[Grief]

Still not in agreement there Obdi. I would say that for a vote to be democratic the voters must have access to information about what they are voting for. There must be some basis for a choice. Without information on the views of the candidates, there is not the basis to make that decision. The decision of who to give power to is in the hands of the majority, to choose who they think best represents them. How can they decide who best represents them if the views of the people standing for election are kept secret?

I would say it undermines your democratic vote because even though you are voting for an official democratically, you cannot know their views on an issue which may affect your vote. It undermines your vote because when you make that vote, you don't know what you are voting for, on that issue at least. You may be on one side of the argument about the treaty, and wouldn't vote for someone on the other side of it. Yet, since you don't know, you can't get your view represented because you don't know which person represents your view.

[Shinrei]

I agree with you Gem that business needs to adapt. And by adapting, I don't mean closed door protectionism deals with the government. So there I am with you 100%.

However, we ARE customers of the internet. We are also customers of the gas companies, phone companies, electric companies and customers through taxes of the roads and whatever else (except with the governent you have to pay whether you use the roads or not). So, I don't know what you mean by being "reduced to customers" when it comes to the internet.

[Gem Windcaster]

Obdigore, on 17 December 2009 - 10:32 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 17 December 2009 - 10:20 PM, said:

I thought I've been pretty clear on that fact that I am not against copyright. And I've been using the word REFORM at least twice, I think. I don't really think I know everything humankind faces, I am expressing my opinions, and if you feel intimidated by that, then that's your own insecurity talking imho. As for alienating people, I am not looking for a popularity prize - these are matters that I take very seriously, and worth taking shit for. If I make one person think twice, it's definitely worth all the shit I ever get.

Oh really? Time for a Montage!

Quote

I am in favor of non-commercial file sharing being completely legalized - I am in favor of copyright being reformed - meaning I think a commercial copyright should stay, but that non-commercial copyright should be abolished.

Then I ask you what a 'non-commercial' copyright is. I ask numerous times, and you finally say:

Quote

What can I say, negations confuse me. And I had a headache when I wrote that - no excuse, I know.

.
So, you think all copyrights should be abolished? Is that what you are getting at?

Ok let me clarify, commercial copyright is important, so far you are with me? What I meant by non-commercial copyright is that it should be allowed to make copies of something as long as you don't make money from it.

Obdigore, on 17 December 2009 - 10:32 PM, said:

And, instead of explaining your true views, you link the most Pro-P2P, nearly militant anti-big corp website I have been to in a while.

You know, I thought it was pretty obvious what I meant, I thought you were being obtuse on purpose. If you have questions about what I mean, just ask.

Obdigore, on 17 December 2009 - 10:32 PM, said:

Then, you decide that Sweden, and by association, you, is obviously the only voice that counts, and the only place that has a clue regarding this issue:

Quote

in Sweden we have been debating these issues for quite some time now, while in other countries they mostly still haven't a clue.

I don't mean to say that this fact makes me an expert, I basically mean that it is hard for me to link to sources, because they are all in Swedish.

Obdigore, on 17 December 2009 - 10:32 PM, said:

Oh, and let us not forgot your blaise US bashing:

Quote

We don't have big armies to send across the world over here, so we have to actually earn respect.

Dude, I couldn't help myself; and you started that by bashing Sweden. I thought we were doing some friendly country bashing. If you give some, you will get some.

Obdigore, on 17 December 2009 - 10:32 PM, said:

Frankly, Gem, if you want anyone to listen to anything you say, ever, you need to post what you mean, stop claiming you were saying something different when you werent, and stop attempting to anger people to drag them down into a discussion that consists of 'yes. no. yes. no.'

What, first you say I am not answering, then when I try to explain what I mean, I am claiming I am saying something I was not? Seriously, do you have any idea how silly that looks? How about just asking what I mean when I try to explain, this is communication based thing, ya know. Believe me I am trying to say what I mean, and as hard as that seems, you're not helping. Secondly, I am not trying to anger people; you are projecting your own anger onto the discussion. However I find the topic very upsetting, and I have no reason to hide that.

Obdigore, on 17 December 2009 - 10:32 PM, said:

Tell me, Gem, all about you copyright reform plans. I would like to know how you intend to reform the entire worlds copyright system, while being against a uniform code across the world.

I have no clue. I think though that the change that is happening, that has been happening for the last 10 years, can't really be stopped, and unless people everywhere want 'uniform code' they will have to let internet change our society, because the only way we can stop it is by shutting down internet as we know it.

Obdigore, on 17 December 2009 - 10:32 PM, said:

I am also still curious, by the way, how your elected official appointing another official to talk about this treatie, which will be voted on by your elected official before it can be made into law, is ignoring or bypassing your DEMOCRATIC vote?

I have no clue what my elected officials will do, and I highly doubt their votes will be revealed, since they can't really say what they voted on, since the content is secret. Does that answer your question, I am unsure what you were wondering.

Shinrei, on 17 December 2009 - 11:37 PM, said:

However, we ARE customers of the internet. We are also customers of the gas companies, phone companies, electric companies and customers through taxes of the roads and whatever else (except with the governent you have to pay whether you use the roads or not). So, I don't know what you mean by being "reduced to customers" when it comes to the internet.

I meant customers in the context of what we use the internet for. It's called net neutrality. For me, companies shouldn't decide what I do on the internet - and I think the police should uphold the law on the internet, laws that are passed by politicians through the democratic system, where the politicians are held responsible - they can't really be held responsible for something that is secret, now can they? Does that answer your question? I am not sure what you were asking.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 18 December 2009 - 01:52 AM

[Shinrei]

Ok, I am a supporter of net-neutrality, so I'm with you on that score too. Filtered content, unless it is illegal content, should not be allowed. Australia looks like China on that score....

[Gem Windcaster]

Yeah, and it's kinda weird hearing companies argue that 'illegal file sharing' needs to be stopped or whatever, because when you think about the measures that would be needed to stop all unlawful (the correct term actually) file sharing, the whole idea just gets ridiculous - there is no way that people's integrity and privacy, let alone their legal security, can be maintained while at the same time stopping the kind of activity that those big corporations hate. The fact that there are no proof of anyone doing anything, because there are no real digital fingerprints, makes it nearly impossible to prove that anyone did anything. Most cases where people have been sentenced to fines, they admitted to the charges. The tactics from the corporations seem to be to send out threatening letters 'accusing' the holders of a certain internet account of breaking copyright, and since most people can't afford the cost of going to trial, they have no choice but to pay the fines.
So the next thing would be to harass people even more - searching people's laptops on the airports, disconnecting people off the internet or whatever things they come up with next. It wouldn't surprise me if there are more money and manpower spent on finding unlawful file sharers than finding terrorists these days. Hey, I am pretty sure your local police precinct doesn't have one 10th of the resources in fighting rapists and child molesters as is spent on tracking down digital copies. Just to put things in perspective.

My question is, when is the line crossed, when does the rights of regular citizens become more important than ensuring the interests of a powerful corporation? Does it ever? At what point does fancy dinners and lobbyist gifts and funding for your political party become secondary to your duty to your voters? It scares me, thinking about the naivety of some politicians, and I try to make sure I don't vote for them. But how do you fight against something like this - it makes me feel so powerless - and it's not that sort of society I want to live in.

[Gothos]

Just adding my $0.02 here... Copyright is a very delicate matter to me. They just want more and more, and quite soon you'll need to purchase a recording to even be allowed to hear it, anywhere. Imagine if you gather for a home party with some friends and you want to put on some music, but then one of them didn't have the album at home, so you either can't play it, or that person has to leave or put corks in their ears. Eeaaasssyyyy.
Something has to force the music market to change, and if revenue loss doesn't, what will? They're stuck in the 90s with their CDs and retail stores. They're stuck in the 90s regarding prices. They're stuck in the stone age concerning customer choice.
Now, acts like this always make me nervous, because what they mostly intend is to make the fat guys even fatter. Occasionally, they will crush an ant using atomic ordinance.
reference: one awesome piece of text in the Awesome Quotes thread.

[Obdigore]

Grief, on 17 December 2009 - 10:59 PM, said:

Still not in agreement there Obdi. I would say that for a vote to be democratic the voters must have access to information about what they are voting for. There must be some basis for a choice. Without information on the views of the candidates, there is not the basis to make that decision. The decision of who to give power to is in the hands of the majority, to choose who they think best represents them. How can they decide who best represents them if the views of the people standing for election are kept secret?

I would say it undermines your democratic vote because even though you are voting for an official democratically, you cannot know their views on an issue which may affect your vote. It undermines your vote because when you make that vote, you don't know what you are voting for, on that issue at least. You may be on one side of the argument about the treaty, and wouldn't vote for someone on the other side of it. Yet, since you don't know, you can't get your view represented because you don't know which person represents your view.

So, you are telling me that if you vote someone into office because you like where their party stands, and an issue that wasn't brought up in the elections comes up, they need to not do anything on the issue until a new round of elections? Because that is what you are asking for.

I still think you and Gem don't understand what this is. I also think that after the appointed officials from the countries agree on what they want, they will then present it to your DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS, and then it becomes a public document if it is voted into law or not.

I also find it highly ironic that both you and Gem carry on like big buisiness (none of who appear to be invited to this summit) are pressuring people to do what they say. Of course they are. I don't see why you and Gem keep arguing that a worldwide copyright standard to be a bad thing.

Now, Gem, you claim you don't have a plan, or any idea, how to make the copyright laws fit your standard, however you seem to think that as long as you don't then sell the copyrighted material you take, it shouldn't be illegal? Under that assumption, every video game created needs but one copy sold, after which everyone would download that legally from file sharing websites and the game creating companies would crash and burn.

You think that a new OS should sell but 1 copy, after which everyone would have the thing, be able to burn it, and since they aren't making money by re-selling it, it shouldn't be illegal?

How can you not see the inherent abuse of your idea? How do you not understand that even though you do not make money off of this software, you are DEPRIVING the creator of money.

Another thing for you to think of, let us say that the law says 'You are not violating copyrights by DLing and using software, as long as you do not make money off of it.' Where is the line? What if I download windows 7, and office 2007, then update my resume using that software, and that updated resume gets me a job. Have I just violated the copyright holder's rights?

You, and your entire 'groups' ideas are nothing but 'I want for free, screw anyone who takes the time and money to build this software that I want, I should get it for free because I'm special.' That is the kind of attitude that causes anarchy and depravity, war and genocide.

Here is your quote, Gem, to prove you said this since you will deny it if I do not provide it:

Quote

Ok let me clarify, commercial copyright is important, so far you are with me? What I meant by non-commercial copyright is that it should be allowed to make copies of something as long as you don't make money from it.

[Obdigore]

Gem Windcaster, on 18 December 2009 - 03:45 AM, said:

Hey, I am pretty sure your local police precinct doesn't have one 10th of the resources in fighting rapists and child molesters as is spent on tracking down digital copies. Just to put things in perspective.

This is possibly the most imbecelic statement made on these boards.

Do you honestly think that every police department around the world is spending one thousand times the amount of money on fighting file sharing compared to what they spend on tracking rapists/child molesters? REALLY?

[Gem Windcaster]

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:36 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 18 December 2009 - 03:45 AM, said:

Hey, I am pretty sure your local police precinct doesn't have one 10th of the resources in fighting rapists and child molesters as is spent on tracking down digital copies. Just to put things in perspective.

This is possibly the most imbecelic statement made on these boards.

Do you honestly think that every police department around the world is spending one thousand times the amount of money on fighting file sharing compared to what they spend on tracking rapists/child molesters? REALLY?

No, I don't know. You tell me.

[Gem Windcaster]

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

I still think you and Gem don't understand what this is. I also think that after the appointed officials from the countries agree on what they want, they will then present it to your DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS, and then it becomes a public document if it is voted into law or not.

Are you sure?

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

I don't see why you and Gem keep arguing that a worldwide copyright standard to be a bad thing.

Yeah, that much is clear.

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

Now, Gem, you claim you don't have a plan, or any idea, how to make the copyright laws fit your standard, however you seem to think that as long as you don't then sell the copyrighted material you take, it shouldn't be illegal? Under that assumption, every video game created needs but one copy sold, after which everyone would download that legally from file sharing websites and the game creating companies would crash and burn.

You think that a new OS should sell but 1 copy, after which everyone would have the thing, be able to burn it, and since they aren't making money by re-selling it, it shouldn't be illegal?

Oh come now, you're being obtuse on purpose. A shared copy has the same value as free advertising X million times more powerful than anything the companies can dish out. People that share and download spend the most money on games and music and so on, because they want to buy it, because they want to support the artist, or game makers. The way consumers spend money change - it's a shift in power from the companies to the customer.

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

How can you not see the inherent abuse of your idea? How do you not understand that even though you do not make money off of this software, you are DEPRIVING the creator of money.

This is a stupid notion, you can be pretty sure that without the free promotion, the product wouldn't be so well known, and most people downloading a product wouldn't even try the game if they couldn't download it, much less buy it. However, with every shared copy, X amount of new hard core fans are found, and they will spend money on the game, then next game, the next album etc.

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

Another thing for you to think of, let us say that the law says 'You are not violating copyrights by DLing and using software, as long as you do not make money off of it.' Where is the line? What if I download windows 7, and office 2007, then update my resume using that software, and that updated resume gets me a job. Have I just violated the copyright holder's rights?

A good example here is adobe photoshop - piracy has practically made it standard, and people have learned to use it, then when they are purchasing products for their office, they get photoshop. So adobe actually have profited, increased their market share, through piracy.

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

You, and your entire 'groups' ideas are nothing but 'I want for free, screw anyone who takes the time and money to build this software that I want, I should get it for free because I'm special.' That is the kind of attitude that causes anarchy and depravity, war and genocide.

Genocide? HAHAHAHA, you're funny. On the contrary, dear friend, I believe that spreading culture and knowledge to all the world is the best way to avoid war and poverty.

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

Here is your quote, Gem, to prove you said this since you will deny it if I do not provide it:

Quote

Ok let me clarify, commercial copyright is important, so far you are with me? What I meant by non-commercial copyright is that it should be allowed to make copies of something as long as you don't make money from it.

Indeed.

I think that businesses should get off their fat asses an realize that time changes, and that now the customer really are king. The world is changing, and those who understand the potential will gain so much by riding on the wave. I see a beautiful picture, where companies have to make quality products, and the can, because making copies are free. It's a dream come true for any business that is built on copies. The possibilities are endless. They just need to adjust their way of thinking a tiny bit. It doesn't require much really. The problem is they are so stuck in the old way of doing things, they are so blinded by power that they will probably destroy themselves.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 18 December 2009 - 03:34 PM

[Obdigore]

Gem Windcaster, on 18 December 2009 - 03:32 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

I still think you and Gem don't understand what this is. I also think that after the appointed officials from the countries agree on what they want, they will then present it to your DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS, and then it becomes a public document if it is voted into law or not.

Are you sure?

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

I don't see why you and Gem keep arguing that a worldwide copyright standard to be a bad thing.

Yeah, that much is clear.

And you still have not said why you think a standardized, worldwide copyright system is bad. You seem to be all for globalization of everything, why not a globalization of laws?

Quote

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

Now, Gem, you claim you don't have a plan, or any idea, how to make the copyright laws fit your standard, however you seem to think that as long as you don't then sell the copyrighted material you take, it shouldn't be illegal? Under that assumption, every video game created needs but one copy sold, after which everyone would download that legally from file sharing websites and the game creating companies would crash and burn.

You think that a new OS should sell but 1 copy, after which everyone would have the thing, be able to burn it, and since they aren't making money by re-selling it, it shouldn't be illegal?

Oh come now, you're being obtuse on purpose. A shared copy has the same value as free advertising X million times more powerful than anything the companies can dish out. People that share and download spend the most money on games and music and so on, because they want to buy it, because they want to support the artist, or game makers. The way consumers spend money change - it's a shift in power from the companies to the customer.

No. If I already have the OS, why would I purchase it? If I already have the game, why would I buy it? You are being intentionally blind about human nature.

Quote

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

How can you not see the inherent abuse of your idea? How do you not understand that even though you do not make money off of this software, you are DEPRIVING the creator of money.

This is a stupid notion, you can be pretty sure that without the free promotion, the product wouldn't be so well known, and most people downloading a product wouldn't even try the game if they couldn't download it, much less buy it. However, with every shared copy, X amount of new hard core fans are found, and they will spend money on the game, then next game, the next album etc.

Oh really? I guarantee that if most of the gamers on this site could get every one of their games for free, and this was the standard, you wouldn't spend any money on it, AND any company that makes software would crash and burn. You believe the unproven propoganda pushed by sites like Torrentfreak.

Quote

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

Another thing for you to think of, let us say that the law says 'You are not violating copyrights by DLing and using software, as long as you do not make money off of it.' Where is the line? What if I download windows 7, and office 2007, then update my resume using that software, and that updated resume gets me a job. Have I just violated the copyright holder's rights?

A good example here is adobe photoshop - piracy has practically made it standard, and people have learned to use it, then when they are purchasing products for their office, they get photoshop. So adobe actually have profited, increased their market share, through piracy.

No, Adobe has won because they create PDF's as the standard for sharing documents. They then add new features onto their adobe pdf suite, and people want to learn them as they already have the software. I would love it if you could PROVE to me that Adobe has gained revenue through people pirating their software. Oh wait, you cannot, as it is just an opinion.

Quote

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

You, and your entire 'groups' ideas are nothing but 'I want for free, screw anyone who takes the time and money to build this software that I want, I should get it for free because I'm special.' That is the kind of attitude that causes anarchy and depravity, war and genocide.

Genocide? HAHAHAHA, you're funny. On the contrary, dear friend, I believe that spreading culture and knowledge to all the world is the best way to avoid war and poverty.

You are right. People in uganda, living in run down sheet-metal and cardboard dwellings, definantally DEPEND on file sharing to get them out of poverty. They don't have electricity, computers, or running water, but I am sure that if there were no copyrights, they would not be living in poverty, right?

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

Here is your quote, Gem, to prove you said this since you will deny it if I do not provide it:

Quote

Ok let me clarify, commercial copyright is important, so far you are with me? What I meant by non-commercial copyright is that it should be allowed to make copies of something as long as you don't make money from it.

Indeed.

I think that businesses should get off their fat asses an realize that time changes, and that now the customer really are king. The world is changing, and those who understand the potential will gain so much by riding on the wave. I see a beautiful picture, where companies have to make quality products, and the can, because making copies are free. It's a dream come true for any business that is built on copies. The possibilities are endless. They just need to adjust their way of thinking a tiny bit. It doesn't require much really. The problem is they are so stuck in the old way of doing things, they are so blinded by power that they will probably destroy themselves.

No. You are foolish. If everything is free, then people are just going to take and take and take. Anyone creating anything like software or music, which would be free for people to copy and take and use as their own, would then be unable to purchase things like food, or a domicile, as noone would pay them for their work.

In a specialized culture, everything has a value. If some people are able to create software to help the entire world, that is their job, and they do it for free, even though they are not rich, the value of their contribution is monnetarily reduced, causing them to need to abandon such creative pursuits and get a physical job, like farming, or collecting trash.

If companies don't make quality products now, don't buy them. Oh wait, you don't, you just pirate everything. How wonderful for you.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 18 December 2009 - 03:53 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

Obdi, I think we have different experiences of human nature. It's human nature to be excited about culture and and knowledge. We don't devour culture, we taste it and refine it, and cultivate it. Just like tapes and recording devices paved the way for cd's and a boom in music, the new technology will pave the way for the new cultural boom. That is human nature.

Look, I am not against commercial copyright, and I would have been fine without internet, but now it's here and we can't really stop the change. I think you're wrong that creativity will be stifled with a little freedom - I think the opposite happens. I think the current patent and copyright situation stifles creativity, that the world need to rethink the concepts of creativity, and not be so afraid of change. The amount of creativity that is unleashed on the internet is mind boggling. The fact is, we don't really need big companies to make the culture for us anymore, it's is made every day, by normal people, and some of it is great. The question is not, how are the companies going to compete with free sharing, the real question is, how are the companies going to compete with the mind blowing great culture that is made for free, by average Joes every day?

[Obdigore]

What in the hell are you talking about?

Most 'big companies' that need patents/copyrights are in no way related to culture. Is 3M a huge 'culture' producer? It is one of hte largest copyright/patent holding companies in the world, and create some of the greatest tools we use in every day life.

Copyrights and Patents protect creativity, and allow creative people to be creative and live off of their creativity. Without patents/copyrights, this would not happen. In your world, however, most people wouldn't even try to create new software/songs/games, because they wouldn't make money for them, they would have to get 'real' jobs to support themselves.

You still have not clarified why you think that International/Worldwide standardization of copyright laws is a bad thing.

[Lisheo]

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 03:46 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 18 December 2009 - 03:32 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

I still think you and Gem don't understand what this is. I also think that after the appointed officials from the countries agree on what they want, they will then present it to your DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS, and then it becomes a public document if it is voted into law or not.

Are you sure?

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

I don't see why you and Gem keep arguing that a worldwide copyright standard to be a bad thing.

Yeah, that much is clear.

And you still have not said why you think a standardized, worldwide copyright system is bad. You seem to be all for globalization of everything, why not a globalization of laws?

Quote

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

Now, Gem, you claim you don't have a plan, or any idea, how to make the copyright laws fit your standard, however you seem to think that as long as you don't then sell the copyrighted material you take, it shouldn't be illegal? Under that assumption, every video game created needs but one copy sold, after which everyone would download that legally from file sharing websites and the game creating companies would crash and burn.

You think that a new OS should sell but 1 copy, after which everyone would have the thing, be able to burn it, and since they aren't making money by re-selling it, it shouldn't be illegal?

Oh come now, you're being obtuse on purpose. A shared copy has the same value as free advertising X million times more powerful than anything the companies can dish out. People that share and download spend the most money on games and music and so on, because they want to buy it, because they want to support the artist, or game makers. The way consumers spend money change - it's a shift in power from the companies to the customer.

No. If I already have the OS, why would I purchase it? If I already have the game, why would I buy it? You are being intentionally blind about human nature.

Quote

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

How can you not see the inherent abuse of your idea? How do you not understand that even though you do not make money off of this software, you are DEPRIVING the creator of money.

This is a stupid notion, you can be pretty sure that without the free promotion, the product wouldn't be so well known, and most people downloading a product wouldn't even try the game if they couldn't download it, much less buy it. However, with every shared copy, X amount of new hard core fans are found, and they will spend money on the game, then next game, the next album etc.

Oh really? I guarantee that if most of the gamers on this site could get every one of their games for free, and this was the standard, you wouldn't spend any money on it, AND any company that makes software would crash and burn. You believe the unproven propoganda pushed by sites like Torrentfreak.

Quote

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

Another thing for you to think of, let us say that the law says 'You are not violating copyrights by DLing and using software, as long as you do not make money off of it.' Where is the line? What if I download windows 7, and office 2007, then update my resume using that software, and that updated resume gets me a job. Have I just violated the copyright holder's rights?

A good example here is adobe photoshop - piracy has practically made it standard, and people have learned to use it, then when they are purchasing products for their office, they get photoshop. So adobe actually have profited, increased their market share, through piracy.

No, Adobe has won because they create PDF's as the standard for sharing documents. They then add new features onto their adobe pdf suite, and people want to learn them as they already have the software. I would love it if you could PROVE to me that Adobe has gained revenue through people pirating their software. Oh wait, you cannot, as it is just an opinion.

Quote

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

You, and your entire 'groups' ideas are nothing but 'I want for free, screw anyone who takes the time and money to build this software that I want, I should get it for free because I'm special.' That is the kind of attitude that causes anarchy and depravity, war and genocide.

Genocide? HAHAHAHA, you're funny. On the contrary, dear friend, I believe that spreading culture and knowledge to all the world is the best way to avoid war and poverty.

You are right. People in uganda, living in run down sheet-metal and cardboard dwellings, definantally DEPEND on file sharing to get them out of poverty. They don't have electricity, computers, or running water, but I am sure that if there were no copyrights, they would not be living in poverty, right?

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

Here is your quote, Gem, to prove you said this since you will deny it if I do not provide it:

Quote

Ok let me clarify, commercial copyright is important, so far you are with me? What I meant by non-commercial copyright is that it should be allowed to make copies of something as long as you don't make money from it.

Indeed.

I think that businesses should get off their fat asses an realize that time changes, and that now the customer really are king. The world is changing, and those who understand the potential will gain so much by riding on the wave. I see a beautiful picture, where companies have to make quality products, and the can, because making copies are free. It's a dream come true for any business that is built on copies. The possibilities are endless. They just need to adjust their way of thinking a tiny bit. It doesn't require much really. The problem is they are so stuck in the old way of doing things, they are so blinded by power that they will probably destroy themselves.

No. You are foolish. If everything is free, then people are just going to take and take and take. Anyone creating anything like software or music, which would be free for people to copy and take and use as their own, would then be unable to purchase things like food, or a domicile, as noone would pay them for their work.

In a specialized culture, everything has a value. If some people are able to create software to help the entire world, that is their job, and they do it for free, even though they are not rich, the value of their contribution is monnetarily reduced, causing them to need to abandon such creative pursuits and get a physical job, like farming, or collecting trash.

If companies don't make quality products now, don't buy them. Oh wait, you don't, you just pirate everything. How wonderful for you.

There's a difference between globalization of laws and globalization of other such things. Would you think it a good idea if it was legal for the entire world to purchase guns, for example? One law cannot always be applied in another country, with another culture. The fact is, America is the country that stands to lose most money via copyright theft; Hollywood's takings per year are insane, and grossly outnumber that of any other country's movie business. Same applies to music. However, in developing industries, where there isn't much money to begin with, viral advertising is essential to build upon the industry. P2P is something of a viral industry, albeit a gray one.

As for owning two copies of things, I, for one, own a digital copy and a physical copy of most of my movies, and music. Most of my friends do, too.

Games being cracked by the Scene: It's funny, I've heard a lot about this. Almost every game is released online at the same time as the release date, or beforehand. Now, the Warez Scene, the guys who organise this, for want of a better term, have a very strict hierarchy. It goes Crackers>Sites>torrents>leechers (not really, but I'll simplify it to keep this easier) No matter how good the crackers are at hacking, I must admit to some disbelief at their ability to have the game before or at the release, EVERY time. You see... If someone downloads one company's game, and enjoys it, they are likely to tell their friends. The less tech-savvy friends will buy the hard copies of the game. The tech-savvy friends may buy the next game released by a company. Not everyone has access, the knowledge, or the ability, to download games constantly. You aren't taking into account things like bandwidth caps, the geography of torrenting sites, etc. It's not as simple as EVERYONE SHARE TO EVERYONE.

Adobe Photoshop is neither the best, nor the cheapest photo-editing software on the market, however, it dominates. Do you know why that is? It's because it's the market standard. It has a well-known GUI, and people don't want to learn to use a new GUI. Adobe lose absolutely nothing by the piracy of the program for personal use; it makes it the market standard, which means business legally have to buy it on bulk, no matter what the outrageous price.

As for the filesharing to stop poverty, yeah, I agree with you, it makes no difference.

Lastly, as for everything being free and people being able to take-take-take. Do you know who was the first person to really oppose the free sharing of software?
If you don't, let me inform you. Bill Gates. The man could buy you several hundred times over.
Sorry for quoting wikipedia, Obdi.
This man is responsible for sub-standard operating systems. He's responsible for a company that has, in the past, intimidated rivals out of the market. A company that has been caught stealing source code from other companies.
YET, YET, when it's property is taken, it launches HOLY WAR on the target. And because it has the money, it wins.
The world is take-take-take, Obdi, regardless of filesharing. However, I'd prefer a more even playing ground, than a few companies dominating everything because they have the money.
Also, note: Every time Microsoft OS source code has been leaked, it's been removed, within a matter of hours. You probably haven't even heard of the leaks. If corporations want stuff removed, they can do it, don't worrry about that.

[Illuyankas]

I like the way Gem thinks that because someone pirates a copy of an album and becomes a hardcore fan, they'll buy the next album instead of, say, pirating it too. Because every musician's dream is to be famous but hungry, right?

While I would like to see some relaxation of copyright rules - mostly because I have barely any money - Gem's ideas are really, REALLY unworkable in the real world.

[MTS]

Every musician's dream is to get laid. Being famous helps.

Gem, I think you're being a bit naive. If I download a game, and enjoy it, unless I'm a compassionate (and passionate) fan I am not going to buy the next game. I'll download it for sure. Because deep down in our bellies, we're all cheapskates, and we won't pay for something if we don't have to.

While I do agree with the point that a lot of pirates wouldn't buy the games anyway, the fact remains that the technology is providing an alternative than paying for the game. The only benefit from torrenting is viral marketing, like the example with Adobe. They might not have directly profited from it, but it contributed to establishing them as an industry standard. Yet people who might have payed for it before won't pay for it now because they know they don't have to. There's no consequence. In most people's minds it's a victimless crime, which it pretty clearly isn't. It's telling people that even though you should pay for this, you don't have to.

This post has been edited by Mappo's Travelling Sack: 18 December 2009 - 06:58 PM

[Grief]

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

Grief, on 17 December 2009 - 10:59 PM, said:

Still not in agreement there Obdi. I would say that for a vote to be democratic the voters must have access to information about what they are voting for. There must be some basis for a choice. Without information on the views of the candidates, there is not the basis to make that decision. The decision of who to give power to is in the hands of the majority, to choose who they think best represents them. How can they decide who best represents them if the views of the people standing for election are kept secret?

I would say it undermines your democratic vote because even though you are voting for an official democratically, you cannot know their views on an issue which may affect your vote. It undermines your vote because when you make that vote, you don't know what you are voting for, on that issue at least. You may be on one side of the argument about the treaty, and wouldn't vote for someone on the other side of it. Yet, since you don't know, you can't get your view represented because you don't know which person represents your view.

So, you are telling me that if you vote someone into office because you like where their party stands, and an issue that wasn't brought up in the elections comes up, they need to not do anything on the issue until a new round of elections? Because that is what you are asking for.

There is an difference between an issue not coming up and an issue being kept secret. If an issue does not come up in an election, but matters to me, I can still find out the candidates views on it. I can go up and ask if needs be. Not if it is kept secret.

Your argument is different ot mine. I didn't say that I would like them to do nothing. Because doing nothing is a choice. They make a choice, and I may move my vote depending on it. However, there is a difference between making a choice on something important that comes up after the election and on keeping information secret, because keeping information secret means you can't make a choice based on that issue in following elections either, which if it comes up after an election and you disagree with their views on it you can vote different next time.

I still think you and Gem don't understand what this is. I also think that after the appointed officials from the countries agree on what they want, they will then present it to your DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS, and then it becomes a public document if it is voted into law or not.

Yes, it becomes a public document after the people I voted for without a clue on their views on the issue have made their decision. Whereas if the information was disclosed earlier I could make a decision on my vote before the decision.

I also find it highly ironic that both you and Gem carry on like big buisiness (none of who appear to be invited to this summit) are pressuring people to do what they say. Of course they are. I don't see why you and Gem keep arguing that a worldwide copyright standard to be a bad thing.

Have you read my posts? When do I mention big-bussinesses? When do I even mention copyright? I am simply talking about democracy, and how I don't think they should be keeping issues like that secret. People should have access to information about the candidates views which may affect their votes. The people should know whether or not the people they are giving the power to actually represent their views. Knowing after the decision has been passed by people they voted for without knowing their views seems stupid. How can the people expect to make a decision about who best represents them, an ideal that seems very important to a democracy, without access to information about what those people represent.

[Gem Windcaster]

Hey hey, people, I don't see this as a black or white issue - I realize there are grey areas - it's about making decisions about what is important; weighing options.

Obdigore, on 18 December 2009 - 04:23 PM, said:

What in the hell are you talking about?

Most 'big companies' that need patents/copyrights are in no way related to culture. Is 3M a huge 'culture' producer? It is one of hte largest copyright/patent holding companies in the world, and create some of the greatest tools we use in every day life.

Copyrights and Patents protect creativity, and allow creative people to be creative and live off of their creativity. Without patents/copyrights, this would not happen. In your world, however, most people wouldn't even try to create new software/songs/games, because they wouldn't make money for them, they would have to get 'real' jobs to support themselves.

You still have not clarified why you think that International/Worldwide standardization of copyright laws is a bad thing.

I don't think it is a bad thing when we're talking about commercial copyright - but the upholding of copyright at any cost is bad. I'm unsure about what you don't understand about what I am saying. *confused*

Illuyankas, on 18 December 2009 - 06:35 PM, said:

I like the way Gem thinks that because someone pirates a copy of an album and becomes a hardcore fan, they'll buy the next album instead of, say, pirating it too. Because every musician's dream is to be famous but hungry, right?

While I would like to see some relaxation of copyright rules - mostly because I have barely any money - Gem's ideas are really, REALLY unworkable in the real world.

This is not a white or black issue, both the way I described it and the the way Obdi described it happens. I know people that spend money on things they have gotten for free, and large quantities, because they like that product so much. Of course people are going to get stuff that they won't pay for. In the large scheme of things, I don't really see the problem with this.

Mappo, on 18 December 2009 - 06:49 PM, said:

Every musician's dream is to get laid. Being famous helps.

Gem, I think you're being a bit naive. If I download a game, and enjoy it, unless I'm a compassionate (and passionate) fan I am not going to buy the next game. I'll download it for sure. Because deep down in our bellies, we're all cheapskates, and we won't pay for something if we don't have to.

While I do agree with the point that a lot of pirates wouldn't buy the games anyway, the fact remains that the technology is providing an alternative than paying for the game. The only benefit from torrenting is viral marketing, like the example with Adobe. They might not have directly profited from it, but it contributed to establishing them as an industry standard. Yet people who might have payed for it before won't pay for it now because they know they don't have to. There's no consequence. In most people's minds it's a victimless crime, which it pretty clearly isn't. It's telling people that even though you should pay for this, you don't have to.

As I said, I think both scenarios happen. My main point is that since a product that is pirated is released in places where it otherwise wouldn't go, in much larger quantities, it will find people that otherwise wouldn't find it, and so the company will profit more from piracy than without it. It's simple math. But take a company like Blizzard - they know how to profit from internet, they embrace it, run with it, and nobody is complaining.
In my opinion, there are no victims in non-commercial piracy - everybody wins in the end, except maybe the big ceo's that refuse to adapt - but I think they will have to eventually.
The thing with the companies is that they are so greedy that they want ridiculous payment for every single digital copy, which is laughable. When a copy doesn't cost anything - nothing, nada - the greed they are showing is just sad. In fact I think it's immoral.
The market changes with the new technology, and they will have to adapt to that. And the price for stopping the change is too great.

Edit: we have a new ACTA leak.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 18 December 2009 - 08:09 PM

[Lisheo]

Gem Windcaster, on 18 December 2009 - 07:56 PM, said:

Edit: we have a new ACTA leak.

That's not actually an ACTA leak, it's a seperate agreement between Canada and the EU, I've had that for a little while. It's more about the definition of Intellectual Property than the enforcement of copyright.

[Gem Windcaster]

Lisheo, on 18 December 2009 - 08:49 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 18 December 2009 - 07:56 PM, said:

Edit: we have a new ACTA leak.

That's not actually an ACTA leak, it's a seperate agreement between Canada and the EU, I've had that for a little while. It's more about the definition of Intellectual Property than the enforcement of copyright.

Yeah, you're right.