Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Yet the entirety of free market principles rest squarely on the notion of work and reward.

Creating information and forcing consumers to pay for it is not a peaceful activity. How can one consider the music industry free when its profits are derived through threat of violence? Freedom comes from voluntary exchange and peaceful trade.

If taxation is theft, which occurs without any defense

Taxation is theft because it is taking something from me, while also depriving me of it. When a 'thing' (digital information) is infinitely duplicable by its very definition, then it exhibits a lack of scarcity.

If these artists and companies didn't want their information duplicated indefinitely, then they shouldn't have recorded it. It is not realistic to assume they can reap all the benefits of digital information for themselves while preventing others from doing so.

The very reason the music/film industry uses digital mediums is because when information is stored digitally, it is free/cheaper-than-dirt to reproduce.

No different than a factory owner investing in his business

It is different. The paradigm has changed. The music industry is trying to herd the cats back into the bag. It's useless. It is now time, as an artist yourself, to change the way to seek reward for your works. From what I have seen in the industry, artists have found success through having cheap CDs to sell at concerts, free music on websites, all using that as a means to advertise their merchandise and shows. Host your music on your own site, and get revenue from the traffic. Sell concert tickets, and don't set up any barriers to your works and your possible future fans. Even $5 is a lot to ask for a CD of something one is not informed about. From what I have seen with a local artist, people will buy his album at a show after they have downloaded it for no cost.

Be creative with how you make money.

However you make a distinction that one is violent and the other is not, while both deprive the rightful owner to the fruits of their labor.

This is wrong and here is why. What is being deprived is not the fruits of ones labor but the possible future fruits one could make from selling their works and preventing others from reproducing it. The digital bit changes everything. If you don't want a selection of digital bits (your music) from doing exactly what digital bits do (replicate indefinitely), then don't make them in the first place. Thats like a company assuming that all profits will be theirs, but all loses will be payed off by the government. That is not freedom, it is fascism.

Actually, a better way would be to utilize the power of the digital bit and create instant, global hyper-distribution as a means of marketing. Sell your shows, sell t-shirts, sell tangible goods. Make a premium CD, with a special picture book that fans can buy on your site. Trent Reznor and Radiohead are doing it.

Selling information is like trying to sell bottled ideas.

You are applying communistic lefty logic and justification, I am just saying...

Not at all. It's quite libertarian. Copyright is not a natural right. It is a positive right. It may seem communistic for me to have such contempt for corporations, if only I didn't have a greater hatred for the government that creates them.

I think DINSTAAR is very intelligent and usually steadfast, basing many arguments on this concept that he/she now defends in this case.

It is strange if you aren't looking at it the way I do.

When digital bits are duplicated by anyone they are doing what they were created to do, regardless of the content of the bits. Information can travel over the entirety of the world without any barriers. Record Companies of old were created to pull money (to make money) to overcome these physical barriers(resources needed to create mediums of exchange, distribution, etc). The cost for me to give someone across the globe a song is negligible now in 2010, these Record Companies need to do one of three things: get with the times and think of new ways to make money peacefully, die, or use the violence of government to impose rights over digital bits that are entirely counterintuitive to the idea of the bit itself.

I hope I have clarified my position a little.

You did, thank you...

However I cannot rationalize the distinction you make between the distribution of
money through downloading ones work/potential profits and taxation of ones work and potential profit.

I also think you are missing the communistic nature and free market nature of the internet. It is just a reflection of both forces that populate the world, to characterize
it in a fashion to benefit your outlook does not benefit you as a man or intellectual.
I suggest in private you examine this duality, keep it to your chest but take note none
the less. Even contrary examination will equate to a greater understanding in the long run.

However I agree with the futility of any policing of the internet and I fully understand
that things have changed.

My reason for posting was because I saw the glaringly inconsistent submission, compared to your regular standards; making justifications to explain why this basic act is OK, even though this state effectively deprives a producer from the ability to capitalize on the work they have produced.

Nature as a force is not subject to a predetermination or a prefabricated
code of conduct, for those predetermined factors only share nature with the men that create them. Men construct the value, while nature would care not for 100 pleasure
hunts, or who owns what and why, or how or why that person is no longer breathing without any worldly possessions. Nature does not present any natural examples of enduring ownership, that is a human construct. So why not do away with ownership all together??? is that not the true nature of nature? So why place constraints upon nature at all?

We both know why... but we could go there and you would probably run towards social
constructs, not the bosom of mother nature.

Thanks again



[edit on 24-6-2010 by Janky Red]

[edit on 24-6-2010 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by PsykoOps
There was a hilarious picture going around the net some time ago that explained the absurdity of the industry. According to RIAA apparently they lost more money to piracy than exists in the whole world. On top of that the whole vanilla ice production by their estimate is valued at 11 million or billion US $.

I believe you meant this: cdn-www.cracked.com...
Also, let's not forget the old classic; markpickavance.files.wordpress.com...

Take a look at this ... Looks like IBM has a "Department of Predictive Analytics", so big that they even have a Vice-President, and they are developing a software to analyze delinquent juvenile behavior and predict wich ones are probably to repeat their crimes again:

The Florida State Department of Juvenile Justice says it will use predictive analytics software from IBM to foretell which of its juvenile offenders are likely to return to crime. The software, made by the SPSS division that Big Blue purchased last year, will replace Excel spreadsheets analyzed by employees.

gigaom.com...

reply to post by Janky Red


Let me put this in another way.

I am not saying that all people categorically have the right to replicate information. I am saying that no person or group has the right to make sure people can't.

(With this, of course, I mean replicate information without breaking and entering, coercion, and taking any physical object like a hard drive. I.E. copy and paste. )

It is a subtle distinction, but it is the difference between my position and the position of collectivists. They believe all information should be free, I believe that information should not be controlled through violence. They are just as wrong as the MPAA because they are giving people POSITIVE rights over others.

MPAA and RIAA want to maintain the system of POSITIVE rights given to producers over the information after the information has been given to the consumer.

Hippies and the anti-piracy movement (as a whole) want to give people the POSITIVE right of free information. The key word being free. Information is largely free, but no one has the right over someone else's ideas, if that person doesn't wish to share them. Once ideas and information are out, people can do as they wish with them, but hiding it is not wrong.

However I cannot rationalize the distinction you make between the distribution of money through downloading ones work/potential profits and taxation of ones work and potential profit.

The whole idea of 'potential profits' cannot be proven. You can't prove what you will make with an idea, hence there is always risks on investments. If you make an investment whose future payoff will be because the government is using its guns to ensure you have a market to sell, then the investment is at best fascist in nature, or at worst fascist in nature and not profitable.

However I agree with the futility of any policing of the internet and I fully understand that things have changed.

The futility of policing the Internet is not just an empirical observation, but a direct effect of the moral argument for my case. A bit is a bit. It exhibits all the features and qualities of a bit. It is duplicated because that is what it is meant to do. To try and police people to prevent a binary digit (bit) from doing exactly what it does is not logical or ethical. The government gives the record companies and copyrighters positive rights over not just their own creation when they have it, but even after consumers buy it.

If I buy a cd i can:
burn it, blend it, smash it, trade it in, listen to it, give to someone, throw it away, crap on it, flush it, use it for making art projects, shoot it, lick it, eat it, do weird sexual things to it, call it names.....

but I can't copy it. Somehow, those record companies have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my property.

Also, the Fair Use clause is nothing more than a concession that they know that their laws are not intellectually honest and require some way to rationalize the passive use of their ideas.

For me, it is about no person or group not having a right over anyone else. It is about preservation of Natural Rights.

Nature as a force is not subject to a predetermination or a prefabricated code of conduct, for those predetermined factors only share nature with the men that create them. Men construct the value, while nature would care not for 100 pleasure hunts, or who owns what and why, or how or why that person is no longer breathing without any worldly possessions. Nature does not present any natural examples of enduring ownership, that is a human construct. So why not do away with ownership all together??? is that not the true nature of nature? So why place constraints upon nature at all?

He says it better than I.



[edit on 24-6-2010 by DINSTAAR]

[edit on 24-6-2010 by DINSTAAR]

I have pitch memory. Not to be confused with perfect pitch, I don't have that. (Although if pressed I could approximate perfect pitch with what I do have, I never bothered, there's nothing to gain.) I have thousands of recordings in my memory not just in some vague representation, I can sing the lead lines back to you on the exact pitch of the original recording. I can hear the original in my head. These are songs I have heard for decades and so it's not a first take thing as in hear it once, know it forever. It takes a bit of repetition but it's real I assure you. (This might go under the classification of a "stupid human trick" as on Letterman. There, he gets his intellectual props.) I'm a lifelong musician and a vocal mimic. Not only can I sing back the song but on recorded pitch and closely reproducing the artist's voice, both male and many female voices as well.

And so I have your recording in my head. I don't necessarily own a physical copy nor did I ever. Is what is in my head a digital copy? If so, now what? Am I a pirate? I think this illustrates the elusive nature of intellectual property.

reply to post by Raist


Because they now realize they can make money off of the stupid ones and threaten them with a law suit. That is how they make their money.

I'm curious to know how many of you here think that ATS has publishing rights on the material you've posted here? If you posted your material here first they probably do. I know most of you don't care about copyrights, performance rights or publishing rights but if you do you should be careful to take control of it before someone else does...your video or photo or audio could be worth a lot of money if it becomes relevant to a big story in the news but if you upload it here or at some social site first you are out of luck...they own the rights to it.

Just thought I'd throw that one out there for you to think about.

May I interject a moment and bring a new concept to this discussion? For those of us old enough to remember original vinyl records or maybe cassette tapes for the ones not old enough and for the younger in here CD's.

well one key thing most if not all of us did is borrow a friends record, tape or CD at some point in time or maybe even a movie. I see the "piracy", copying or borrowing as I like to call it, of data no different then the other four mediums.

The only difference is its on a larger scale and you can borrow from someone you may have never met. Honestly if you have never borrowed music or a movie from a friend you cannot denounce another for the same act, unless one likes to be a hypocrite willingly.

Most people seem to have no problem letting close friend borrow any type of media from songs to movies, yet when you open it up to a larger scale they vehemently denounce the act. This is outright hypocrisy in my eyes.

What say you members?

[edit on 24-6-2010 by LurkingSleipner]

reply to post by LurkingSleipner


Great point! I've never thought of it that way!

Next time my fiancee tries to get all high and might on me about piracy I will definitely use this argument.

reply to post by ChrisCrikey


Piracy is absolutely not theft. If someone shares their dessert with you at a restaurant and you did not pay for your half, did you steal that dessert? No, you did not, someone shared it with you. I will agree that having movies before they leave theaters is a grey area, but still if I merely download it from someone then I haven't stolen anything. According to the new anti-piracy laws, it is illegal to put in a blank dvd and record a movie from cable. Now I ask, why then do they sell blank tapes and cds and TIVOs ?

Originally posted by Janky Red

Wank wank

Ya Ya...

By FREE, you mean COMMUNIST - gimme gimme - I am entitled to free stuff?

It is the communal disbursement of other people work, IT is completely socialistic and undermines the basic principles of Free Market engines of motivation, $$$, thru ones
own works...

However if you want to dilute yourself it is fine by me, I don't mind a little socialism myself. But it is funny to see that many will promote socialism and hide it with FREE
market talk, this is an interesting thresh hold. I will undermine you guys in the future,
Billions of gimme gimme free, I am entitled to this free stuff cause I CAN justify it.

Have at it guys, like punching a hole in your own boat

Talk about wanking off into the wind!! You're BSing to the max.

You don't even know what you're talking about... free data equals Socialism equals Communism??

Now I'm not one to support the school system, but it REALLY sounds like you need to go to f*cking school to learn the terms you use.

This isn't about a government handout, this is about INDIVIDUALS deciding what they want to do with the objects and data they OWN. If they want to spread it all around the world, then that's FREEDOM. If you don't like that, then just shut your mouth and keep to yourself. Otherwise, get your facts straight, stop laying out the propaganda for right-wing idiots, and realize that in a FREE market, there ARE NO PROTECTIONS.

reply to post by jdills1196


Welcome to your fear's from Science Fiction books turning Science Faction
The Police Nation
we had that in the 30s to the Mid 40s in a Place Called Germany

you Know the Internet Kill Switch (Fahrenheit 451 )
This Discussion on this Thread ( Minority Report ) and George Orwell's (1984)

Was George Orwell Right !
I remember a Computer Company had a Dream Preventing this !

PLEASE READ!!!!! then you will see why i am saying this

Apple Computer The 1984 Ad Script!!!

www.hep.uiuc.edu...

[In walk the drones]

"Today we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives.

[Apple's hammer-thrower enters, pursued by storm troopers.]

We have created for the first time in all history a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory true thoughts.

Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth.

We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause.

Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion.

[Hammer is thrown at the screen]

We shall prevail! [Boom!]

On January 24th Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like '1984.'"

ooh wait isn't there a Country like that ? North Korea!


North Korea Media ! ++ Take A Look People !
en.wikipedia.org...


The Video




The Half Life 2 version of Microsoft Domination in Game's



Microsoft is Domination for the TPTB Elite for the NWO all to dominate the internet even Copying Apples OSX to almost a identical OS
look at the This Video

From the Mouths of Apple Insane



To learn More i Suggest you Watch a movie with allot of truth !
that Even Steve Jobs Like it !

Pirate's Of Silicon Vally

Requiem for Silicon Valley = Close to the End will get your attention and it did happen ( Bill Gate's looking like Big Brother )



sorry folk's a Computer Geek LOL got Carried away and yes i have a Original true 1984 Mac! but use a Windows Dominated PC

Microsoft isn't that the Truth

Pirates of Silicon Valley scene - "You make people need you" the people is US


[edit on 25-6-2010 by Wolfenz]

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Wolfenz]

for the Piracy bit !

All Artist copy from each other ! whether it be ...

Scientist and Engineers that had dreams from Science Fiction Books that they day dream about making them a reality !!! it Happend many times! did it not ! Should Hg Wells , Phillip k Dick , Author C Clark ,
Bradbury, Jules Verne !!!! to name a few , Family's Should make a Lawsuit ? Against the Inventor's Scientist , Engineers ? would they have the Right ? as it was a My Idea First kind of thing !



OR Music Bands getting old blues riffs and lyrics From Known Blues Artist
Son house , Blind Wille Johnson , Leadbelly One example Is Led Zeppelin a fave band of mine ohh that reminds me Should J R Tolkien Family make a Lawsuit against the Led Zeppelin Band copying some of the Literature of Tolkien ? do you see how it getting Twisted ?


Or Computer gamers that are remaking long lost old games to improving them to modern specs as the original company no longer exist or the game is ignored by the Company so the newer generation can enjoy them

There Should be a Open mind !
it just like the VCR piracy war's in the 80s
or the Right to Dulicate your Original
later on even HBO told People to get their VCR Ready to record!
now it's

DVR that CABLE or Direct TV Company's Give YOU!!!!!!

en.wikipedia.org...

and Now this Crap! that the TPTB is behind this!! it will probably pass around 12 midnight by a few like the Patriot Act! ...

Welcome to the Brave new World , Orwellian World aka N.W.O to Dumb Down us from the Information of Truth !!!!! and Erase our Identity

Are we going to all look , dress , speak, Feel , THINK the SAME!!




[edit on 25-6-2010 by Wolfenz]

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Wolfenz]

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by Janky Red

Wank wank

Ya Ya...

By FREE, you mean COMMUNIST - gimme gimme - I am entitled to free stuff?

It is the communal disbursement of other people work, IT is completely socialistic and undermines the basic principles of Free Market engines of motivation, $$$, thru ones
own works...

However if you want to dilute yourself it is fine by me, I don't mind a little socialism myself. But it is funny to see that many will promote socialism and hide it with FREE
market talk, this is an interesting thresh hold. I will undermine you guys in the future,
Billions of gimme gimme free, I am entitled to this free stuff cause I CAN justify it.

Have at it guys, like punching a hole in your own boat

Talk about wanking off into the wind!! You're BSing to the max.

You don't even know what you're talking about... free data equals Socialism equals Communism??

Now I'm not one to support the school system, but it REALLY sounds like you need to go to f*cking school to learn the terms you use.

This isn't about a government handout, this is about INDIVIDUALS deciding what they want to do with the objects and data they OWN. If they want to spread it all around the world, then that's FREEDOM. If you don't like that, then just shut your mouth and keep to yourself. Otherwise, get your facts straight, stop laying out the propaganda for right-wing idiots, and realize that in a FREE market, there ARE NO PROTECTIONS.

Right...

Musicians have a choice in what others do with their WORK.

Your gonna get Brittany spears all the time, easy cheap and fast, then your complete retardation will be achieved, which appears to be your goal in life,
so congrats, have a bottle of benzene on me!!! cheers

If this is true does it mean that we could be arrested for typing our opinions on sites like this?

reply to post by jdills1196


This is just stupid plain and simple. I see no way for it to be enforced unless they can read people's mind's

Originally posted by Janky Red
Right...

Musicians have a choice in what others do with their WORK.

Your gonna get Brittany spears all the time, easy cheap and fast, then your complete retardation will be achieved, which appears to be your goal in life,
so congrats, have a bottle of benzene on me!!! cheers

Sorry but, NO. Musicians do not have the right to restrict what people do with data.

Music is first and foremost a cultural practice- it is created, passed down, copied, changed, spread, and FREELY/OPENLY amongst peoples. This will NEVER change, and if it does, then you've surely seen the appearance of a partial or total dystopian police state. It's really not our responsibility to feel sorry for the RIAA, rich music artists, or record companies when they stamp their feet about "piracy". It's not WRONG to share data. What's WRONG is suing random individuals and families for TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS for simply downloading some music that they liked. It's disgusting the grip that Capitalism has on our government. You wanna talk about government handouts/welfare/coddling?? It already hands out, coddles, and provides WAY TOO MUCH welfare for big business.

Culture is not a market. Marketing culture has only served to ruin and dilute it. The modern market itself is totalitarian, just as Communism is. These systems have both failed us.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by NoHierarchy]

reply to post by Janky Red

TextMusicians have a choice in what others do with their WORK.

If I buy a CD, the musician should not have rights over my property, the CD. The musician cannot own what is on the CD because they distributed it. Once a musician sells, gives, or distributes a song, he is transferring ownership voluntarily. He may have written the works, but he cannot ethically take the rights of others' property and pervert them in order to prevent them from doing with it, exactly what it was meant to do. That is entrapment on some levels.

The only way for a musician to have complete control over their work is to not release it.

This is why I proposed other ways to make money as a musician.

Piracy sure can be a problem, but why now? Why since only about 10 years?
Piracy and copying exists since....forever. People taped stuff in the 70s, in the 80s, in the 90s. Hollywood said that VCRs would kills them. Did it? No!
Music won't be killed also, the only thing that will happen is that bands gain more freedem because more and more distribute their music without a label, over the internet. Record labels are pissed off because of that.

Than companies cry that the lose money because of piracy.
Really?
Call of Duty Modern Warfar 2 was the best-selling game of 2009. 500 Million Dollars in 48 Hours, despite the fact that it was also the most downloaded game of the year.(I bet there were a lot of people who, for example bought the game in germany, found out that it was censored and just downloaded the uncensored version)

Of course i think that it is bad if you download music or games from smaller bands/programmers. Games made by a guy in his free time and sold for a small fee shouldn't be copied in my oppinion.

I can only say: I download music.
I own 964 music CDs, 162 vinyls, 89 music DVDs, all original, all legally bought, 80% of it in the last 10 years. I wouldn't own half as much without downloading interesting music that you would never hear on radio, that you would never hear about because music labels don't give a damn about them or don't see potential.
The RIAA and all labels should blame themself if they don't make enough money. Who really wants to listen to and buy crap like Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, Usher or Ke$ha?

The same with games. Companies spend millions of dollars to sue torrent sites and whatever, spent millions to create useless anti-piracy software that only piss of legal customers (think about Ubi Soft)

They only have to blame themself.

Digital Media and Information, like an idea, multiplies like rabbits. The Binary Digit (bit) is like a pair of bunnies, literally. It is in their nature to make more bunnies.

You have to look at music, art, and any information as you would words in a conversation.

Take these words, for instance. Once I type them, they are out there. They are in your head, and on each of your computers. Anyone can read these words. I can take bak the words, and even edit the post to remove them, but after they are read, the ideas these words express are still out there.

Its like saying the wrong thing to a significant other. You can't pull the words back, and you can't force anyone not to listen. Once ideas are out, they are out. The only way to 'protect' ideas from doing what they do, replicate, is to use a system of violence to enforce illogical and unethical rules and regulations. The problem with this is that as technology gets better and better, even irrational rules and the violent systems trying to enforce them are rendered impotent.

If the copy protection rules were logical and ethical, file-sharing wouldn't be a problem as no one would have reason or motive to do it.