Discussion:
Talks about DRM
(too old to reply)
d***@qq.com
2013-08-05 09:29:09 UTC
Permalink
I saw today a clip on youtube.They talk about DRM.

a***@gmail.com
2013-08-05 14:28:52 UTC
Permalink
The talk wasn't particularly informative or interesting.

The talkers discussed at first installation of media codecs on GNU/Linux. In
Trisquel the relevant GStreamer packages are installed, and only encrypted
DVD playback requires running a script.

Later they discussed DRM and said it was inconvenient for users who paid the
companies money. The talkers decided that DRM was OK as long as it was done
right and wasn't too severe. They never mentioned that DRM is proprietary
software that should be rejected.
m***@students.turkuamk.fi
2013-08-05 15:25:51 UTC
Permalink
Here's on DRM and HTML5 and lovely little corporations like Microsoft and
Google

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/cancelnetflix
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-06 00:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Well, as much as I hate the way DRM are used nowadays, I still say what I
have said before in this forum: users brought DRM on themselves, when they
started pirating stuff.
The suggestion on defectivebydesign is the correct way to do things. You
don't like a policy, you don't support the owner and don't keep on using the
service. Or at least, you fight to change the policy of that service. You
don't go around "manipulating" things to get your way without them knowing.
That is not the correct answer.

If people who "like to share" really cared about "share" they would have done
two things:

1. Share free content. Creative commons, public domain, content that was not
proprietary.
2. Refuse to get paid thousands for advertising. The problem is also that
people who run pirate websites don't care much about sharing, they care about
the money they make from the ads they sell!

The end result? The bad guys (I count pirates as bad guys)made things that
now affect the good guys (people who just want to use open standards on the
web for example, people who like to have security and not run flash for
watching a video...).


In my opinion, a group of people who are "free only" minded, people who
refuse to even use flash to watch youtube, shouldn't EVER think about
pirating movies musics and books. It's contradictory and actually hurts the
cause.


(and don't even try saying "we don't attack ships we are not pirates". yada
yada yada.... "piracy" is a word that has been used for many years now to
refer to "illegal distribution of copyrighted content". Learn it and use it
(or rather NOT use it lol.))
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-06 00:26:06 UTC
Permalink
"In my opinion, a group of people who are "free only" minded, people who
refuse to even use flash to watch youtube, shouldn't EVER think about
pirating movies musics and books. It's contradictory and actually hurts the
cause."

Why is it contradictory?
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-06 00:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Many reasons, but for me the main two are:

1. you want your freedom respected, but you don't want to respect the other
person freedom.
2. GNU exists because RMS didn't pirate UNIX, he created something new with a
new license, GNU. That is, in my opinion, the principle what should empower a
community such as this. Reject (AKA, don't use) the things that are wrong,
and create new things that are right to give an alternative (or entirely
replace) the wrong things.
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-06 02:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@lavabit.com
1. you want your freedom respected, but you don't want to respect the other
person freedom.

Copyright is a monopoly, not property. Being an unauthorized distributor of a
copyrighted work doesn't affect the copyright holder's freedom in any way. If
anything, it might affect their business, the same way Meijer selling
crackers identical to Triscuit affects Nabisco's business.
Post by g***@lavabit.com
2. GNU exists because RMS didn't pirate UNIX, he created something new with
a new license, GNU. That is, in my opinion, the principle what should empower
a community such as this. Reject (AKA, don't use) the things that are wrong,
and create new things that are right to give an alternative (or entirely
replace) the wrong things.

I don't agree with this way of thinking, at least the way you're saying it.
It's just as good to take something bad and make it good as it is to throw
away something bad and make something good from scratch. Just look at the BSD
projects; all of those originated from proprietary UNIX code.

Using proprietary software is of course never good for you, whether obtained
legally or not. That doesn't mean that copyright infringement is contrary to
free software. Using or distributing to Adobe Photoshop illegally is contrary
to free software because the program is proprietary, not because its
distribution is infringing copyright.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-06 02:53:18 UTC
Permalink
I've come to the conclusion that one is just as much a pirate if they don't
watch [movie title here] movie, or watch another one. :)
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-06 03:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Unauthorized distributors hurt the copyright holder's freedom, because he is
no longer free to determine how something that actually belongs to him, will
be distributed.

Truth is, and i have said it here before: people behind those sites don't
care about "sharing" or "making a better world". They care about "watching
the latest hollywood trash" and "getting money from ads". They do nothing but
harm to our society and also to the free/open culture.

Want to share? Respect the license and share what is public domain and
creative commons. Maybe you will encourage people to CC license their content
in the future, thus making a better, freer world.

Piracy? Is bad, wrong and totally unnecessary. I have a ccomputer, I listen
to music, I watch movies, I read books... And I don't do piracy. I don't live
like a caveman to reject piracy, I actually live in a way that sometimes
leads me to greater knowledge. Is piracy necessary? nope. Is it good? nope.
Is it morally right? Nope.

Got it?
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-06 03:55:24 UTC
Permalink
How do you define "freedom"? I define "freedom" as the ability to control
your own life. Copyright does not control your own life. It controls others'
lives. That's power, not freedom.

You seem to be attached to the idea that copyright is property. This isn't
the case. Copyright is a legal monopoly system established a few centuries
ago as an industrial regulation. It's completely unrelated to property
rights. The reason theft is illegal is because something is taken away from
someone else. If you steal a bike, the owner of the bike doesn't have it
anymore. Copyright infringement doesn't do that. It's more like creating
magical copies of bikes and giving them away, affecting the business of
selling bikes.

http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/copying_is_not_theft
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-06 02:51:45 UTC
Permalink
users brought DRM on themselves, when they started pirating stuff.
I don't agree with that in the slightest.

Copyright infringement (what you call "piracy") has another word: sharing. In
Kindergarten, we're taught rightly that sharing is good. Then, publishers
compare this good, normal act to attacking ships.

Sharing is natural for us. Without sharing, society as we know it could not
have existed. What we were taught in Kindergarten is correct: sharing is
good, and this is true whether it affects someone's outdated business model
or not.

Other than that, DRM didn't arise exclusively to stop unauthorized sharing.
That's been the biggest reason, but there have been others. The Nintendo
Entertainment System, for example, contained a chip whose purpose was to
cause the NES to refuse to function if "unlicensed" games were put into the
system. This was in fact an effort to restrict publishers so they could
charge fees and control the process, not to prevent unauthorized copying.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-06 03:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Sure, but if you go to the kid and hit him until he "shares by force" it's
not good, it's not sharing. Welcome to reality, that's piracy.
I am really confused how people can actually support both free software AND
piracy at the same time. ??
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-06 03:57:55 UTC
Permalink
That's not a proper analogy at all. People who infringe copyright are sharing
themselves, not forcing someone else to do it.

I don't support attacking ships. Attacking ships is very bad. Sharing is
good, though, and copyright (which is currently a legal monopoly which
prevents sharing) is unjust.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-07 13:35:56 UTC
Permalink
As I have stated countless times before.... sharing is sharing, when you
share what is YOURS. If it is not yours, you are not sharing.
Want to share? Create something, use a free license, and share it. Or just
mirror some CC and PD content and share that. That is sharing. What you are
talking about, is disrespecting the creators and copyrights holders decisions
and choices, is taking their freedom away, and actually supporting monopolies
by using their stuff in an illegal way.
That's not just wrong, it's also plain stupid. If people didn't pirate stuff,
we wouldn't have so much DRM as we have. They could still exist, but would be
an exception. As of today, they are about to become the rule.
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-07 13:48:13 UTC
Permalink
Why is it wrong to make another copy of YOUR copy? It doesn't harm the guy
who gave you the copy in any way. They still have their copy.

Let's extend this to food. Someone came up with a recipe and decided to sell
the food known as potato chips (or crisps if you're British). Is it wrong, if
you know the recipe, to yourself make potato chips because it's not "your"
recipe?

Suggesting that it's wrong to share knowledge that didn't originate from you
goes completely against human nature. Our society only exists because we
share this knowledge.
kendell clark
2013-08-07 19:50:50 UTC
Permalink
sigh, not this discussion again. As I've said, I think piracy is a sort
of catch all for copying of proprietary software. If a company is stupid
enough, or just plain greedy enough to put something in a license that
you can't modify, distribute, etc than as far as I'm concerned they
deserve what they get. Am I saying every single piece of software should
be free? i'd love that, but whether it will happen or not I have no
clue. What I have no sympathy for whatsoever is companies making
substandard software, wrapping it in a eula, attaching a pricetag to it
and going, "you want software, you pay." Happens all the tiem in
windows. Linux is the exception but in linux if the software is good
enough usually people will pay. Those are my two cents. Disreguard them
if you like but this whole "piracy" thing is giving me a headache
trying to waid through it all.
Post by o***@lavabit.com
Why is it wrong to make another copy of YOUR copy? It doesn't harm the
guy who gave you the copy in any way. They still have their copy.
Let's extend this to food. Someone came up with a recipe and decided
to sell the food known as potato chips (or crisps if you're British).
Is it wrong, if you know the recipe, to yourself make potato chips
because it's not "your" recipe?
Suggesting that it's wrong to share knowledge that didn't originate
from you goes completely against human nature. Our society only exists
because we share this knowledge.
s***@web.de
2013-08-07 13:50:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@lavabit.com
As I have stated countless times before.... sharing is sharing, when you
share what is YOURS.

That's the point you don't understand. It IS yours. It's your copy.
Post by g***@lavabit.com
What you are talking about, is disrespecting the creators and copyrights
holders decisions and choices, is taking their freedom away

No, the copyright holders are still free to do what ever they want.
It's not part of their freedom to force *me* to do what they want.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-07 21:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Of course, you had to come around and "play victim".
You are forcing them to do what you want: share the movie for free on the
internet.

When was the last time you worked day and night and got 0 return from it? Had
your family waiting for you to come home with the money to buy food and had
to tell them you did not get the money?? Did you like that?? -.-

I thought you were staying away from my comments, but it seems not. Too bad
you are STILL making the same lame comments...

Remember that I used to say I had a different opinion? Well, I am glad my
opinion is different from yours quantumgravity, and I will tell you this,
it's better. You used to put these words in my mouth, well, now I am saying
them myself. My opinion is different and better than yours. The opinion
owners are probably in the same positions too -.-
s***@web.de
2013-08-07 22:04:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@lavabit.com
When was the last time you worked day and night and got 0 return from it?
Had your family waiting for you to come home with the money to buy food and
had to tell them you did not get the money?? Did you like that?? -.-

You don't see how crazy your argumentation is.
Your talking the whole time about using free creative commons works like on
archive.org.
If I do so, no one will get my money. No one will give the poor artist
anything.
The poor artist will come home to his family just you said.
Not only the one who shares illegaly refuses to give money to them.
People who use creative commons or just don't listen to anything don't pay
them either.
You don't realize that sharing is not the actual problem which harms the
artist.
Everyone here wants the artist to live and eat and we want to create a system
which benefits the artist.
Post by g***@lavabit.com
I thought you were staying away from my comments, but it seems not.
No, I told you I always will correct them so other people don't face your
propaganda without hearing a sensible voice.
Post by g***@lavabit.com
My opinion is different and better than yours.
Well, it's sad how you try to hurt me personally but don't manage to succeed.
I think you have a false image of yourself; you claim to be a free thinker
with a different (more precisely, like we now know even a better) opinion but
in fact you are trapped in your own emotions and thus suffer from a limited
view.
This is bad for you, not bad for me, so I don't feel insulted or attacked in
any way. There's no reason for me not to respond to your comments even if you
don't manage to hold back with ridiculous and childish claims ("my opinion is
better than yours") or emotional escalation.
Why can't you just stay on topic? that's really sad.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-07 22:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Lol, what would people do without you as a "sensible voice" to guide them...
xD ahahahahah. And I am the one who is childish? You think you are so better
than me... You have been harassing me ever since the first day I arrived
here. Well, guess what? I am not going away. And I will keep spreading the
truth, that we should fight to be free, really free, not "i use free software
to make piracy".

And by the way, if you use Public Domain and CC content, you are not giving
money to anyone (even if you could make donations to projects like Gutenberg
and Librivox, but people like you just want to keep money in their pockets),
but you are at least RESPECTING THE LICENSES! And you are not taking money
AWAY from copyrights holders.

So, you are supporting the idea that we should not respect licenses unless we
like them, we should not obey the law if we don't agree with it, and you want
to accuse me of propaganda? I once called you an asshole, and I tried to keep
myself from calling you that again (because a friend actually asked me to)
but I really feel that you need to be called the proper thing:
quantumgravity, you are an asshole and you make only harm to everyone who
comes to this forum. And you actually make me lose my time correcting you and
putting you in your place. Well... good thing I always manage to have some
free time.

Sharing is sharing what is YOURS. Want to share? Respect licenses, create new
content, encourage social change. Illegal sharing is called PIRACY! And yes
it's a crime. But even worse, it's a stupid move that hurts free/libre
projects.
s***@web.de
2013-08-08 08:27:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@lavabit.com
but you are at least RESPECTING THE LICENSES!
So what? The output is the same.
Post by g***@lavabit.com
And you are not taking money AWAY from copyrights holders.
No one who shares illegaly takes *away* money from the copyright holders.
The amount of money in their pocket stays the same if a friend gives you a
jamendo.de song or a copy from lady gaga.
Taking away money from the copyright holders would be theft, that's true, but
I can't imagine how this should be even possible.
Post by g***@lavabit.com
quantumgravity, you are an asshole and you make only harm to everyone who
comes to this forum.

Well, spoken from your mouth, this sounds like a compliment!

I really thought you just had a emotional knock-out last time we had the
piracy discussion, but perhaps you calmed down.
Now I see you have a massive choleric problem; I just hope for you it's
because you're very young (I don't know) since this could improve.
You're behaving like you were fifteen years old, sorry.
But feel free to insult me as you wish. This harms you, not me, since
everyone can see the deficit of your character. And your welcome doing harm
to yourself as many times you like. For me, it's very funny entertainment.
Post by g***@lavabit.com
So, you are supporting the idea that we should not respect licenses unless
we like them

And you are supporting the idea that we should respect every shit put in
front of our nose.
Perhaps authors want me in a few years to write a letter to them asking for
permission everytime I read the copy of my book.
Well, we really should obey or just say: bye bye books!
We can't disrespect their licences, no we can't!
Even if technology passes on and big companies want to stick to outdated
business models.

And to your argument that sharing illegaly harms CC projects:
I don't think listening to vivaldi will magically stop a musician far away
producing his own stuff.
I don't see any logical connection.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 13:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@web.de
No one who shares illegaly takes *away* money from the copyright holders.
The amount of money in their pocket stays the same if a friend gives you a
jamendo.de song or a copy from lady gaga.
Taking away money from the copyright holders would be theft, that's true, but
I can't imagine how this should be even possible.

Well, maybe you don't know it, but in a legal context, preventing someone
from making money that they would make under normal circumstances is
considered "lost gains" (liberal translation) and makes you owe the person
all the money that person lost (plus expenses!). So, yeah, my argument is
actually right.
There are many things you don't know, but don't worry oh "sensible voice", I
can teach them to you.
Post by s***@web.de
Well, spoken from your mouth, this sounds like a compliment! I really
thought you just had a emotional knock-out last time we had the piracy
discussion, but perhaps you calmed down.
Now I see you have a massive choleric problem; I just hope for you it's
because you're very young (I don't know) since this could improve.
You're behaving like you were fifteen years old, sorry.
But feel free to insult me as you wish. This harms you, not me, since
everyone can see the deficit of your character. And your welcome doing harm
to yourself as many times you like. For me, it's very funny entertainment.

Oh, so that is your problem! You think that by calling you what you are,
makes me lose the reason and the right on this argument?
Well, I will teach you something (again): a hammer is a hammer. If you were
to call it a flower, and I used it to hit you in the head, guess what, it
would STILL BE A HAMMER! The hammer doesn't just magically turn into a flower
because I hit you, and you are not right on something just because someone
actually used the proper word to address you!
Post by s***@web.de
And you are supporting the idea that we should respect every shit put in
front of our nose.

No, I'm supporting the idea that we should fight to have better laws, not
just disobey the ones we don't like. You on the other hand accept that
companies keep using the same system, as long as you can have your pirate
copy in the hard drive.
Post by s***@web.de
Perhaps authors want me in a few years to write a letter to them asking for
permission everytime I read the copy of my book. Well, we really should obey
or just say: bye bye books!

Yes, if the author decides that, you should obey! That is the whole point,
you should obey the decisions (free decision) that people make, or else you
making their freedom be worth NOTHING! If you don't like that, you can always
go and write a book and sell it without that limitation, license it under a
license that says "you can read as much as you want".
I don't think listening to vivaldi will magically stop a musician far away
producing his own stuff. I don't see any logical connection.

If you are listening to a pirated music and some friend comes to visit you,
he will say "I really like that music" and you will proceed to send him the
file by email, thus making that person a slave of piracy as much as you are.
BUT if the friend comes to visit you and you are listening to a CC licensed
song, maybe you are using an online service like librefm who knows, and he
says that he likes the music, you can say "it's from this website that
supports CC" and you email him the link, which will make him more aware of
the freedom that artist and consumers both have in CC and PD. Thus, making
him FREE!
Got it now???


I fail to understand how someone can argument that piracy serves any other
purpose than fulfilling our own luxuries and desires, with total disregard
for my fellow neighboor. And I will always fail, because it makes no sense.
We should discard piracy as a way of life. I did and I am very happy =D
s***@web.de
2013-08-08 14:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@lavabit.com
Well, maybe you don't know it, but in a legal context, preventing someone
from making money that they would make under normal circumstances is
considered "lost gains" (liberal translation)

Under normal circumstances, I would never have bought the music my friend
gave to me;
if I listen to the music, like it and then decide not to give any money to
the artist, this can only be accused by to facts:
1. There's no easy and anonymous payment system
2. I'm really poor

First one is true at the moment, second one only for a few people.
So if you don't do *this* although point 1 and 2 are false, then we're
talking about immoral actions (even then it's not piracy, but it's immoral).
They are not ok, but sharing is ok.
You're pretending everyone who gets a copy from a friend would have bought
the media otherwise; surely a false assumption.
Post by g***@lavabit.com
If you were to call it a flower, and I used it to hit you in the head,
guess what, it would STILL BE A HAMMER!

Funny to hear this from your mouth.
If I were you I would now claim "but the meaning of words change over time!
now it's a flower!"

I know a few very young teenies sharing illegaly proprietary software. Why
are they doing this? First, they don't know about the bad effects of
proprietary software. Second, because they are curious and want to discover
technology.
They never would have bought a 1000 € adobe photoshop version.
*You* are the one who says this curious teenies are murderers who attack
ships.
Post by g***@lavabit.com
You think that by calling you what you are, makes me lose the reason and
the right on this argument?

I think loosing the head and insulting people is not a very good argument,
lol.
Post by g***@lavabit.com
Yes, if the author decides that, you should obey!
The author don't has the right to tell me what I should do with my copy of my
book in my house. And just because I read the book without his permission I'm
no murderer and I don't attack ships.
Post by g***@lavabit.com
If you are listening to a pirated music and some friend comes to visit you,
he will say "I really like that music"

I'll call this "case A" for further argumentation
Post by g***@lavabit.com
BUT if the friend comes to visit you and you are listening to a CC licensed
song, maybe you are using an online service like librefm who knows, and he
says that he likes the music

I'll call this "case B".

Now, just because case A happens x times, this doesn't mean case B happens
less often.
And as I said before, if you restrict yourself to cc music, you're wiping out
other music.
That's worse than sharing illegaly for the artists, because this way artists
don't gain anything from sold cds AND they loose popularity.
I think no artist will say thankyou for this because you "respected his
licence".

You taught me so many new things in your last post, I'm really glad.
Now will I teach you something:
Just because someone has a different opinion than you, the word "asshole" is
*not* the proper term for him.
You don't know a thing of me beside the fact that I often disagree with you,
though you're calling me an asshole. *I* know many right terms for persons
like you, but I won't put the shame on me to write them here, because I obey
community guidelines and social guidelines instead of unjust license terms.
Obviously, you didn't develop neither any form of discussion culture nor the
ability to deal with other opinions or critizism.
You're repeating the same propaganda terms all the time, the same weak
arguments. Emotional reactions instead of rational thinking.
Poor performance, really.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 19:07:32 UTC
Permalink
Well, first things first... You are an asshole. Just to make sure you
understand it, I will even repeat: You are an ASSHOLE!
You have been harassing me ever since I came here, so, that is the proper
word to describe you.

Now, as for the whole piracy thing, you keep making stupid jokes and
analogies with ships and murders. That only reveals how childish you are and
how amateur you are on using your brain. Not using your brain is actually the
main reason why you are so protective of piracy. You will never create
something with that brain of yours and try to turn that into a business. So,
you will never suffer the consequences of piracy.
Funny to hear this from your mouth. If I were you I would now claim "but
the meaning of words change over time! now it's a flower!"

Well, this shows how childish and purely idiotic you can be.
Honestly you don't give a damn about anything anyone says, and that is a
common trace I have found on most people who defend piracy. You don't care
about morals, laws, anything! You care only about satisfying your own
luxuries and desires and make fun of people who actually try to change the
world into a better place. I believe the name "asshole" comes again in handy,
as it also describes this attitude of yours.

You know, free software gives you freedom, to use the software to any
purpose. It also allows you to make your own changes and distribute it any
way you see fit. How exactly does piracy works in this context? You can't use
pirated musics for commercial purposes (even in non commercial public rooms
you will get into trouble probably). You can't change it and then sell your
modified version. So, piracy does not give you freedom. So, do you want
freedom or not?
I guess not, you want free software because it's convenient and you want
pirated content because it's also convenient.
Public Domain and Creative Commons and other such free licenses will give you
freedom.

Again, I will bring in my friend Buck to the conversation, to make you
understand that the only content we should support is free content. Pirate
content is not free content.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/8HddV3nRLEg

Thanks Buck!
You see, Buck agrees that copyrights are not always good. But he supports
that we should use CC instead of being pirates and pirating what is not ours.
The author doesn't have the right to tell me what I should do with my copy
of my book in my house.

You are wrong, because it's YOUR copy of HIS book. You bought ONE copy of
that book. Want to share? Borrow the book to someone else, allow yourself not
to be able to read that one copy, and let other person read it. Oh, you don't
like that hum? You like to share as long as it costs you nothing. But if you
were to make a sacrifice to share, you wouldn't support those ideas anymore.

So, you see, your points (and most people's points when they support that we
should pirate at will) are moot.
m***@students.turkuamk.fi
2013-08-08 20:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@lavabit.com
Well, first things first... You are an asshole. Just to make sure you
understand it, I will even repeat: You are an ASSHOLE!

Please refrain from this kind of outbursts.
s***@web.de
2013-08-08 23:28:22 UTC
Permalink
I really enjoyed your funny behavior and your ridiculous contradictions until
now, but you don't come up with something new and this gets kind of boring.
You're just repeating all the time that I'm an asshole (oh I'm deeply,
deeply hurt)
and you come up with all kinds of completely untenable claims. It's the same
over and over again.
Your last comment was a single confession of failure.
The truth was stated in this threads many times, so new users get protected
very well.
Go ahead and get some more laughter, the asshole said everything necessary.
You don't have capacity to understand; well, bad for you, not for me.
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 02:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@lavabit.com
You are forcing them to do what you want: share the movie
for free on the internet.
There's a big difference between using your own means to share (e.g. giving a
file to someone) and forcing someone else to share (e.g. pointing a gun at
someone and telling them if they don't give person X a copy, you will shoot).
Sachin Dey
2013-08-07 15:31:30 UTC
Permalink
/"If people didn't pirate stuff, we wouldn't have so much DRM as
we have."/

You are confused about piracy because the companies with unethical
minds have used the media to spread the message that you are a criminal
if you share you are a criminal.
When a person is buying a software, the person should own the software
but that doesn't happen.
It is only and only like the person is renting the software from those
companies to get a job done now with proprietary software.

Let's presume a company sells a free operating system, Trisquel and
a copies of Trisquel shipment is en-route to distributors but some
people attack that shipment, steal Trisquel's copies and sell it.
That would be piracy!
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-07 21:24:58 UTC
Permalink
I am starting to find some arguments presented here ridiculous. Really!
"sharing knowledge" and "sharing your copy doesn't harm the person who gave
you the copy", yada yada yada.... You guys are forgetting that what we see in
the web are THOUSANDS of websites that "share" the latest hollywood piece of
crap, while making money from ads! That's not sharing knowledge! That's not
doing something good! That is "I want to watch movies without payin eheh, I
am smarter than them eheh, I have internet and in internet you don't need to
obey the law, and you don't need to think about morals, because its the
internet eheh, is not real life, eheh".
That line of thought disgusts me... -.-
You know what guys?? Go ahead and just reverse engineer Windows, change the
code and use it! Why use free software?? Free software also has to do with
respectign licenses, but you care ZEROOOOOO about licenses!
I know what the problem is... most people who support piracy, never used
their brains to create something new and make a living out of that. They
probably never used their brains anyway, let alone to create something new...

You pirate a book/movie/music/whatever, you harm the creators and the people
who run bussiness around that content. You care nothing about that. You care
about your own desires and luxuries.
You pirate a book/movie/music/whatever, you disobey the law. You care nothing
about that because for you "the law does not apply to the internet" or "the
internet does not belong to the police and the government".
You pirate a book/movie/music/whatever, you harm the people who create
Creative Commons and Public Domain content. You bring attention to the pirate
material, instead of the free content. You care nothing about freedom, you
care about whatever the hell you want and look at no means to get it!

If there is one thing that sickens me in the free software movement are the
people who think piracy is ok...... Either stupidity was born within them, or
they just are so selfish that they fail to recognize their own history.
kendell clark
2013-08-07 21:56:41 UTC
Permalink
wow. What a passionate response.
I'm not at all sure who your rant is directed at, but if it's at me, I
don't use windows, have no desire to use windows, can't stand windows
... etc etc. Here's a problem that no one has so far solved. Print books
are relatively cheap, you can walk into just about any book store and
pick one up. But for those who are blind or who don't want them, it gets
tricky. YOu have to listen to audio books. Those are available too, but
generally run somewhere in the vacinity of $35, and that doesn't include
shipping. There are cheaper, but these are rare. I do no about gutinburg
hope i'm spelling that correctly, but I want a way to read the latest
hit from the authors i'm interested in. This requires books that are
copyrighted. I don't want to download those books without paying for
it, would gladly pay for them. If they weren't so expensive. Since you
are so passionate about creative commons, licenses, Find a way to get
audiobooks in those licenses. You try that and the publishers will
scream bloody murder and you'll either have a lawsuit on your hands or
they'll try to encumber it with drm. I'm trying to be reasonable but I'm
not "playing the victim", just stating a fact. Ebooks are a nogo, drm
encumbered, and ebook readers are not accessible to us blind people and
aren't freedom friendly anyway. I agree with lots of stallman's points
but I take real issue with him, or anyone, telling me that ethical
reasons are more important than feeding my family. Try telling the irs
that you didn't pay your taxes because the tax software is proprietary.
See where that gets you. This has turned into a bit of a rant, so I
apologize. I really, really want to switch to free software only but
hardware issues aside, I'm having trouble finding alternatives to things
I use. I don't use skype, facebook or twitter. I do listen to music and
watch movies which i can do with free software. I download the
occasional youtube video which I can do with free software. The few
games I play are gpl3, which is good. but parts of my hardware do not
work with free software and I cannot simply go out and buy another
laptop or desktop. Can't afford it. Seriously peopls. We all want the
same thing. Free software to be the rule, not the exception. Why do we
fight so much. Telling people "sorry your laptop doesn't work, here, go
buy another one." Won't work. "sorry you need proprietary software to
work, quit your job and get another one." Doesn't work. I don't
understand why people who want to join the free software movement often
get a bad taste because we're so uncompromising. Just my two cents, i've
said enough for one day.
Post by g***@lavabit.com
I am starting to find some arguments presented here ridiculous. Really!
"sharing knowledge" and "sharing your copy doesn't harm the person who
gave you the copy", yada yada yada.... You guys are forgetting that
what we see in the web are THOUSANDS of websites that "share" the
latest hollywood piece of crap, while making money from ads! That's
not sharing knowledge! That's not doing something good! That is "I
want to watch movies without payin eheh, I am smarter than them eheh,
I have internet and in internet you don't need to obey the law, and
you don't need to think about morals, because its the internet eheh,
is not real life, eheh".
That line of thought disgusts me... -.-
You know what guys?? Go ahead and just reverse engineer Windows,
change the code and use it! Why use free software?? Free software also
has to do with respectign licenses, but you care ZEROOOOOO about
licenses!
I know what the problem is... most people who support piracy, never
used their brains to create something new and make a living out of
that. They probably never used their brains anyway, let alone to
create something new...
You pirate a book/movie/music/whatever, you harm the creators and the
people who run bussiness around that content. You care nothing about
that. You care about your own desires and luxuries.
You pirate a book/movie/music/whatever, you disobey the law. You care
nothing about that because for you "the law does not apply to the
internet" or "the internet does not belong to the police and the
government".
You pirate a book/movie/music/whatever, you harm the people who create
Creative Commons and Public Domain content. You bring attention to the
pirate material, instead of the free content. You care nothing about
freedom, you care about whatever the hell you want and look at no
means to get it!
If there is one thing that sickens me in the free software movement
are the people who think piracy is ok...... Either stupidity was born
within them, or they just are so selfish that they fail to recognize
their own history.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-07 22:17:30 UTC
Permalink
First, I was not ranting. Second, the only person I directly replied to was
quantum gravity and it was a different separate reply.

As for what you write, I believe it was with you that I changed some emails
the other week, but if it wasn't here goes some information.
People who need audio books (because they are blind, or just because they
like to listen rather than read) are always up to download a pirate copy of a
audio book. They know the websites by heart, they know the software they need
to use and they will know how to use torrents better than even me! But you
talk to them about Librivox project, and they will say they never heard of
that! And keep in mind that Librivox has a perfect web interface which gives
you:
-all the different versions of each audio book;
-the gutenberg text links;
-images in public domain related to the audio book;

How can you say that piracy is not evil and harms people when it helps
preventing people to gain access and knowledge of free content like Librivox
recordings???

I could maybe agree with you that you may actually want to read up to date
books. But piracy will not solve that problem. When they bring piracy down
for good, with a law like SOPA or PIPA, the companies will have a total
monopoly and you will get stuck with that they give you. The solution would
be to fight NOW to get freedom from that. Encourage writers and companies to
provide free audio versions for blind people for example! Or just encourage a
system that allows people to make a living out of Creative Commons licensed
content. Make the world a better place, don't just sit back and enjoy piracy
while you can! That's my whole point!
kendell clark
2013-08-07 22:40:23 UTC
Permalink
I'm stumped. Yes, we did exchange emails. Librevox is great, I didn't
say it wasn't. My point was only that the publishers of books most
likely won't think to create commons license their books. Their
motivation is money, so that doesn't give them a reason. I was not
advocating piracy, I don't know where you got that. People who are blind
do have a system to get audio books and it's usually reliable. It's run
by the government so some books don't make it. There's bookshare for
text copies, which is much more reliable so yes, we do have ways of
getting books. I do know how to torrent, but that wasn't my point
either. I was simply stating that the average person doesn't realize how
good they have it, with print books available. If ebooks take over
they're seriously screwed. Audio books are also great, you can kick back
and listen to a book. I wasn't attacking anyone and i thought I said
Post by g***@lavabit.com
First, I was not ranting. Second, the only person I directly replied
to was quantum gravity and it was a different separate reply.
As for what you write, I believe it was with you that I changed some
emails the other week, but if it wasn't here goes some information.
People who need audio books (because they are blind, or just because
they like to listen rather than read) are always up to download a
pirate copy of a audio book. They know the websites by heart, they
know the software they need to use and they will know how to use
torrents better than even me! But you talk to them about Librivox
project, and they will say they never heard of that! And keep in mind
-all the different versions of each audio book;
-the gutenberg text links;
-images in public domain related to the audio book;
How can you say that piracy is not evil and harms people when it helps
preventing people to gain access and knowledge of free content like
Librivox recordings???
I could maybe agree with you that you may actually want to read up to
date books. But piracy will not solve that problem. When they bring
piracy down for good, with a law like SOPA or PIPA, the companies will
have a total monopoly and you will get stuck with that they give you.
The solution would be to fight NOW to get freedom from that. Encourage
writers and companies to provide free audio versions for blind people
for example! Or just encourage a system that allows people to make a
living out of Creative Commons licensed content. Make the world a
better place, don't just sit back and enjoy piracy while you can!
That's my whole point!
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-07 23:01:06 UTC
Permalink
I apologize Kendell Clark. I did not mean to attack you or put words in your
mouth. But seeing as a couple of users were already taking the conversation
in that direction (supporting piracy), and you seemed to be saying something
like "if we don't get have money it's ok to pirate stuff", I was replying to
everyone in general partially, and was taking it that you shared their
opinion. I realize now that was not your point, and I am sorry if I
misunderstood you.

Taking you as an example, I will once again say that sometimes choosing the
easy way (piracy way) will most of the time lead people AWAY from the best
solution. The free/libre way.

I am glad people with special needs have a better treatment from the
government, but I still say we should encourage artists and publishers to use
free licenses. If we were willing to compromise in some ways to make sure
they would get their fair share, maybe we could find such a system. But it
would take time for sure, I don't claim that changes like that will happen
from day to night.

I am glad I could introduce you to Librivox, I love their project! =D

It's good to hear from you again, thanks for the comments =) Hope all is
going well with you and again, I apologize for any misunderstood from my
part.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-06 00:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Of course, I am not pro-DRM. I am
pro-"people-learning-to-respect-the-license". That would make DRM
unnecessary.
I think DRM are bad and should be abandoned. But I merely understand why SOME
companies use them.
As for HTML5, I think it should be freely used, but the truth is that many
websites now restrict access to it. I have commented about that here in the
forum before.
t***@hotmail.com
2013-08-08 01:12:04 UTC
Permalink
If you care so much about following rules, why do you refuse to follow the
rules of this community?
https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/trisquel-community-guidelines
The Trisquel project is part of the Free Software Movement and supports the
movement's philosophy. We are happy to collaborate on practical activities
with the supporters of open source, but that is not what we call what we do.
*We ask those editing the Trisquel community wiki, posting to the forum, and
using the mailing list to please avoid certain misnomers and propaganda terms
and to keep in mind the spirit of free software and the GNU/Linux system.*

Emphasis mine. Another good analogy to use is a car or a house. Imagine if
you buy a house, but the blueprints are secret. The only way you can change
your basement is if you go to the first architect and ask him for them. He
can charge whatever he wants, even though it is your house. If it was legal
for car companies to force you to get your car serviced by them exclusively
they would do it. That's what propietary software creates, a monopoly and
dependence.

As to what you say about Stallman not sharing UNIX that's not a good analogy
either. Even if it is possible to decompile and reverse engineer software it
is difficult work and one never gets the original source code back. Someone
correct me if I'm wrong, but Stallman's conflict with proprietary software
started in part because of a bug in a printer driver. He wanted to fix it,
but was unable to do so as the driver was proprietary. In this instance his
alternative was to create a new system. When it comes to movies, music,
electronic books, audiobooks, etc. the content is already accessible but
behind a jail.

And just out of curiosity did you even check out any of the films I linked
you to?
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 13:30:23 UTC
Permalink
I am not doing propaganda. I am defending what I believe to be the best
interest of the community. So, yes, I am obeying the rules about that.

Let's try to make it simple for you: I am not supporting monopolies. I
believe we should go with free/open standards in the internet, I believe we
should use free software, I believe we should encourage artists and creators
to use GPL and BSD and Creative Commons, all free licenses. Maybe we should
create some new licenses, that might improve upon the ones that already
exist. That is not th point. The point is: I don't support piracy. If you buy
software and you respect the license that says "not share" and you don't like
it so you start using free software only (that was the reason for free
software in the beggining), why sould it be any different regarding other
creations? Just because it's too much work, or maybe because you are addicted
to watching hollywood movies and listening to lady gaga songs? And you are
willing to give up the morals you have about free software when it comes to
those things?

You want to have freedom to share and mix musics and movies and books? Create
one and license it under a free license. Don't impose on people who chose (a
free choice) to use a "non share" license, to have their stuff shared against
their wishes.

Piracy is not the answer, and it will keep harming society.
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 13:49:08 UTC
Permalink
You don't seem to have gotten the implication from previous responses, so
I'll be explicit about it:

The word "piracy" does not accurately describe the effect of copyright
infringement. That use of the word "piracy" is propaganda from publishing
corporations. Piracy, or attacking a ship, is a horrible crime; theft occurs,
and in most cases any who dare to resist are murdered. Real-life pirates are
no better than any other organized criminals.

The word "piracy" seeks to suggest that copyright infringement is equivalent
to theft. Sometimes, people even say this explicitly. But copyright
infringement is not theft; not legally, and not in any other sense. Copyright
is a legal monopoly. Copyright infringement is illegal competition.

Also, copyright is not a right. It's an industrial regulation from a few
centuries ago. Its intention was to impose a restriction on the publishers
wielded by the authors to encourage the authoring of more works (mostly
books). It functions differently now: it's a restriction of the general
public wielded by the publishers in the name of the authors. That is unjust.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 14:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Words change meanings over time!
"Piracy" is a word that has been used for many years now to refer to "illegal
distribution of content". People who make stupid jokes about ships and seas,
are just pretending they can't see a big elephant in a room.

I am not doing propaganda and I have explained to you in my last comment VERY
WELL, what I stand for. If you don't want to understand it, it's your choice.
But DON'T ACCUSE ME OF PROPAGANDA! If anyone here is doing that, it's you and
quantumgravity.

Got it? -.^
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 14:18:30 UTC
Permalink
"Words change" might work if the term didn't still suggest that unauthorized
copying is theft. But that isn't the case.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 14:34:14 UTC
Permalink
from a legal point of view, you are still causing financial harm, and
therefore you are to pay all the money that person has not won plus expenses.

Think about it... You take one copy, and "share" (pirate actually) to 100
people. If you were to pay the money that the creator would have made from
those 100 copies, would you still give it away?? No, I didn't think you
would.
If someone creates content expecting to sell it 100 times, and only sells it
once because someone thought they would just pirate his content, well, he is
in the right to ask for a compensation.
Would you pay that, to be able to share? Do you really care about sharing
THAT MUCH? No, didn't think you would.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 14:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Would one be a 'pirate' if he convinced 100 people not to buy that work? (He
would be causing the same financial harm.)
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 14:41:54 UTC
Permalink
It's "financial harm" the same way donating clothes to charities is
"financial harm" to the textile industry. How horrible that we donate clothes
and prevent those poor corporations from getting money, right? How horrible,
also that Meijer steals profits from many huge corporations by selling
competition for their products. How horrible that Oreo cookies pirated sales
off of Hydrox cookies.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 19:14:53 UTC
Permalink
I have noticed both you and the asshole (quantumgravity for those who might
not know him yet) like to attack me with straw man fallacies
(http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/straw-man/) . I used to think,
before I joined this forum, that this was a place where I would find
intelligent people... Well, I did met some intelligent wonderful nice people,
but I also met some people who just like to make stupid jokes about ships....
too bad those are the ones who talk to me the most (probably they are afraid
that this community and free communities at large, will stop supporting
piracy).
t***@hotmail.com
2013-08-08 19:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Trying to convince Free Software activists/supporters that sharing is bad is
like trying to convince the NSA to stop spying. It is purely antithetical.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 20:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Apparently you have problems reading English.
Sharing is good. Sharing means you create something and share it under a free
license, or provide means to share what other people have created under
similar free licenses.
Piracy is bad. Piracy is when you illegally distribute something that does
not have a free license. Not only are you USING PROPRIETARY CONTENT (don't
you consider it unethical?), you are also disrespecting the license and the
person who created the content. Usually people who pirate stuff, get
something in return, they are not good people. They are pirates.

Got it now? -.^
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 20:03:20 UTC
Permalink
Could you help me find the straw man? I don't see it. A straw man is when you
misrepresent someone else's position to make it easier to refute.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 20:24:50 UTC
Permalink
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/talks-about-drm#comment-40255

Right here. You made it as if I was talking about competition, and not
illegal distribution. Now, you will say that was not it and I didn't
understand bla bla bla... You used straw man attack against me. Also,
everytime people here make jokes about not being pirates because they don't
attack ships, they are pretending to not know what I am talking about (I
would consider that straw man, because their "not knowing" is fake and
intentional", but you can say it's a different fallacy).

In another thread someone (the asshole, I believe, I remember I was trying to
get him to understand some basic principle, so he might have been the one,
but I am not sure) said that electricity should have been illegal because it
would bankrupt candle makers... THAT was straw man. Usually when I talk about
the evils of piracy, people will use straw man fallacies. It's really sad and
stupid...
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 20:43:00 UTC
Permalink
That wasn't a strawman. Copyright infringement, what you are talking about,
is a form of competition. I was trying to explain this to you previously.

By the way, you know ad hominem attacks are also a logical fallacy, right?
(calling someone "the asshole".)

Talking about electricity being a competition for candles isn't a strawman,
either. It's trying to explain to you that copyright infringement is
competition.

I think you need to do a little less ranting (and less calling someone names)
and a little more reading.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 20:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Maybe you are the one who need it.
Both were straw man attacks. Making it as if I was talking about A when I was
talking about B. You refuse to accept that, you are just being irrational.

As for ad hominem, I would have done it if I had called him "son of a bitch".
I don't know his mom, and I don't think she is responsible for quantumgravity
attitude. I am sure she is a wonderful person. So, I did not made ad hominem.
I used the proper word to address him. His attitude towards me ( and my
opinions) have been those of an asshole.

Got it?? -.^
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 22:04:49 UTC
Permalink
You still don't get it, do you?

Copyright infringement is a form of competition. Not theft. Competition is
what unauthorized copying is. What unauthorized competition is is
competition. Not theft. Not piracy.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-09 19:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@lavabit.com
Copyright infringement is a form of competition.
You know, competition should be among equals... BUt if you have one person
who invests time to create content and sell it, and another that merely sells
it without investing (because he stole from the person who created) it is not
equal, it's unjust and unfair. I would add illegal, but you care nothing for
the law.
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-09 19:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Then clearly, attempting to make money from distribution is an outdated idea.

Why should we give up our freedom to support an outdated business model? They
can find another way to make money from their work. Maybe they could use
crowdfunding, for example (get paid in advance).

Should typing also be illegal so that scribes can keep making money that way?
Should photos be illegal so that painters can keep being needed for pictures
of people? Should factories be illegal so people who make stuff by hand can
dominate the markets as they used to?
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-09 19:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Yes, they (the people who create content) could find other ways. And many do
find other ways, just browse the web outside of pirate websites and you will
see that many people do things in many different ways.
But even if they do find a different way, unless they say you can do whatever
the hell you want without respecting their wishes, you will never be
satisfied.

I once made here a suggestion: a license that enables you to share freely
with everyone, but you must pay to the author for each copy you give away.
You are free to share, and the people are free to receive, but you must
actually make an effort, a sacrifice, to share. No one accepeted that and
that was the confirmation that people don't care about "helping their
friends". They care about going to the internet and downloading hollywood to
watch in the living room.

Also, doing piracy won't change the world into a more just and "shareable"
one. It will do the opposite.
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-09 19:43:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@lavabit.com
I once made here a suggestion: a license that enables you to share freely
with everyone, but you must pay to the author for each copy you give away.
You are free to share, and the people are free to receive, but you must
actually make an effort, a sacrifice, to share. No one accepeted that and
that was the confirmation that people don't care about "helping their
friends". They care about going to the internet and downloading hollywood to
watch in the living room.

That's still copyright. It's not a solution. It's just a slightly different
way of doing the same thing, and it's based on the same outdated business
model.

Copying is the future. In fact, the age of the computer networks is old news.
If your business depends on people not copying, your business model is
outdated. There is no reason to try to save an outdated business model.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-09 19:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Just to end this, like I said, you care nothing about sharing, you won't do
any sacrifice for sharing with people who need, and you refuse any business
model that doesn't say "do whatever the hell you want, no need to pay".

You just want free beer, you don't give a damn about free speech. Honestly,
people like you don't belong here.
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-09 19:53:52 UTC
Permalink
You don't like logical fallacies, right? What you just used is an ad hominem.
This isn't the first time, either.
a***@member.fsf.org
2013-08-08 14:08:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@lavabit.com
piracy
Please don't use that propaganda term. The MPAA and RIAA want to you think
that sharing information is bad, as bad as murder and plunder on the high
seas. And it sounds as though they have you by the balls.

Piracy is very bad. But sharing is good. And sharing is easy. So people
share. Sharing in the digital age must be legalised if we wish to pursue a
free society.

If I make a copy of a digital work (legal or not), I am not taking away any
of your physical property. So it cannot be stealing if the original copy
still exists.

Let me illustrate: You have an original digital work A. I make a copy of A.
Now there are two copies of A - and you still own your original copy:
mathematically, we could say:

Ao + (n)Ac

where Ao = the original data, Ac is a copy of the data and n is any positive
integer of subsequent copies made. As you can see, we will always have more
copies of the original after duplication - which most curiously, according to
you, is theft.

However, for physical objects, if I were to take object A away from you,
then:

Ao - (n)A

Where Ao must be >= to (n)A (you can't have a negative number of physical
objects!). How many original objects you have left is undefined because it
depends on how many you had and how many were stolen.

Copyright has not kept up with digital technology. We must make
non-commercial redistribution of exact copies, of any digital work, legal.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 14:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Again, again and again, piracy is not a propaganda term. Words change meaning
over times, and we should accept that. And stop making comparisons to ships
and seas -.-

The truth is, you think in the internet you don't have to obey the law.
Have you ever thought that maybe it was the other way around, maybe the
people behind big piracy websites (making millions of dollars in ads) want
you to believe that "it's ok to copy a movie and distribute it"? Maybe it's
people who never worked for a single day in their lifes and want to make
money from someone else's work, that defend that we should accept piracy as a
part of life "because it's digital"?

If what you truly care about is FREEDOM and SHARING, why don't you support
artists who use free licenses instead? Why not send an email to the big stars
asking them to use freer licenses, and open standards for their works? Why
not try to make the world a better place instead of just disobyeing the laws
you don't like?
a***@member.fsf.org
2013-08-08 14:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@lavabit.com
If what you truly care about is FREEDOM and SHARING, why don't you support
artists who use free licenses instead? Why not send an email to the big stars
asking them to use freer licenses, and open standards for their works? Why
not try to make the world a better place instead of just disobyeing the laws
you don't like?

If you have the audacity to believe sending an email to a pop sensation is
going to change anything, then there's a fundamental misunderstanding on your
part.

Big name artists usually do not (and in most cases, unable to) control their
licensing schemes as it is the record/publishing company that gets to decide.
They have the balance of power, they get to decide who can and cannot use
their music for commercial or most disturbingly even for non-commercial
purposes.

You keep using a classic form of circular logic, GNUser - you assert that
piracy is bad because it is illegal (or that is equivalent to stealing), and
because it is illegal it means it's bad.

You didn't refute any of my points, which suggests that you either don't
understand what I'm saying (which is a failure on my part), or you're just
being obtuse.
Post by g***@lavabit.com
Have you ever thought that maybe it was the other way around, maybe the
people behind big piracy websites (making millions of dollars in ads) want
you to believe that "it's ok to copy a movie and distribute it"?

I'd like to see a source or citation backing this up, because it sounds like
bullshit to me.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 19:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@member.fsf.org
If you have the audacity to believe sending an email to a pop sensation is
going to change anything, then there's a fundamental misunderstanding on your
part.

If you have the audacity to believe that pirating stuff will accomplish more
regarding changing the world into a better place, that's a funamental
misunderstanding on your part.
Post by a***@member.fsf.org
You keep using a classic form of circular logic, GNUser - you assert that
piracy is bad because it is illegal (or that is equivalent to stealing), and
because it is illegal it means it's bad.

I never explained things that way, so that's false. It was never my opinion
either.
Post by a***@member.fsf.org
You didn't refute any of my points, which suggests that you either don't
understand what I'm saying (which is a failure on my part), or you're just
being obtuse.

Your points have already been made by other people and I totally dismantled
them on those comments. Anyway, I will explain it to you too.
Person A invests 100$ to produce music and burn 100 CDs and pay taxes, all of
that. He will probably sell at least 85 CDs, he has many people saying they
want his CD, he played it live and many people wanted to buy before he even
had the CDs ready. He is selling each one for 20$. If you buy the first CD
and start pirating it right away, you will make it so that no one will buy
the other ones. He ends up selling let's say 5 CDs.

So, from an initial investment of 100$ to a probable gain of 20x~85 = 1700$,
which would make it 1700-100= 1600. We go to an investment of 100$ to a gain
of 20x~5= 100$. In the end 100-100= 0$.
Sure you did not take away his copies, you were correct in that, sharing
won't take someone elses copies away. BUT it will render them useless and
make the person who invested in it lose his investment.
Unless you are against ANY kind of business where people actually have to pay
for something (what, you don't pay for food? you steal it?), wanting musics
and books and movies to be free of charge is not a valid point.
Post by a***@member.fsf.org
I'd like to see a source or citation backing this up, because it sounds
like bullshit to me.

Go to a piracy website, a big one. Now, disable all adblocks, script blocks,
all of that... You will see that there are at least a dozen ads and even
worse scripts running, images and pop ups appearing everywhere.... What, you
think those are there to make you happy? No, they are there because they mean
MONEY!
t***@hotmail.com
2013-08-08 20:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@lavabit.com
Person A invests 100$ to produce music and burn 100 CDs and pay taxes, all
of that. He will probably sell at least 85 CDs, he has many people saying
they want his CD, he played it live and many people wanted to buy before he
even had the CDs ready. He is selling each one for 20$. If you buy the first
CD and start pirating it right away, you will make it so that no one will buy
the other ones. He ends up selling let's say 5 CDs.

A free copy does not mean a lost sale. This is the biggest lie spread about
by the entertainment industry. Anyway, I have provided links to studies that
indicate that the ones that share are also the ones that *spend* the most.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 20:29:37 UTC
Permalink
And I have explained to you that you were wrong. I won't do it again. Use
your brains instead of believing everything you read on the internet.
t***@hotmail.com
2013-08-08 20:34:47 UTC
Permalink
You have provided your opinion. Nothing more.
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 20:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Nobody makes "millions of dollars" on ads, except Google.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 20:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Kimdotcom
Ask him how much he made on ads.
I was sad when megaupload was taken down, many good people had free content
hosted there, but I understood it was necessary to take down the billions of
pirate files they had there. And to try and teach people a lesson: internet
is not a "do whatever you want with no consequences" playground.
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-09 19:34:10 UTC
Permalink
MegaUpload wasn't uploading things that infringed copyright. It was just a
host; other people were doing the sharing via MegaUpload.
t***@hotmail.com
2013-08-08 15:52:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@lavabit.com
I am not doing propaganda. I am defending what I believe to be the best
interest of the community. So, yes, I am obeying the rules about that.

I'll try to illustrate this one more time. This is a link to the guidelines
for the community that supposedly you accept:
https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/trisquel-community-guidelines. Point 4 on there
states:

"The Trisquel project is part of the Free Software Movement and supports the
movement's *philosophy*. We are happy to collaborate on practical activities
with the supporters of open source, but that is not what we call what we do.
We ask those editing the Trisquel community wiki, posting to the forum, and
using the mailing list to please avoid certain *misnomers and propaganda
terms* and to keep in mind the spirit of free software and the *GNU/Linux
system*.

The emphasized words or phrases contain links. "Philosophy" links to
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html. "...misnomers and propaganda
terms..." links to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html.
"...GNU/Linux system" links to http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#why.

Now if you follow the link for misnomers and propanganda terms you will find
Post by g***@lavabit.com
"Piracy" Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as
“piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to
attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on
them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world
to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still
pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)
Post by g***@lavabit.com
If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like
kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to
describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or
“prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available
for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as
“sharing information with your neighbor.”

Therefore, by using the term you are not abiding by the rules of the
community.

Anyway, as I've read all your arguments on the topic (which coincidentally
don't seem to take into account any points contrary to yours) it is clear
that it doesn't matter what anyone states on the topic. Your mind is set,
even if your points can't possibly be valid as you are contradicting
yourself.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 16:22:50 UTC
Permalink
This is bold text that is more than one word.

[strong]This is bold text that is more than one word.[/strong]

Change [ to < and ] to >, as the forum software wouldn't show the tags
properly otherwise.
t***@hotmail.com
2013-08-08 19:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Oh, okay thanks! I don't mean to derail the thread or anything, but do all
HTML tags work or just some?
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 16:23:14 UTC
Permalink
This is bold text that is more than one word.

[strong]This is bold text that is more than one word.[/strong]

Change [ to < and ] to >, as the forum software wouldn't show the tags
properly otherwise.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 19:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Well, forgive me for actually having an opinion instead of just agreeing
blindly with everything written in some website! -.- shame on you... I have
already stated here that I did not agree with everything the FSF says. I
still think we can work together, I don't need to agree with EVERYTHING
someone says to work with them. And apparently they think the same way too,
so if you were, I don't know, trying to make me go away with that
argument.... You fail!

As for the word piracy, well, it's better to understand the meaning that the
word carries when talking about content, than to make stupid jokes about
ships and murders.

And no, I am not contradicting myself, but people who say they want freedom
and therefore use only free software, and then go and use pirated content ARE
contradicting themselves! You want freedom to change and use and distribute,
but you use content that has a non free license instead of going to the
alternatives. That's like saying "facebook is evil, and google too... I will
keep using them, instead of trying diaspora and startpage".

Have a nice day
t***@hotmail.com
2013-08-08 19:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@lavabit.com
Well, forgive me for actually having an opinion instead of just agreeing
blindly with everything written in some website! -.- shame on you... I have
already stated here that I did not agree with everything the FSF says. I
still think we can work together, I don't need to agree with EVERYTHING
someone says to work with them. And apparently they think the same way too,
so if you were, I don't know, trying to make me go away with that
argument.... You fail!

I'm merely pointing out the fallacy of chastizing someone for not following
the rules of the creators when you're failing to do so yourself. Here's a
contradiction.
Post by g***@lavabit.com
As for the word piracy, well, it's better to understand the meaning that the
word carries when talking about content, than to make stupid jokes about
ships and murders.

No, that's not true. It's better to understand the real meaning of words
instead of twisting them.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 19:49:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@hotmail.com
I'm merely pointing out the fallacy of chastizing someone for not following
the rules of the creators when you're failing to do so yourself. Here's a
contradiction.

I will play along and pretend to believe that. Still, two totally different
things, so... moot point really. Moving on....
Post by t***@hotmail.com
No, that's not true. It's better to understand the real meaning of words
instead of twisting them.

Yes, and you fail to understand that words change meaning over time. It's
natural evolution of speech. People who attack me with straw man fallacies
and stupid ships jokes, those are the ones twisting words.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 19:50:15 UTC
Permalink
GNUser said - "As for the word piracy, well, it's better to understand the
meaning that the word carries when talking about content, than to make stupid
jokes about ships and murders."

I (and most people I know) associate the word "pirate" as pirates on the high
seas, even if used in the context of unauthorized distribution.
The RIAA, MPAA, and the BSA (Business Software Alliance) intend for this to
happen, to smear unathorized distribution.

The word "piracy" must have not changed too much, as there are modern-day
pirates on the high seas (plundering ships, killing the crew.)
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 19:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Well, I don't know where you live (and I am not asking, don't take it in the
wrong way please) but in my place, everyone knows "piracy" usually refers to
illegal copies. Problem is, they accept it as much as they accept windows =S
I don't know what is worse, but I would say windows is worse. Even if, it
would be funny to see the government using windows backdoors to find out who
is doing active piracy and shutting them down. The day that starts happening,
I won't have to worry, as I don't do piracy.... And also because I protect
myself online. But people who say "everyone does piracy, and everyone uses
windows, so it's ok to do it"... Those people will get it the hard way ;)
Eheh, actually the thought was good... maybe a clean lesson on RESPECT would
do our world good *.* People would learn the values of freedom, security,
respect... CC and PD would be finally accepted.... It would probably be good
;)
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 20:17:08 UTC
Permalink
It doesn't matter if people understand that people mean "unauthorized
copying" when they say "piracy". The term is charged to suggest that
unauthorized copying is similar to real piracy or theft. The charge doesn't
get lost just because the usage is common.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 20:26:29 UTC
Permalink
People use that term because they know what they are doing is illegal and
they are taking something that does not belong to them (did they buy the
content? no, so it's theft in a way).
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-08 22:03:44 UTC
Permalink
Have you watched Copying is not Theft?
Andrew R.
2013-08-08 23:48:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@lavabit.com
People use that term because they know what they are doing is
illegal and they are taking something that does not belong to them
(did they buy the content? no, so it's theft in a way).
Copying != theft (I think we are going around in circles now, but it
had to be said).

Andrew.
e***@tormail.org
2013-08-09 02:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Just because it is illegal doesn't mean it isn't right. Have you seen the
massive increase in surveillance lately? This is illegal too as it breaks
many of our fundamental rights and takes away our privacy and freedom of
speech!

Unauthorised copying is bad, we agree with you but telling us not to share is
not. It goes against everything we stand for.

I do not "pirate", I prefer creative works which encourage sharing. As for
mainstream works, I purchase them 2nd-hand (which the giants are also trying
to abolish!) so that I don't give them money for another copy. Anybody that
restricts what I can do with something doesn't deserve my money!

I agree that we must create our own libre works that compete with their work
and I agree that we must reduce the demand for unauthorised copies of
creative works.

I defend unauthorised copying only because it is sharing! Nothing more!

I am certain that most of the users here are the same.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-09 02:07:22 UTC
Permalink
I completely agree with you, Elad.
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-09 02:17:20 UTC
Permalink
I don't agree that unauthorized copying is bad. Sharing is good whether
authorized by the author or not. It's better when you have the author's
blessing, but only because it's illegal otherwise. I would very much like to
see copyright abolished; then, all creative works would be in the public
domain.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-09 13:51:34 UTC
Permalink
First of all, thank you Elad, this was one of the most reasonable comments I
have ever seen regarding piracy and sharing and all of that. Thank you, I
feel that at least someone here understood what I was trying to say.
Post by e***@tormail.org
Just because it is illegal doesn't mean it isn't right. Have you seen the
massive increase in surveillance lately? This is illegal too as it breaks
many of our fundamental rights and takes away our privacy and freedom of
speech!

I agree. In my place, people in power actually make some bad things legal
and... for me they are still wrong things. So, being legal is not enough to
be right. As for the spying, that is why I try to use free privacy and
security tools, and I believe everyone should do the same. Even if, in light
of last events (lavabit, silent mail, freedom hosting, etc) it becomes...
hard to believe that such a thing is possible to achieve. But I try anyway =)
Post by e***@tormail.org
Unauthorised copying is bad, we agree with you but telling us not to share
is not. It goes against everything we stand for.

Unfortunately as you can see, many people here don't realize that
"unauthorised copying is bad". They don't get it. That is the main problem,
they say I am doing propaganda, which is the same attack RMS had to endure
over the last 30 years. I hope I can hold that long too =S
When you take it that unauthorised copying and distributing is bad, you
realise that sharing must be something else, which is what I have been saying
all along, SHARING IS GOOD! I am all pro sharing! But i believe that
"sharing" means "copying and distributing freely what was made for that
purpose". So, I am not telling people not to share. Why do they think I am
saying that? I am only saying that we should take a better approach to share,
one that actually makes use of free licenses (the same way free software
does).
Post by e***@tormail.org
I do not "pirate", I prefer creative works which encourage sharing. As for
mainstream works, I purchase them 2nd-hand (which the giants are also trying
to abolish!) so that I don't give them money for another copy. Anybody that
restricts what I can do with something doesn't deserve my money!

I totally agree with you again!
That is the true spirit of sharing!
As for the mainstream works, I agree we need better laws and we should fight
for them. We should fight for better laws, not doing so and keep pirating
will only make things worse.
This is something I have been saying for a long time now and no one seems to
pay attention to that part (or they just claim that "it won't make a
difference", which is a poor view of things and one I do not indulge, we CAN
change things).
Post by e***@tormail.org
I agree that we must create our own libre works that compete with their
work and I agree that we must reduce the demand for unauthorised copies of
creative works.

Again I agree.
You are maybe the first person who seems to understand what I have been
saying for the last few days... =)
Post by e***@tormail.org
I defend unauthorised copying only because it is sharing! Nothing more!
That is the point where I actually have to say "maybe that's not entirely
right". As I have tried to explain here before, sharing can't be sharing if
you give something that puts the other person in a bad position.
You see, I believe right now that if I give someone a Windows 7 original (or
not) DVD, I am actually harming them, not helping them. The same way, if I
take a hollywood movie DVD, rip it and make it available on the internet for
everyone, I am not helping people, I am harming them. They can get into
trouble for that, they will not know of free licensed movies, they won't get
a GOOD thing, they will get a BAD thing. If you do something that has a good
intention but harm people... you are doing a bad things anyway. Right?
So... I don't think we should defend unauthorised copying as being sharing.
We should defend sharing as what it ought to be. And understand that giving
away a pirate copy of a movie is the same as giving a copy (original or not)
of a proprietary software like windows for example.
How can people on here disagree with this??
Post by e***@tormail.org
I am certain that most of the users here are the same.
Unfortunately, it's not =S just read the replies you had in your own comment,
and you see that many people think it's all ok. And they think that the
solution would be to end copyrights. They have never really gave it a lot of
thought apparently, as it would do more harm than good. Free licenses would
also lose their power, and if someone someday did the same thing RMS did, we
would be screwed. (RMS found a way to use copyright against itself. What if
someone could also "hack" the law in that way against freedom?)


Well, this was the most interesting and refreshing comment I read here all
along, I thank you again, and I would like you to consider please, maybe my
argument is not so crazy as it seems... Maybe in a way, illegally
distributing a non free licensed content, is not sharing, and maybe it causes
more harm than help... think about please Elad =)
And thanks for this!
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-09 13:57:37 UTC
Permalink
Claiming that unauthorized copying is bad doesn't make it so, and neither
does someone agreeing with you. You've made a lot of walls of text, so I
haven't read everything you've posted, but I haven't seen you provide any
actual reasons for why unauthorized copying is bad that weren't fallacious. I
saw you claim that it's theft and justify it by saying that profits are
"stolen". I tried to explain that it's not theft, but a monopoly, and you
accused me of using a "strawman". You're a brick wall.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-09 19:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Let me get this straight....

You say what I and other members say or think makes no difference;
You say you don't read what I wrote, but still disagree and say I didn't
provide any arguments;
You use strawman attacks against me and my views, and claim you didn't;
You accused me of name calling earlier, but now do the exact same thing;

Ok... Am I missing anything? Because it is a lot of crap to take in! I might
need brain surgery after reading some idiotic comments here like yours!

Look, do whatever you want, and think whatever you want, but please, PLEASE,
don't call yourself a "defendant of freedom", because you are not. You use
free software only because it gives you some feeling of "power" against
companies, nothing else. You care little about sharing, nothing about
freedom, and can use any sort of idiotic reasoning (be it strawman attacks,
stupid ship jokes, whatever) only to justify your selfishness on satisfying
your own luxuries and desires.

You know nothing. You deserve nothing. You are worth nothing.
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-09 19:37:57 UTC
Permalink
Let me get this straight...

You keep repeating the same things without justifying them.

Look, the way you argue isn't to just say "X is true and Y is false". An
argument would be "X is true because A and Y is false because B". As far as I
have seen you haven't been including that "because" part. You're just saying
facts without justifying why they are true.
g***@lavabit.com
2013-08-09 19:48:19 UTC
Permalink
No, I actually provided a lot of arguments, many different ones. But you
didn't read them. Maybe you are not limited only in logic but also in plain
english...

And by now, you are starting to get quantumgravity's place as "the asshole".
So just go pirate your shit away, and leave the good honest innocent people
in peace.

Yep, that's right, I have nothing else to tell you. I stated many arguments,
some people (the ones who read them) understood and maybe I will have made a
good difference here. If one person actually stops pirating and start living
freely with all the free content we have available already, I will have done
my part. I will keep informing people and providing links to free services
and content (as I have already done before) and reject any piracy that tries
to come up. So... you can leave now, thanks for giving me brain damage with
your stupidty, now you can go.


As for the thread title, it's very sad we have DRM, but it was to be expected
given the circumstances =S I hope we can fight the good fight and live freely
in the future =)
o***@lavabit.com
2013-08-09 19:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@lavabit.com
No, I actually provided a lot of arguments, many different ones. But you
didn't read them. Maybe you are not limited only in logic but also in plain
english...

What I'm limited in is my willingness to read several paragraphs of the same
crap trying to find arguments that you claim are there. Why can't you make
this easier and just point me to the arguments you say you have made?
Loading...