for coercive intervention?
If by "deeper truth" you mean unstructured argumentation, then I'm with you.
Alhoshka 2 months ago
@Alhoshka Uhhh...Yes, ugh..Cohen, really. And "cheap shots at Nozick"? He was far too kind to Nozick in fact. And what "coercive intervention"? There is none. I recommend either making an argument against him. Few have done any worthy refutations thus far. Probably even fewer than have successfully refuted Chomsky. Virtually nil.
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@Alhoshka "Egalitarian weasel"? I know of no one fitting this description. And I do hope your adding the "egalitarian" with weasel was in no way an attempt to infer than egalitarianism is a bad thing. That would be silly. As far as taking "cheap shots at Nozick" at Nozick I must simply laugh. If anything he was far too kind to Nozick and was obviously so. It was almost like a wise grandfather (Cohen) understandingly patting the head of a slightly intellectually challenged grandson. Nozick is..
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@Alhoshka ...not even in the same ballpark as Cohen, either intellectually or morally. And thre is no "coersive intervention" to my knowledge. "Coerced" by whom? The free people who freely elect their free representatives? The libertarian paranoia of always being "coerced" is sad, infantile, and pathetic. There is tons of material out there easily demonstrating exactly why this is the case, not that any materials should be necessary. Re: "Unstructured argumentation, yes, for those who don't...
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kropotkinbeard1 "Coerced by whom? The free people who freely elect their free representatives? or worded differently, "dont be silly, its not lethal force if you chose who pulled the trigger!". We get to vote, an exercise where up to 49% of people's votes get ignored. We vote for under 0.000001% of public figures, each person shares >90% compatible views with less than 0.1% of the population. When a law is not totally corrupt, it is at best based on a shoddy compromise.
theredscourge 1 month ago
@Alhoshka ...understand the arguments, usually people who haven't really studied them all that much, and are confused by any structures which transcends anything they're used to, yes, it probably does appear "unstructured". Sort of like how anti-Chomsky droolers percieve his ideas as unstructured regardless of the fact that they are nothing but. Anyway, did you have an actual argument, or just want to whine about the evils of "egalitarianism"? (snore)
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
@kropotkinbeard1 It should have been called "against fascism". The guy is confused or completely aware of the distortion he is selling. Either way undeserving of anyone's time.
grumpone 2 months ago
@grumpone Who are you referring to?
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
This continuous petitioning of the government by the mega media corps, has a powerfully negative effect on investment on the internet.
Imagine what we'd have if the government, 'the gun', wasn't always aimed randomly at entrepreneurs.
ostralopithicus 2 months ago
This will eventually be passed. Prepare by getting onto the I2P network (goog it).
ostralopithicus 2 months ago
Intellectual property is just the fear of changing your business model, you get a adept your product to the market, not the other way around.
rodrigodet 2 months ago
Stef, is that your brother? XD
Pikers81 2 months ago
A very useful discussion, thanks to both of you for your efforts!
mu2freighter 2 months ago
/watch?v=JhwuXNv8fJM tb did a good video on this
dannyv233 2 months ago
Apple is the evil company that pretends replace the current web with its App Store, selling us a paradigm of new way of interaction through a dumbest TV and Ipads, replacing the personal computing and forcing us to store our information in its cloud.
superoptimo 2 months ago
@superoptimo Yeah, Apple lost me with their no cash policy (not sure if this was on everything in their store or just one product but it does not matter), force me to use digital money and I will shop elsewhere.
DontTread0nMe1776 2 months ago
Q: Steph, lets say I download all of your vids,and put them on one DVD. And then I sell those DVDs for $10 each. Are you saying that you deserve nothing out of that $10?
Andybaby 2 months ago
@Andybaby asking that question presupposes that preventing or penalizing the copying of the vids is the only possible solution to ensure the "author/creator" gets their "fair compensation". In short, its asserting that there can't possibly be another solution, or even interpretation of the problem itself, and this assumption is actually the only "rationale" provided for the proposed solution. Instead, I insist that there *are* other solutions possible, so that rationale is nonsense.
mattsamudio 2 months ago
@mattsamudio
I'm not presupposing anything, nor discussing solutions. I only asking if Steph feels it's 'fair' that he gets $0 from the sales of 'my' DVD.
Andybaby 2 months ago
@Andybaby yes, you are presupposing - both that Stef gets nothing from your sales, and that there's anything legitimate that can be done about it. The former isn't necessarily true, and if the latter isn't true, the question is meaningless - i.e. you may as well ask me if I think its fair that you can take pictures of me and sell them without me being able to impose anything upon you for it.
mattsamudio 2 months ago
@mattsamudio
My question doesn't 'presuppose' anything. My example explicitly states that Steph gets $0. My question is simple: is that fair? Does Steph have the right to any $ made from my sales of 'my' DVD? It's not like me 'taking pictures of you'. Its like me selling pictures YOU took.
Andybaby 2 months ago
@Andybaby I must disagree - you are selling copies of that which has value in all cases. The presuppositions are in $ as the only "return", and that there's any legitimacy in resulting imposition (i.e. "taking a cut"). Stef made his stuff available for free, you made copies and sold them. If Stef wanted to prevent that, he'd have to do something other than what he did. Asking about the "fairness" of that is like asking if its fair that we have to spend valuable time sleeping to be healthy.
mattsamudio 2 months ago
@mattsamudio
Ok, lets say Steph planned to make his own DVD "Collected works", and sell it for $20 each. And mine comes out 6 months earlier, selling for $10?
Andybaby 2 months ago
@Andybaby Man, ur describing my dream, cheap prices, man the freed market is great>!
evandonghue2 2 months ago
@Andybaby Stef had the choice of how to release his material - if he chose to release it for free before making his DVDs available, he's obviously allowing for the possibility that you might do as you're proposing. As I indicated previously, "fair" doesn't really come into it, unless you presuppose some form of legitimacy to imposing some measure against the scenario.
mattsamudio 2 months ago
@Andybaby sking that question presupposes that preventing or penalizing the copying of the vids is the only possible solution to ensure the "author/creator" gets their "fair compensation". In short, its asserting that there can't possibly be another solution, or even interpretation of the problem itself, and this assumption is actually the only "rationale" provided for the proposed solution. Instead, I insist that there *are* other solutions possible, so that rationale is nonsense.
mattsamudio 2 months ago
@Andybaby Yes, that is in fact what he is saying.
Panpiper 2 months ago
@Andybaby I get great advertising, and probably more donations. :)
stefbot 2 months ago 57
@stefbot and in giving up a big chunk of the profits, you also save 100% on the cost of distribution and marketing.
theredscourge 2 months ago
@theredscourge i meant to say copying, managing inventory, and distribution, you already said advertising/marketing
theredscourge 2 months ago
@stefbot
Example 2: Billy starts a new website 'StephCentral', with your complete works: books, writings, vids - the lot. Every time you create anything, Billy immediately copies it and put it on his website. Billy makes $ from ads, generated by visitors attracted to the work YOU produced. There also is a big 'donate' button on Billys site; people give $ to Billy because his website is 'better' than your youtube one. He doesn't give you 1 cent. This doesn't bother you in the slightest?
Andybaby 2 months ago
@Andybaby "This doesn't bother you in the slightest?"
Bother>? Maybe, but does that mean u pay armed men to enforce ur IP>? No_
evandonghue2 2 months ago
@Andybaby I think everyone agrees this is atrocious behavior. Your forgetting a key component. In fact THE Key component: Force. Steph has every right to call the person who does what your proposing a complete tool, and a hack, and in the same sentence affirm his right to do with his computer as he wishes. Steph does not have the right to initiate force against someone peacefully sitting at their computer, and neither does anyone else.
indefiance24 2 months ago
@indefiance24
The person 'sitting peacefully' at his computer is profiting from the work of another. What if someone peacefully walks into your home and takes the $100 bill you had saved? Does Steph not have the right to 'own' the work he toiled to produce?
Andybaby 2 months ago
@Andybaby if I steal a $100 bill from you, it mean that you dont have it anymore - hence theft of property. Copying or emulating an idea is not theft because it doesnt take it away from you. Thats a big difference. Theft of property can only be considered theft if you take a physical thing from someone else, If they still have it then you didnt steal it from them.
slickbtk 2 months ago
@slickbtk
The availability of instant ,effortless digital copies does not take away the basic moral principle that: If you worked all day to write and record a song that would make you $100, and someone sells/gives a potential customer your work for free/cheaper, that *is* like someone taking the $100 bill a boss gave you. Even if we agree that 95% of downloaders wouldn't have bought the product anyway, that 5% might be the difference between making a living or not.
Andybaby 2 months ago
@Andybaby @Andybaby you are talking about two different things, one is morality and the other is law. They are opposites. For example it is moral to hold the door open for an old lady, however it is immoral to imprison,assault or steal money from someone for not holding the door open for an old lady. see the difference? it is always MORE immoral to enforce morality. Its ironic because the most immoral actions in our society are actually the enforcement of someones morality.
slickbtk 2 months ago
@slickbtk
Interesting. Ok, just to get on the same page here, lets say you discover a $100 bill fell out of your pocket. You later find out that Sally saw you drop it, and took it. She says it's hers now. In most countries (legally) *you* 'own' the $100 bill ... are you saying it's immoral to forcibly retrieve the $100 from Sally?
Andybaby 2 months ago
@Andybaby "retrieve the $100 from Sally?"
I note that you write "THE $100" from Sally using the definite article. As in there is one, and only one, $100 bill under discussion.
Sally did not see you drop it and take a picture (make a copy). She took the ONE AND ONLY ONE $100 bill.
Yes it is moral to forcibly retrieve the $100 bill. No it is not moral to forcibly retrieve a picture of the $100 bill.
jeffiek 2 months ago
@Andybaby In this case I lost a $100 bill and sally gained my $100 bill. So to transfer this to patent law imagine that what sally saw was my schematics on a new invention, if she simply learns my idea and trys to recreate it on her own then she did not steal because I still have my idea and schematics, if she stole my papers or opened up my head and took my brain then that would be theft. Again its not stealing something if the person still has that same something.
slickbtk 2 months ago
@slickbtk
What if the schematic represented a lifetime of hard work and sacrifice? What if the law (when work began) was that the person *would* own the invention?
If he deserves 0 compensation, then isn't that like a new socialist government telling Ford "thanks for your years of effort creating this amazing car factory, but we've decided it's too important to be owned by one person. It belongs to the 'people' now, thank you comrade"?
Andybaby 2 months ago
@Andybaby "write and record a song that would make you $100"
This is the logical fallacy called "begging the question". The arguments in favor of "intellectual property" are full of them.
Due to the 500 char limit on comments ( and my moderate writing skills ), I will simply refer you to:
dklevine. com/general/intellectual/against. htm
jeffiek 2 months ago
Also controversial areas like DNA patents aside, IP laws make a distinction between owning an 'idea' (which you basically cant) and owning an expression of an idea (which you basically can). eg, I can sell my work *based* on Steph's videos, but not the videos themselves, which *he* owns.
Andybaby 2 months ago
@Andybaby again you confuse two different things. You cannot steal something from someone if they still have it. If I physically steal his videos or computer then thats theft. If I make a copy then I didnt steal his property since he still has it. Once you go down the road of "stealing" potential profit and potential income it will become clear how foolish IP laws truly are
slickbtk 2 months ago
@Andybaby Riddle me this. Would you actually go to another site, and pay real money to someone for content you know they didn't create, when the actual content creator offers it for free on a site you can trust? Your nuts if you answer yes. Your entire scenario is bunk. You've created a box to rot in, claiming there is no other possibilities. Don't be so narrow minded. Lastly, someone entering my home has to use force. Your comparing apples to oranges. False reasoning again.
indefiance24 2 months ago
@Andybaby Also: Your forgetting things like trust and reputation. Most people would prefer getting material and media from sites they trust. Any ripoff site immediatly stinks like old fish BECAUSE it is a ripoff site, and anyone visiting it will know this immediately. Only large conglomerate ripoff sites:piratebay, can do what they do because of economies of scale, they ripoff anything and everything. A site like you suggest would be too specialized, and would never gain traction.
indefiance24 2 months ago
@stefbot I'd be proud if people would pay $10 for a video of me talking about this stuff lol
Graveyardskank 2 months ago
Comment removed
optionism 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stefbot True, @Andybaby would be an advertiser driven by incentive, which would yield great exposure.
You would only gain Stef new viewers. All previous donaters would not pay you for a product that they get for free, so Stef's donations would not decrease.
You would be competing for spending of Stef's viewers if Stef's viewers wanted to watch the videos on DVD rather than online. In that case, you deserve that $10 because you have added value to society by giving freedom to the consumer.
optionism 2 months ago
Comment removed
Zerafinel 2 months ago
@Andybaby It's gonna be pretty hard to sell DVDs for $10 of Stef's work. His fans all know where to get it for free, because he mentions it quite a lot (pays to advertise, even with free stuff).
newperve 2 months ago
@Andybaby Its not really up to him what you do with the money you earn
fergus247 2 months ago
@Andybaby
Who would buy them for $10 each...?
twk373 2 months ago
@Andybaby, he deserves nothing out of those recordings since he isn't the owner of his ideas anymore after he has made them public. The only way he could directly benefit would be that he signed a private contract to explain his ideas to some of the interested people.
heathmoor 2 months ago
Naked skulls for freedom!
CurtHowland 2 months ago
Two Stefans, both have glowing heads of knowledge
THERE ARE TWO
RogueSwordThesco 2 months ago
i watched this with snowflakes :D
1schwererziehbar1 2 months ago 9
A11 work and no play makes jack a dull boy
fuckystoat1 2 months ago
Juris prudence. The later usually takes priority. HOWEVER, it is always subject to the US constitution. Any law passed, no matter how new it is, must be compliant with the constitution. If there is a conflict between two laws, the later law prevails. If there is a conflict between a law and the constitution, then the constitution prevails.
kellerr13 2 months ago
i see foreheads .....everywhere! .!
tunezindahouse 2 months ago
I hoped that it would snow enough to cover the shinning.
Spencerianism 2 months ago
Boy do you two look alike!
You could be brothers or cousins.
Sure it's not your last names that are the same? (not two Stephs)
macpduff 2 months ago
thats the pic you used on the back of upb... and that books like 4 years old
time to take another picture stef
ott0Kitam 2 months ago in playlist True News! from Freedomain Radio
Hear that scraping sound in the final two minutes? It's a government bureaucrat, making sure nothing Illegal was going down there.
MutantBamHammer 2 months ago
Stephen Kinsella seems to be very much into the political process.
alique087 2 months ago
@alique087 It's also rumoured that he enjoys cheese.
arcanekrusader 2 months ago
use the snow
jcrongoXisXaXjerk 2 months ago
Do you remember the " FALSE FLAG " 9-11 which gave birth to Home Land Security and the "Patriot Act" ? Here, two elements were put in place giving government more power to lock up the average Americans and impose Nazi rule.. Now this new ZIONIST law is still another platform to remove more rights of Americans. The government has the match lit waiting for the riots to start... and the Zionist's puppets are betraying all Americans.
greg357159 2 months ago
@panpiper
In your example, the individual that is trespassing does not have permission to use your property. But if you were to sell your home and the buyer were to gather the blueprints, call a contractor down the street, send him the specs, and then allow him to duplicate the newly purchased home; where is the ("crime") violation of property?
AnarchoVoluntaryism 2 months ago
OH MY GOD, I AM BLINDED BY A SOLID ONE-TWO FROM THE SHINING FOREHEADS OF TRUTH
RuddODragonFear 2 months ago 69
@RuddODragonFear Hit the snowflake button. It will help keep you from being distracted by the foreheads of wisdom.
NoNameC68 2 months ago
Didn't you believe in intellectual property Stef?
alique087 2 months ago
nice baldies nice..
AnarchicSolution 2 months ago
twins ?
greg357159 2 months ago
I started pirating pc games after years of being very against it. My reason is that these big companys take the piss, they spend more time on advertising than on the actual game itself. Releasing unfinished, buggy and broken games.
edgarloike 2 months ago
@edgarloike Don't buy them...
UrbyKris 2 months ago
@UrbyKris
... he doesn't?
jaykgrey 2 months ago
@jaykgrey Wrong word... don't play them is what I should have said. You're very clever <.<
UrbyKris 2 months ago
@UrbyKris He is smart enough to get his words right at least. And ill play them only to test them, if they are worth buying then i do buy them.
edgarloike 2 months ago
@edgarloike Yeah keep mentally masturbating about that little mistake...
If a company doesn't allow you to test them you shouldn't.
UrbyKris 2 months ago
twins!
SanguineBullet667 2 months ago 15
Which one is the original stef? The one on the right or the one on the left? Great info as usual! Free Humanity!
CaniPaul1 2 months ago
I declare my right to decrypt.
ZedAlfa273 2 months ago
You didn't put the links in, now i have to typ it myself :P
williamb90 2 months ago
Silence Opposition Permanently Act
SCARREDMIND 2 months ago
Very Orwellian to doublethink the Newspeak from the Ministry of Truth - whatever the 'government' states is the exact opposite of what they intent.
Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, War is Peace! INGSOC! INGSOC! lol
++Good Brother.
Nexus2Eden 2 months ago
@Nexus2Eden
How glib.
Textra1 2 months ago
RECENT HEADLINEs:
BitTorrent downloads linked to RIAA, DHS IP addresses
RIAA Caught Pirating: "It Wasn’t Us." Really.
So despite their IP getting busted, they deny it was THEM. JUST LIKE SO MANY OF THOSE THEY HAVE SUED. The cunts who produce nothing creatively but reap the lawsuit rewards are GUILTY of what they accuse over. And when they give the same excuse as their defendants we are expected to believe them.
This is not about "balance". Copyright Nazis want no "fair use" etc.
queenbeenightly 2 months ago
Police (government) as well as public (non-government) causing violence sometimes are actors. Search in youtube
PFi0e-HFGOc
How would free society prevent provocateurs or violence?
Nomels 2 months ago
It's illegal to know any code or passcode that you aren't supposed to know even if you aren't going to use it but fuck that.
MirageScience 2 months ago
<3 Stefan.
That being said, this picture of him reminds me of a KGB photo or something. Pretty scary.
JaredJosephHoag 2 months ago
Kinsella is an intellectual giant who remains accessible to regular people.
IKilled007 2 months ago 2
Big insurance companies are very disinterested (in general) in making any kind of web-based innovations and instead feel much more confident bribing legislators. By effect their websites are not user friendly, and they don't look at reducing overhead through their websites. This actually offers a great opportunity to people who know how to make websites beautiful, functional and work FOR them to partner up with someone who understands the industry and make some nice money.
blapgatify 2 months ago
When I 'ahem' watch a movie more than once, I buy the DVD. There are many DVDs that I wouldn't have ever even considered buying if I hadn't had a chance to see it first.
vention4wh 2 months ago
@vention4wh
Indeed. My rather sizable library of movies and TV shows exists only because I downloaded them first. Even some of the movies I don't like, I still buy. Not out of guilt for having illegally downloading them in the first place but because I like to have something physical to put on my shelf. I'm a collector. It's what I do. If it's on my media centre, it's on my shelf. ;)
Textra1 2 months ago
SOPA will just put a digital iron curtain up around the US. This is just another 'Please wont some body think about the children' argument. Piracy, child porn, terrorism; these are the excuses our respective governments are using to reign in the flow of information to the citizenry. More divide and conquer strategies. If ever there was an example of the immorality of the state, here it is.
Textra1 2 months ago 2
It wasnt Coldplay. It was Radiohead.
sparshparimoo 2 months ago
US Alcohol Prohibition 2.0 lulz
TrollogyExpert 2 months ago
The great 21th century fallacy: Just because you buy something, does not mean, that you are buying a property of some kind. You buy what you value, but just because you value something, doesn't mean that IT can be "protected" from others. Digital content is like a service. If you value it enough, you will probably eventually buy it. If not, you will use it for free. Just my quick thought.
MaikUniversum 2 months ago
A Happy Christmas to one and all.
Janeymacmac 2 months ago
Okay, don't blame me if I don't have the best taste in music, but I watched the Blake Sheldon's Footloose video online for free off of Yahoo & I went to itunes and purchased the song. In fact, most of the music that I've purchased has been when I heard it on the radio and like the music and wanted to listen to it whenever I wanted. One major band allowed their fans to video tape their concerts and record sales of their CD went up since people wanted version that didn't have the audience noise.
rayme4raw 2 months ago
Lol Stef I love when you use that psuedo-vampiric mad scientistesque pic
But on a more serious note if Ron Pail takes Iowa expect these turds to ramp up their efforts to bring the many under the domination of the few.
dirtbagstatus 2 months ago
Nullifying property and contract rights as Kinsella and Molyneux support *is* immoral. The reason to be against SOPA is not IP. It's a violation of the 4th amend. ISP's have no legal right to know what data is transmitted over their wires. Only by warrant should gov't be able to *discover* if copyright has been infringed. Kinsella is smuggling his anti-IP opinion into what is really a 4th amend problem. It's a misdirection that takes away from the real issue. Stealing IP is still stealing.
plenarchist 2 months ago
@plenarchist
Why is only technological seniority protected? Why can't the first company to a particular market file for property rights, or the first company to employ a particular distribution method?
Apple had to take the risk and do the hard work to make and market the iPhone, and other companies can just make their own smartphones for cheap because they didn't have to deal with the bleeding edge. -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 months ago
-
- Wal*Mart's command structure is a work of pure genius, and represented a lot of brainpower, a huge risk and a lot of expensive and error-prone experimentation to get just right, and now any other chain can just copy it.
You speak of principles: "property" and "theft." Upon what principle can you justify IP, without simultaneously justifying all other forms of mercantilistic protection based on seniority?
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM probably something to do with the fact that incremental improvement is always possible; it already takes a long time for others to transition from their existing system to a new proven system, there is usually sufficient ability for companies to keep trade secrets secret besides that, and the fact that this encourages innovation, without which monopolies form.
northcottmichael 2 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM when i view some copyrighted material on my computer legally, I have made a copy of it in RAM and on my hard drive just in order to view it, and I as a user can do whatever I want with it after I possess it. You cannot tell where someone is allowed and not allowed to wear a shirt you sold them, and telling someone how they must use information is equally ridiculous. not only that, but it costs more to enforce than to sell more info and encourage legit buying
northcottmichael 2 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM "Why can't the first company to a particular market file for property rights..." They can if they indicate 'patent pending' on their product. The clock starts on a patent when the patent application is filed. If the patent is granted two years later, the term started the day it was filed.
plenarchist 2 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM in theory i could buy an iPhone and configure it, customize it, and if not for copyright, I would be legally able to resell it to people. However, because it has an Apple logo on it, my useful service that people are willing to pay for would instead be illegal, merely because Apple says so. That would be like the engine company having Ford thrown in jail for using their engine in a Ford vehicle, wouldn't it?
northcottmichael 2 months ago
@northcottmichael
But incremental improvement is possible in technology as well, and it takes time to employ technologies that someone else has developed, and driving down the prices of new technologies by competing with them is certainly a very valuable service. Try arguing that last one with someone who has had to pay for expensive patented medicines.
You speak of monopolies. The original definition of a monopoly, in the age before every crank -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 months ago
-
- started pushing his own theory of market failure, was a letter of protection offered by a government to a firm, entitling them to call upon the state to prevent other firms from competing with them. This description fits IP to a tee.
Note also how your argument leaves the realm of principle as soon as it is examined, with much the same expeditiousness as the French Mercantilists displayed when arguing for their more obviously anti-Capitalist protections.
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM true, it is rather annoying to spend a ton of money on something only to have people copy it, but the path that drug patenting leads to is there being more money in treatments than in cures. If you can cure the disease, the competition does not get a chance to copy your medicine. The other thing is knowing a finished product is not the same as knowing the best process to manufacture it; for example take Intel's massive manufacturing advantage vs AMD in CPUs.
theredscourge 2 months ago 2
@theredscourge
I'm frankly uninterested in utilitarian arguments on this point. Everyone and their dog has a different empirical theory on whether IP contributes to innovation, and people of opposing viewpoints frequently cite the same statistics as irrefutable proof of their correctness.
Rather, I think it is more fruitful to show how IP is just one more form of seniority, qualitatively no different from the guilds and tarriffs that free market advocates already oppose.
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just as 'Bitcoin' offers a solution to decentralized currency, "Namecoin" is also a solution to decentralization of domain names.
TheIrony2013 2 months ago