We Are All Criminals

T P S
We are Society.
Apply for membership

DeepBlueMorocco

Shipmate
Shipmate
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
139
Location
NY
Gold
5,098
I use the cloud in the sense that I operate a media server which grants me unlimited file access to tens of thousands of albums, books, television programs, and movies from my archive from any web-enabled device. The traffic is encrypted and dual-authentication restricted. But I'm sure my mobile provider can see the file names of every track I enqueue.

For backups, you can never overdo it. Entrusting your backup to a third party cloud assumes the risk of their shutdown, their being summoned to block access to your data, or (in some cases) their reporting you for your content.

If you're going to use a cloud, you should also mirror it to an external local disk you connect only for routine backup tasks, stick it in a fire safe, bury it in soft peat, misplace it for 6 months, dig it back up, and hide it in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory where the lights had gone (and so had the stairs), and hang a sign on the lavatory door reading in large, friendly letters,

"BEWARE OF THE LEOPARD."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: trefla

feelingtherain

Shipmate
Shipmate
Joined
Apr 18, 2016
Messages
72
Gold
14,521
Who says we are criminals? what is the function of the copyright? who is benefiting from this draconian laws? why the copyright laws still apply many many many years after the author of a book or movie has died?

As an example, many researchers in third world countries don't have access to the works of other researchers in other countries because, for example, Elsevier charge insane amounts of money to give access to scientic articles that not every institution can afford. Elsevier is just a publisher and distributor of scientific books and journals but with a lot of power. As a consequence, we all lose, because any scientific discovery is based on the work and ideas of many many brains.....Limiting access to knowledge to those who can make contributions have consequences for everybody. Ironically, the purpose of copyright laws is to provide an incentive to people to create.

It may be my impression but the INTERNET as a whole is getting more private, less free than it once was......and it is more difficult to find interesting and useful things (see for example how easy was in 2008 o 2009 to find useful information about trackers and how difficult it is now)..... For the sake of greed, they do not care to cripple whatever it may be needed to cripple
 

Sk1llSh0t

Swashbuckler
Swashbuckler
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
1,439
Gold
65,581
Who says we are criminals?
The law tells us we are criminals. Just b/c you have an elaborate justification of your actions in your mind doesn't make you any less of a criminal. How many thousands of people have gone through the court system for any crime under the delusion they haven't done anything wrong when all evidence clearly shows laws are being broken. If there is a law and you are breaking it, that makes you a criminal no matter how absurd the law may be.

In no way am I defending the law as it stands. You are absolutely right that the law is antiquated. But that makes it no less a law, and you no less a criminal (pirate).
 
Last edited:

DeepBlueMorocco

Shipmate
Shipmate
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
139
Location
NY
Gold
5,098
The law tells us we are criminals. Just b/c you have an elaborate justification of your actions in your mind doesn't make you any less of a criminal. How many thousands of people have gone through the court system for any crime under the delusion they haven't done anything wrong when all evidence clearly shows laws are being broken. If there is a law and you are breaking it, that makes you a criminal no matter how absurd the law may be.

In no way am I defending the law as it stands. You are absolutely right that the law is antiquated. But that makes it no less a law, and you no less a criminal (pirate).
I am by no means saying we are not criminals/pirates. I am stating that a law which criminalizes an entire generation of people is a law that needs revisiting.

#piratepride
 

Sk1llSh0t

Swashbuckler
Swashbuckler
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
1,439
Gold
65,581
I am by no means saying we are not criminals/pirates. I am stating that a law which criminalizes an entire generation of people is a law that needs revisiting.
It's the old "if all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump too" scenario. We are all jumping off a cliff and as we are falling we're saying to each other, that cliff has no right to be there.

Even if they revisit the law and revise it, etc, it will never eliminate the cliff all together. We'll just be jumping off a slightly shorter part of the cliff so instead of guts all over the pavement, maybe you just break both legs and a buncha ribs.

Figuratively speaking of course :)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Capone

feelingtherain

Shipmate
Shipmate
Joined
Apr 18, 2016
Messages
72
Gold
14,521
I do not feel like I am a criminal, quite the opposite.

Sk1llSh0t Sk1llSh0t : I understand your view: strictly and considering the law as it stands now we are breaking it and we are therefore criminals, but I think most of us live in democracies, and laws should favor the people who ultimately should have the power. My views on Copyright law come from many sources, and if it werent from elearning trackers that gave me access to knowledge I would be more ignorant and a better servant of my government...feeling guilty from something I should not.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DeepBlueMorocco

DeepBlueMorocco

Shipmate
Shipmate
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
139
Location
NY
Gold
5,098
It's the old "if all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump too" scenario. We are all jumping off a cliff and as we are falling we're saying to each other, that cliff has no right to be there.
The adage you cited refers to the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, e.g. "everybody else is doing it so I will too".

What F feelingtherain and I are attesting is that the validity of the law is directly called into question by the fact that an overwhelming percentage of the citizenry of this and all nations commit this "heinous" act of piracy as naturally and frequently as we take our very breath. And we've demonstrated that both (that is, piracy and the act of breathing) are equal in the harm they inflict upon our society. Piracy does not negatively impact media sales (quite the opposite, in fact as demonstrated by numerous studies), and by the nature of digital duplication, it does not remove a single sellable work from the traditional economy. It is a harmless act, and as such, likening it to blindly leaping from a cliff is hardly an apt metaphor for piracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: feelingtherain

Sk1llSh0t

Swashbuckler
Swashbuckler
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
1,439
Gold
65,581
It is a harmless act, and as such, likening it to blindly leaping from a cliff is hardly an apt metaphor for piracy.
The metaphor was relating to the relative outcome when dealing with the law (comparing what it is now and what it could be). I didn't make it in relation to how it affects the victim.

Piracy does not negatively impact media sales (quite the opposite, in fact as demonstrated by numerous studies)
Totally agree which is my biggest argument for the need to massively rewrite laws. I know for myself, I would buy a LOT less digital content if I didn't pirate.

it does not remove a single sellable work from the traditional economy.
The industry would argue you aren't paying $20 for the physical medium it comes on. The $20 includes the digital work on the disk. Yes you aren't stealing the physical thing it comes on but that isn't exactly what you buy it for. At least I sure as heck wouldn't spend $20 on a blank disk and they wouldn't sell a $20 blank disk.

For people like myself who buy the things they like, it would be nice to know that severe consequences aren't waiting around the corner even though I'm trying to appease both my entertainment needs and pay the content owner for quality content without being screwed over by paying for other things that are a 2 hour waste of time.
[DOUBLEPOST=1461111089][/DOUBLEPOST]Here's a better analogy if we apply copyright law to buying a car.
Current law: I want to buy a car. The law says I have to buy that car without a test drive. I wouldn't be able to even drive a friend's car who has the same car I want. I have to blindly buy the car off the lot not knowing anything about it except what I read about it online.

Revised Law: You can test drive the car. You can test drive a friend's car. then if you like it, you can go buy one for yourself.

It's absurd that I would buy a car without knowing anything about it first. Better analogy?
 
Last edited:

DeepBlueMorocco

Shipmate
Shipmate
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
139
Location
NY
Gold
5,098
It's absurd that I would buy a car without knowing anything about it first. Better analogy?
Absolutely. An excellent analogy.

Several of your comments reminded me of Rob Reid's TED Talk from 2008 on "Copyright Math". (Particularly the bit about perceived economic losses due to piracy.)

We've arrived at common ground on all points. I concur wholeheartedly.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Sk1llSh0t

BlastGT1

Captain
Captain
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
667
Gold
2,756
If file sharing is a crime, then paint me in stripes and lock me up, because I'm never going to stop. Before the era of fast internet access and easy information sharing, they used to define piracy as possession AND distribution of content FOR PROFIT. Naturally, that changed to POSSESSION of said content, mostly because the music and movie industries can't be arsed to change and adapt with the times. They'd rather stick with the old model, where you pay 15 bucks for a CD, forcing you to buy 8 songs you may not want just to get the two you do want, and make that fat profit for it, or pay 20 bucks for a DVD of a movie you may only watch once or twice in your lifetime. Hell, it's worse with movies, because if you paid 10 bucks to see it in a theater, you just paid half of the cost of a physical copy of the movie already, but far be it from them to give you a discount for that patronage, right?

I'm generally blunt and honest about where I get my content, even if I don't explicitly mention torrenting or file-sharing. I'm not afraid to tell people that I know where to get stuff without paying for it, and when they ask "Isn't that illegal?", I explain to them how the industry business models work, how the numbers are all a lie, how they rip off most artists, and how that motivates me to NOT contribute to that corporate greed. They also don't seem to argue after I tell them that I can get something they're looking for and hand it to them on a disc without them even having to lift a finger. It's amusing how perspectives change when they realize that it's money they now will not have to shell out themselves.

The bottom line is that yes, I do take things that I didn't create and don't belong to me, but I am not going to feel guilty for doing so when the industry tycoons lie, cheat, and steal from everyone, especially the people who actually create the content. While it may be hypocritical, I'm not going to feel sorry for the bigwigs, and I'm not going to feel sorry for the artists who become lawsuit-happy (I'm talking to you, Metallica), because in the end, any money taken from those who download content via file-sharing never actually makes it to the pockets of those artists. Do the research and you'll find the truth in that for yourself.
 

Capone

The Ghost
New Recruit
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
983
Gold
7,895
If file sharing is a crime, then paint me in stripes and lock me up, because I'm never going to stop. Before the era of fast internet access and easy information sharing, they used to define piracy as possession AND distribution of content FOR PROFIT. Naturally, that changed to POSSESSION of said content, mostly because the music and movie industries can't be arsed to change and adapt with the times. They'd rather stick with the old model, where you pay 15 bucks for a CD, forcing you to buy 8 songs you may not want just to get the two you do want, and make that fat profit for it, or pay 20 bucks for a DVD of a movie you may only watch once or twice in your lifetime. Hell, it's worse with movies, because if you paid 10 bucks to see it in a theater, you just paid half of the cost of a physical copy of the movie already, but far be it from them to give you a discount for that patronage, right?

I'm generally blunt and honest about where I get my content, even if I don't explicitly mention torrenting or file-sharing. I'm not afraid to tell people that I know where to get stuff without paying for it, and when they ask "Isn't that illegal?", I explain to them how the industry business models work, how the numbers are all a lie, how they rip off most artists, and how that motivates me to NOT contribute to that corporate greed. They also don't seem to argue after I tell them that I can get something they're looking for and hand it to them on a disc without them even having to lift a finger. It's amusing how perspectives change when they realize that it's money they now will not have to shell out themselves.

The bottom line is that yes, I do take things that I didn't create and don't belong to me, but I am not going to feel guilty for doing so when the industry tycoons lie, cheat, and steal from everyone, especially the people who actually create the content. While it may be hypocritical, I'm not going to feel sorry for the bigwigs, and I'm not going to feel sorry for the artists who become lawsuit-happy (I'm talking to you, Metallica), because in the end, any money taken from those who download content via file-sharing never actually makes it to the pockets of those artists. Do the research and you'll find the truth in that for yourself.

Perfectly stated! I couldn't add anymore. Yes, pirating is illegal but so is jaywalking and chewing gum in some parts of the US. When those enforcing the laws are ripping off the customers, i think they have a right to do the same. Plus a lot of shows and movies are not available in all areas. How do those people watch and become fans of those movies or directors,etc? There's a fine line between who is a criminal in this situation. We all buy movies and content we pirate. It's almost like we sample it first.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: DeepBlueMorocco

BlastGT1

Captain
Captain
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
667
Gold
2,756
It's no mistake that people often pirate so they can sample things they are interested in before buying. The fact that is twisted is that those who sample will often buy things they would not have bought if they had not been able to sample it first. The MPAA and RIAA like to say that every download is a lost sale, when the facts actually say that most who download would never have purchased that content anyway, and they can't or won't account for the downloads that end up converting to sales. Therein lies much of the hypocrisy.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Capone

marigold

Ex Staff
Ex Staff
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
3,165
Location
East of the Sun, West of the Moon
Gold
118,071
Something which has not been mentioned is the purchase of books. It used to be that when one bought a book, one owned it. Your family members could read it. You could lend it to however many friends were interested in reading it. Now one buys a book and it is in actuality just given as a loan. Legally, family members can only read it on the reader it was d/l to, not on their own, and there is NO lending it to friends. This for a digital copy that often is priced at, or not much lower than a d/t copy.
This in fact is one of the main reason that I rarely buy books, and if I do so, I will only buy a DRM-free book.
 

DeepBlueMorocco

Shipmate
Shipmate
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
139
Location
NY
Gold
5,098
Something which has not been mentioned is the purchase of books...
An excellent observation, marigold. Though I’ve never seen a DRM protected book before - is that still a thing? My usual book-consuming experience comprises the discovery of a title via my daily research escapades, downloading of an epub or pdf through P2P, a perusal of the contents to see how much it grabs me, and then additional research to identify which printing/edition I would prefer for my reference library. Once identified, I hop over to Alibris/AbeBooks/Amazon/etc and pick up a handsome copy, usually for $2.99 - $4.99 (even in the case of first printing hardcovers - it’s a buyer’s market).

When you refer to DRM, are commercial services like Kindle and Nook actually using restrictive rights access limitations on purchasable ebooks?! If so, why would anyone pay for such a thing?

Regarding DRM - I’ve been compiling an archive of research papers published in various journals on the subjects of Free Culture, Piracy, Filesharing, etc while preparing a paper I've written for publication. One such essay titled, INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE MYTHOLOGIES OF CONTROL by R. Polk Wagner does a brilliant job of framing the absurdities of DRM and their impossible goal of perfectly controlling information. He outlines how enforcement costs and technological-logistical limitations make useful DRM a nearly impossible task, and one which will unlikely have any significant impact in our lifetimes.

In the days of Napster, the RIAA spent millions suing 12-year-old children to make an example of them (which had no measurable impact on consumers). And they continue to pour millions into R&D of DRM solutions which are quickly circumvented within 6 months (or sometimes weeks) of their debut. (DVD source code t-shirts, anyone?)

Perhaps the whole DRM act is carried out simply for show. Because the only alternative is to publically admit the simple fact that information is already free.
 

DeepBlueMorocco

Shipmate
Shipmate
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
139
Location
NY
Gold
5,098
books can have DRM, you can get a tool fro Calibre. They can also have identifying data.

DefectivebyDesign.org reveals the following stupifying facts about Kindle:

  • "The Kindle's DRM is designed explicitly to prevent sharing and the public benefit that institutions like libraries provide."
  • "Kindle DRM even prohibits you from moving your books to another shelf."
  • "Any DRMed book you buy for the Kindle is forever locked to your Kindle until Amazon decides otherwise (and they show no sign of wanting to give up that control)."
  • and that they can remotely delete titles from your library (as they did with 1984)
Given this info, I am astonished that Amazon still managed to sell roughly 20 million Kindles by 2013 (according to Forbes.com), bringing about $3.9 billion in revenues, and continues to rake in between $265 million and $530 million a year from their DRM-anchored e-books alone.

Seriously, a culture that willingly accepts this sort of crippled technology is effectively handing over all control of their content to their masters.

The same applies for audio and video streaming services with DRM-protected content. It's absolutely appalling.
 

BlastGT1

Captain
Captain
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
667
Gold
2,756
Books are worse, especially when it comes to a college education. 300 bucks for a book that you'll use for one semester? That racket is worse than the music and movie industries put together.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: marigold

Silk186

Dark Pirate
Dark Pirate
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
1,946
Location
UK
Gold
71,151
i stopped buying them and just used the copies in the library for those cases.
 
Top