Consider the following,
Criminalizing software piracy jails poor misguided youths who are only engaging in a harmless activity.
Criminalizing software piracy creates unregulated black markets and allows for the unchecked spread of malware which results in a huge cost to the global economy.
By legalizing software piracy we can regulate and tax businesses that engage in software piracy and help prop up governmental budgets.
When record companies make a fuss about the danger of "piracy", they're not talking about violent attacks on shipping. What they complain about is the sharing of copies of music, an activity in which millions of people participate in a spirit of cooperation. The term "piracy" is used by record companies to demonize sharing and cooperation by equating them to kidnaping, murder and theft.
Copyright was set up after the printing press made copying a matter of mass production, typically done commercially. Copyright was acceptable in that technological context because it functioned as an industrial regulation, not restricting readers or (later) music listeners.
In the 1890s, record companies began selling mass-produced musical recordings. These records facilitated the enjoyment of music, and did nothing to interfere with listening to music. Copyright on these musical recordings was mostly uncontroversial as it only restricted record companies and not music listeners.
Today's digital technology enables everyone to make and share copies. Record companies now seek to use copyright law to deny us the use of this technical advance. The law which was acceptable when it restricted only publishers is now an injustice because it forbids cooperation among citizens.
To stop people from sharing goes against human nature, and the Orwellian propaganda that "sharing is theft" usually falls on deaf ears. It appears the only way to stop people from sharing is with a harsh War on Sharing. Thus the record companies, through their legal arms such as the RIAA, sue teenagers for hundreds of thousands of dollars for sharing. Meanwhile, corporate conspiracies to restrict public access to technology have developed systems of Digital Restrictions Management, designed to handcuff users and make copying impossible. Examples include iTunes as well as DVDs and Blueray disks. (See DefectiveByDesign.org for more information.) Although these conspiracies operate in restraint of trade, governments systematically fail to prosecute them.
Copyright is morally bankrupt in its current state. That's why I release code with no license or copyright text whatsoever. Anyone using it is engaging in an act of civil disobedience :^)
AYO HOL UP
Piracy means trying before buying and naturally the entertainment industry hates that.
It's not ok to steal shit you communist fuck.
Copyright was never acceptable. The concept dates as far back as the invention of the printing press, where ancient scribes complained that they were being obsoleted by the printing press. Religious institutions were also overcome with panic at the prospect of "dangerous" ideas spreading
DUDE
Pretty sure that code counts as public domain m8
Nice troll, brah.
This didn't have anything to do with copyright. The motive behind copyright laws was always creating a monopoly for the publisher.
Not every nation with mass printing had copyright. The High Qing saw a commercial publishing market begin to form. But to the best of my knowledge, before 1910 China had no copyright law, and the Qing dynasty ended two years later.
This had nothing to do with copyright. Censorship for ideological, political, etc matters was entirely different.
Again, copyright was always about money, and only money. Publishers wanted to have the exclusive rights to publish things. They wanted to be able to sell books, but not allow people to ever actually buy them, as buying implies ownership, and ownership the ability to copy.
You're right that copyright was never acceptable, though. It just didn't have anything to do with upset calligraphers of religious censorship.
FUCK your budgets. I prefer breaking the law in the shadows to having the law looking over my shoulder.
What? How is IP anything like illicit drugs which provide no value other than feminizing you mentally ill degenerate hedonists.
kys you nigger.
Checked
Software piracy is self harming, because by definition only non-free software can be pirated. So yes, the drug analogy is valid.
you are a fucking faggot OP.
just like with dude weed lmao, taxing piracy would help the consumer and fuck the producer, delivering an overall lower quality product and service.
do you want to download DaSIII: Prepare to be Keylogged edition? conversely do you want to smoke GM Cannabis?
only if you take the Berne Convention to be null and void
I said the concept, not copyright law itself. Reading comprehension, my friend.
Scribes were complaining that they were losing their jobs and livelihoods to an emerging technology, which is what the MAFIAA and its cohorts complain about these days (muh internet, muh cassettes, muh CDs).
Also, The church was not very amused that people would be able to quickly copy books because they were no longer able to control book distribution. It's only natural they would try to fight the printing press.
It was one of the ulterior reasons for the Statute of Anne (the so-called 'first copyright law'). There were deals between the English Crown and the London Stationers' Company. The Crown would grant the Stationers an exclusive monopoly on the printing of books (only approved presses were allowed to operate) in exchange for finding and destroying illegal presses and banned books, creating a system of censorship. The Statue of Anne was framed as being in the interest of authors as a desperate measure to retain their monopoly privileges, and it worked.
PS: contrary to what the MAFIAA says, the Statute of Anne was pretty shitty deal for authors; printers would buy the original manuscript (along with the rights) from the author in one meagre payment, which means that the author received nothing from each copy sold.
No, any work is considered "All Rights Reserved" unless specified otherwise.
I agree with you for the most part, however, copyright existed before copying became trivial, and it was originally designed to protect the author from his publisher.
The fact remains that copyright is horribly broken and publishers, producers, et al... weild it as a weapon of unjust power against consumers and authors alike. It's absurd.
etto
If I didn't knew your intentions I would never touch that code.
Copyright may be morally bankrupt, but the charges are very real.
exactly. it's not OK for someone to abridge my due private property by claiming to have a right to restrict how I use the goods I have paid for.
Dem copycommunists
If only they experimented with Coobs instead.
Hey! HEY!
Calm the FUCK DOWN you psycho fUCK!
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST YOU LUNATIC
Not an argument.
WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE ACCUSING ME OF BEING A PSYCHO. YOU'RE THE ONE RUNNING DOWN THE STREETS IN YOUR WHITEY-TIGHTEYS SCREAMING ABOUT YOUR DELUSIONS AND TWISTED FANTASIES
Kill yourself.
...