back to article Pirate Party UK launches manifesto

The Pirate Party UK is launching its manifesto tonight, under embargo: but since we don't believe in antiquated and oppressive IP laws - we're setting it free. Move over, Mondeo Man: the Pirates are firmly targeting the bloke in the garden shed, with his trousers around his ankles. The Party plans lots of new laws. Laws on " …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Intelligent enough....

to recognise when a poster wants a bit of attention for their own political cause.

AND intelligent enough to find the Effing manifesto on my own without your "suggestions"

It makes interesting reading and in the whole is a good idea, though the whole freedom of speech opens the door to even more abusive posts on websites which then hide behind free speech. I agree that government censorship is generally oppressive but then allowing somebody to say whatever they want leads to some people being unable to tell the truth and saying outright lies. Slander and Libel still have a place, even more so in the web2,0 world.

1
2
FAIL

You can't link to a leaked document

Reg article: posted at 16:42 with the phrases "under embargo" and "setting it free".

Manifesto: posted at 21:00 (long after beer o'clock).

Isn't it obvious why they didn't link?

0
0

Nope.

Don't personally care for attention. Would appreciate if El Reg showed some respect, though -- not more than they show anyone else, just some. For instance, why not wait when asked to wait?

UK libel laws are outdated. They need reforming, not abolition, and that's what the Pirates are asking for.

2
1
FAIL

Ah diddums

"though the whole freedom of speech opens the door to even more abusive posts on websites which then hide behind free speech."

Did some nasty man call you a fucktard in the internets ? Bless.

0
2
Silver badge
Dead Vulture

The sound of a very small violin...

Guess Team El Reg still needs to get that IP thing right.

What would it mean for Windows to "go out of copyright" after 10 years?

As the source code of Windows 95 for example would still be under lock & wrap after 10 years, you could copy the stupid released diskettes in your shop but .. so what? But hey, one could probably copy the GUI without risking a Ballmer Sueball. Instant win!

And Microsoft selling GNU Software or use it to add bells and whistles to their system? Hell ... why not. Can anyone argue with the idea? Ok, maybe Richard Stallman.

10 years of non-renewable copyright should be plenty enough for anyone to feel the good vibrations of intellectual property enforcement in the general area of his/her nether regions and to obtain the free ticket to a villa in southern Italy he/she so richly deserves for his/her barely recognized über-talent.

Also note that the "embargo" thing has nothing to do with "IP". It's a contract about agreeing to sit on some info up to a agreed moment in time. Double fail.

2
1
FAIL

Cough

"But hey, one could probably copy the GUI without risking a Ballmer Sueball. Instant win!"

Except that you already can, see practically every Linux desktop since people stopped copying NeXTStep. KDE get sued ? No. Gnome ? No. Well then.

0
0
FAIL

Fuck you, it's mine.

"10 years of non-renewable copyright should be plenty enough for anyone "

Fuck off. If I create it, it is mine, not 'mine until some whiny jealous freetard decides that I'm rich enough and it's now OK for him to steal it', just 'mine'. It belongs to me until _I_ decide to put into the public domain, not when some other fucker feels it is convenient.

Team Reg have coverage of "The IP thing" about right, perhaps that's because they create IP with value.

Which is entirely unlike approximately 100% of whiny freetards, curiously enough.

1
5
FAIL

No fuck you

If you want so-called intellectual "property" to be treated on a par with real property, then you can look forward to it not being "yours" as soon as you sell it to someone else.

Your protection under copyright is solely a deal between you and the people as represented by the state so you can make money off something that has a true value of zero by restricting the supply by law. When your customers have had enough of you taking the piss, all bets are off.

3
1
Pirate

This article is pure WIN

Thanks for taking the time to cheer us all up, Reg.

http://getoveryourselves.org.uk/seriously/itsaPIRATEpartyffs/

You know, in case you decide to get a sense of humour.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Ha ha.

Funny name, serious cause.

0
0
MJI
Silver badge
Linux

Hmmm - he is standing in my constituency

I live in Worcester - but the main concern here is getting rid of the current MP, who I personally feel is useless.

It is going to be tactical voting in this constituency, he will get very few votes - especially with that hair!

I know who I am voting for - the only person who has actually been door to door and chatted to me.

Not the best reason, but of the main parties I feel the safest choice.

Penguin - more usefull than Foster

0
0
Troll

Don't see...

...too many freetards commenting at the moment.

Perhaps they haven't awoken after a hard night's 'work'...

I think my local WI has more members than this 'political party'.

3
5
Paris Hilton

Maybe..

..they want to avoid self-righteous individuals who would go under a pretentious name like "PirateSlayer".

Paris, because she's cleverer than the average internet troll.

9
2
Thumb Down

Hum...

...I admire you for choosing a name like "Anonymous Coward".

I don't think it's self righteous to be against piracy (despite hearing some cretin from the above political party refering to the "pro-piracy" movement). As far as I am concerned, they are revolting scabs to be eradicated. It is not pretentious to want to slay pirates (or indeed flay them over a gun barrel). Pirates are parasetic vermin, feeding off the creativity and work of others, expecting to pay nothing in return. They disgust me. Hence my name.

2
3
Thumb Down

Wow...

Anonymous because people like you *really* have issues.

Of course you are pretentious and self-righteous: see the +6 votes that comment got? It's because it's true, and everyone can see it except you.

Pirates are people! They are not vermin, nor does anyone have the right to shoot them, maim them or even call them names. Anyone who says things like that must be screwed up in the head. Or a corporate pawn. In this case, I'd wager it's a personal crusade of some sort, because rational people wouldn't base an entire persona on a "pirate killing" theme.

So, pirates copy mp3s without paying anyone. Boo hoo, they are killing music. Bullshit. It's the music industry that's killing music, by turning music into a commodity. If it weren't for their stranglehold on the market, there would be enough money to go around and small-time artists would have a fighting chance of making money off their work. Had it not been turned into a commodity there would be less trashy music out there, and more artful stuff that wasn't made *just* for the money.

It also happens that internet pirates are the most cultured human beings to *ever* walk the earth, and that's an amazing thing. If we somehow embraced piracy and allowed everyone access to the wealth of culture that is available online, the arts would flourish, as would our digital economy. Indeed, pirates value art more than others, as they apparently spend more on content than anyone else.

And seriously, if I have to choose between supporting the pirates who want to give more power to the people and supporting the politicians and companies who want to pass the Digital Economy Bill, the choice is a no-brainer. A no-brainer like yourself.

4
2
Terminator

:D

"Anonymous because people like you *really* have issues."

...then a massive rant which demonstrates that the issue really is with you. While +6 is obviously a searing judgement, I'll take it on the chin...I'd suggest you were anonymous because you are a coward...hence the title!

"corporate pawn". This shows me I am dealing with an unrepentant socialist with unrealistic views on how the planet works...or someone who is yet to grow up and grow his beard long enough to speak at a socialist party convention.

"So, pirates copy mp3s without paying anyone. Boo hoo, they are killing music. Bullshit."

Whoooa, calm down. I never said they were killing music...I just said they were parasitic vermin...tell me how that isn't true based on your description of stealing things…something which feeds of a host (in this case musicians) is a parasite. Something which has no regard for the society it lives in and spreads its filth (in this case thievery) is vermin.

"there would be enough money to go around and small-time artists would have a fighting chance of making money off their work."

You keep crusading for the small musician brother (or sister) by...er...stealing their work and not paying for it.

"It also happens that internet pirates are the most cultured human beings to *ever* walk the earth"

I don't understand...are you equating ability to steal the work of others with being a cultural genius? I really don't get your logic. I think I'll say that Aardvarks are the most cultured animals on earth...because I have absolutely no basis for that comment whatsoever.

"pirates value art more than others, as they apparently spend more on content than anyone else."

Sorry, pirates spend money on art that they steal? I don’t understand.

"And seriously, if I have to choose between supporting the pirates who want to give more power to the people and supporting the politicians and companies who want to pass the Digital Economy Bill, the choice is a no-brainer. A no-brainer like yourself."

They don't want to give any power to the people...they just want something for nothing. I think the lack of cerebral capacity comes from those who appear to think that artists and musicians (and film producers, programmers etc.) can live off good vibes from arseholes stealing their work and saying how wonderful it is...remind me how you pay to eat...or do you mooch off people in the street and live in a commune?

Oh, PS: I love the way you voted up your own post too...classic.

2
4
FAIL

FAIL

First of all, I didn't upvote my post. I did downvote yours, though. Also, note that you are equally anonymous, just have an infinitely more pretentious pseudonym.

You repeat the same points over and over. I bet many people must have already refuted all your points several times already -- for example, calling copyright infringement "stealing"? Give me a break. How is a file anyone's "property", and how is a *copy* of a file "stolen"?

You know, this "vermin" with no regard for the society it lives in is exactly what started the renaissance -- you know, the revolution that ended the dark ages. To build something new, you have to take down what is already there: e.g. give them the printing press, and the next moment they're clever enough to chop off heads and build a democracy!

FYI, I'm a capitalist as much as anyone. I don't think you are, though. For instance, I understand that pirates are a very large part of the population, as studies claim that up to 4/5 of internet users are pirates. That's a huge part of the market, and no intelligent capitalist would want to alienate them. Yet, here we have someone who calls himself PirateSlayer, who will probably try to sell stuff to that market even though he calls them vermin.

Additionally, a true capitalist would think twice about going on using copyright --a government granted *monopoly*, i.e. socialism-- to do business and would strive to provide what the market wants. If the market wants a different business model, a true capitalist would work to find one that works instead of pissing off potential customers. Think about it.

"You keep crusading for the small musician brother (or sister) by...er...stealing their work and not paying for it."

Cruel as it may be, pirates buy if the music is good. If it's shit, then they don't. If people don't like your music, then consider a change of career. It's called natural selection.

"It also happens that internet pirates are the most cultured human beings to *ever* walk the earth"

That is, never before has anyone so readily had access to the vast quantities of art now available on the internet. Kids these days know so much about obscure bands from the past that it's simply amazing, and no-one can say that's a bad thing.

"Sorry, pirates spend money on art that they steal? I don’t understand."

Since copying music is not the same as stealing it, artists don't *lose* any money every time a file is copied. However, they do make money every time a file is sold. Studies have shown that people who pirate content (i.e. who love art and like to enjoy large amounts of it) also buy a lot more content than the average person.

"They don't want to give any power to the people...they just want something for nothing."

How do you know?

2
2
Megaphone

Touched a nerve...

I don't see any refutement. Theft is theft. You can doublethink your way out of it as much as you like but the bottom line is: if you TAKE something and don't PAY for it you are STEALING it. I don't give a toss how you dress it up...it's that simple.

You are a piracy zealot, and despite your references to 'studies' you have cited none, and I am sure none exist. Heresay and posts on Pirate Party blogs convince nobody. I just hope you grown up soon.

You are saying *I* am wrong because I pay for goods and services. You call *yourself* a capitalist despite confessing to stealing work and only deeming it worthy of renumeration to the artist if it meets some arbitrary scale judged by your smug self? If you feel like it?

You and your kind disgust me, and your rants don't impress or convince me...or indeed I am sure people who work hard and pay for entertainment.

You act as if you are on some kind of crusade to change society for the better...but only seem to be a grubby little thief intent on not paying for the toil of others.

0
2
Thumb Down

WTF?

>You repeat the same points over and over. I bet many people must have already refuted all your points several times already -- for example, calling copyright infringement "stealing"? Give me a break. How is a file anyone's "property", and how is a *copy* of a file "stolen"?

Denying someone money they're entitled to is akin to theft. Yes *obviously* they still have the original, arguing this point is pathetically pedantic

>You know, this "vermin" with no regard for the society it lives in is exactly what started the renaissance -- you know, the revolution that ended the dark ages.

What on Earth are you talking about? Artists were paid, works were harder to copy, I can't see any parallels.

>To build something new ... [snip long rambling attempt at describing supply and demand economics] ... Think about it.

I guarantee you 100% of people in the UK want to pay £0 for everything they buy. Strangely this hasn't led to "a different business model".

>Cruel as it may be, pirates buy if the music is good. If it's shit, then they don't. If people don't like your music, then consider a change of career. It's called natural selection.

Citation needed. I know a fair number of people who torrent music/films etc. They buy sometimes - if they can't find a free copy.

>That is, never before has anyone so readily had access to the vast quantities of art now available on the internet. Kids these days know so much about obscure bands from the past that it's simply amazing, and no-one can say that's a bad thing.

Information wants to be free? The end justifies the means? The artists might argue that not being paid is a bad thing.

>Since copying music is not the same as stealing it, artists don't *lose* any money every time a file is copied.

They lose out on potential revenue.

>However, they do make money every time a file is sold. Studies have shown that people who pirate content (i.e. who love art and like to enjoy large amounts of it) also buy a lot more content than the average person.

Citation needed. Which studies?

Bottom line: I like playing expensive computer games. If the games companies don't get revenue because of people like you, they will close down. Some people will make computer games in their spare time. These will be shit.

0
2
Flame

I have to add

That not only do you come across as a rather poor excuse for corporate shill, but as a bit of a cretin too.

Another of those inadequates that either can't conceptualise the difference between real and intangible "property", theft and copyright infringement or piracy and copyright infringement, and is deliberately dissembling in order to hide that inability, or an agenda.

Without restrictions in supply, intangible property has a maximum market value of the marginal cost of reproduction - as basic economics as you can get. As pointed out to you, copyright is a government-mandated monopoly of supply given to creators purely to enable them to live off their creations. This is not a "right", it is an endowment by us, the people - so say "thanks", you ungrateful bastard.

If you want to be a Stalinist pig, feel free to assault your customers until they have had enough, but be aware that statistically within the general public, the largest copyright infringers are also the largest purchasers of content - it's a pity that in possibly signing the death-warrant of their own industries, these corrupt idiots and their familiars in politics are taking down independent creators and civil rights with them.

1
0
FAIL

Jenkins,

"Denying someone money they're entitled to is akin to theft."

If I watch a movie and I'm not entertained, then nobody is entitled to anything. If, however, I like the movie, I might buy the DVD or even watch it at the cinema. In fact, the time I take to watch a movie is scarce, while copies of the movie are not: should I ask the filmmaker to pay me for my wasted time?

"What on Earth are you talking about? Artists were paid, works were harder to copy, I can't see any parallels."

Typical. The renaissance was a massive shift in politics brought about by the people, who overthrew the monarchs who were in power. The politics of piracy are not that different.

"I guarantee you 100% of people in the UK want to pay £0 for everything they buy."

In that case, how are the music and film industries making record profits when it's so easy to pirate everything on the internet? Seems like you must be wrong for some reason.

"I know a fair number of people who torrent music/films etc."

\cite{I do too}

Bottom line: Unless the studies lie, no matter the amount of piracy, there will always be a market for content and software. Also, intelligent musicians can do concerts and sell merchandise. Intelligent filmmakers will make the cinema experience worthwhile. Intelligent software developers will concentrate on consoles and online services. Alternative business models exist, it's just that people like you don't understand how the market is changing and are failing to adapt.

0
1
Thumb Down

PirateSlayer...

If you TAKE something but don't TAKE it, you are NOT stealing it.

I'm not a "piracy zealot", I'm just sensible. You, on the other hand, are a "PirateSlayer," aka anti-piracy zealot.

"if it meets some arbitrary scale judged by your smug self?"

A capitalist wouldn't pay an arbitrary price.

Here are your references. I'm sure someone as dimwitted and close-minded as yourself has no use for them!

http://tinyurl.com/y9m4yrr

"Online piracy seems to have become a way of life for Brits, with 82% of people surveyed admitting illegal downloading."

http://tinyurl.com/d24bvx

"Study finds pirates 10 times more likely to buy music"

1
0
Flame

Your "basic economics"

More smoke and mirrors. More academic bullshit. More swerving the issue.

"Without restrictions in supply, intangible property has a maximum market value of the marginal cost of reproduction - as basic economics as you can get"

...so it's OK for me to take a text book on the cure for cancer (sale price £1500 because of the effort, research, man hours taken to produce it and benefit society)...print it out myself (cost of reproduction £20) and flog it for £30 to make a ten pound profit? Totally unethical, does not factor in the benefit to soceity the book holds and the benefits purchasing legal copies would provide to further work in the area. The book is more than just a set of paper with squiggles on it. Regarding your "intangible property" (I assume you are talking about files), again we have the same thing. The end result is you gain something you didn't have before without paying and without renumerating the artist. You can waffle on and on and on about how pirates buy more art, and how pirates are benevolent heroes saving art and society but the fact remains...you stole that work in the first instance.

"As pointed out to you, copyright is a government-mandated monopoly of supply given to creators purely to enable them to live off their creations. This is not a "right", it is an endowment by us, the people - so say "thanks", you ungrateful bastard."

Copyright is there to stop arseholes reproducing work so they are properly renumerated for their gift to society. I don't understand why you suggest that the copyright endowment is by people like you...you have already admitted that market forces dictate your optimal price for a good (i.e. cost of reproduction, i.e. zero pounds zero pence for that intangible property). So what's your point? What service are you providing to soceity, how are you benefiting society by stealing (sorry "copyright infringing) people's work? Again, we come back to the parasetic nature of you 'copyright infringers'.

Now...I DIDN'T agree with Mandy's bill...but after witnessing the smugness and arrogance of the pirates here, I would support his right to come and vet every file on my computer and take a good look around my insides if he fancies it.

There doesn't appear to be a Joseph Stalin icon...

0
1
Big Brother

Oh FFS

"so it's OK for me to take a text book ... print it out myself ... and flog it for £30 to make a ten pound profit?"

No. That's not just copyright infringement, it's counterfeiting. That IS wrong and unethical, as is plagiarism. I can't understand how you're pretending to be educated on this subject, yet you are so ill-informed on pretty much every single aspect of it that you can't hold a proper conversation. Either try to understand the issues, or stop participating in the debate.

"The end result is you gain something you didn't have before without paying and without renumerating the artist."

You have no proof that is what happens, and you can't just *ignore* an independent study that says pirates buy more content than average (more studies have found the same result, including one conducted by EMI iirc). And, are we *seriously* back at the "piracy is stealing" and "piracy is killing music" arguments again?

"Copyright is there to stop arseholes reproducing work so they are properly renumerated for their gift to society."

I have no problem with what copyright is there to do on principle. Being a socialist idea, however, it fails in practice. By making it last 100+ years, the benefit to society essentially becomes negative. At the very least, there must be a balance between how long the right holders' exclusivity lasts, and when culture is allowed to be enjoyed without restraints.

Stalin icon goes to you: you are saying you support Mandy's bill (moronic, even when you ignore the piracy aspects of it), which is essentially more government intervention. That's socialism, whether you care to accept it or not!

0
0
FAIL

Darwin award right there.

"Now...I DIDN'T agree with Mandy's bill...but after witnessing the smugness and arrogance of the pirates here, I would support his right to come and vet every file on my computer and take a good look around my insides if he fancies it."

That's very mature of you. We'll give someone control over our lives just to pretend to deal with illegal file sharing. There's no words to describe how childish that attitude is!

0
0
Flame

Sorry you're getting so frustrated!

"yet you are so ill-informed on pretty much every single aspect of it that you can't hold a proper conversation. Either try to understand the issues, or stop participating in the debate."

Debate? Aren't I just supposed to agree with you? Your tactics have so far been to insult my intellect and pretend that what you are doing is morally justified. My tactic has been to argue that you are parasites.

So you support copyright in principal...but you infringe it constantly...do you not see the doublethink here? You have moved from defending your copyright infringement as a moral crusade to rid the world of bad art, to saying you think the term should be shortened...which page of the Pirate Party Manifesto are you on again?

While some more idealistic pirates may buy music and software (out of guilt for initially stealing it), you have no clear proof that this is true of the majority of pirates...apart from a flimsy study. Suggesting the study is 'independent' is also foolish, since it is very difficult to claim as such (and I take it you are trying to rubbish the other studies avaiable that prove that piracy is costing the UK economy billions and causing massive damage to industries such as software). Do a simple search on this site to reveal many studies which have been carried out which completely contradict your viewpoint and 'evidence'. Which I believe is down to my own predjudice, but I know I buy my entertainment so have no guilt or shame. I don't have to justify why I buy my entertainment and I doubt you can give me a credible argument as to why I SHOULDN'T buy my entertainment...I can think of plenty as to why you shouldn't steal it (sorry, infringe copyright).

A study indicating that pirates buy more good than others is COMPLETELY SEPERATE from pirates infringing copyright (or as I normally say 'stealing'). The end does not justify the means. It's like saying "84% of muggers buy a lot of perfume"...it does not justify muggings...it has nothing to do with muggings...

0
1
Thumb Down

Good Grief

Academic my arse. Market forces DO (buy and large) dictate the value of property, intangible or real.

Here's some more more-or-less "academic" economics 101 for you.

The value of something is what a buyer is prepared to pay for it, not the value the producer puts on it. The "tension" (oooh! non-academic word) between the supply, costs of production, the price, demand and the market value of goods are what drive economies, giving you your pampered existence and the luxury of coasting through life being an ignorant fuck troll.

Unlike Anonymous Coward here I would be more of the "social-engineer" persuasion - I don't think "socialist ideas always fail in practice" anymore than I think that market forces should govern every aspect of out lives. The strongest societies for me are social democracies, on the fine line between state tyranny and the regression into feudalism, gated communities and robber-barons precipitated by big players (mini states) in the tyranny of a market. I can accept a notion of "the common good", much like my capitalist countryman Adam Smith could.

Political persuasions notwithstanding, the monetisation of intellectual "property" takes place in a *market* - no way out of it and as has been repeatedly drilled into your skull, the market value of it is as near-as-fuck zero. If you don't think that the market should decide the value of it feel free to explain how wealth can be generated and collect your Nobel Prize at the door on the way out.

"Copyright" is an interference in the market that extends the old "patronage" reward scheme for creators to the general population - they are now your patrons, bound by law (not ethics!) to provide creators with *the opportunity* to market their creations for a certain amount of time, free from the obvious disadvantage of trying to sell a product of zero value. This *creates* an artificial market through coercion and it is the degree of this coercion that is at issue here. Most people would like creators of good content to be rewarded for their work - without copyright law many people would certainly still pay for content that they liked, but that is not a market - it is charity, so to enable a more-or-less predictable market we collectively have this "socialist" law that enables it.

Now to the problem. Entities with vested interests in intellectual "property" are so powerful that they have made *real* rights subservient to their imagined property "rights". They have extended the application of copyright in their own interests to the extent that every single piece of content they produce essentially never goes out of copyright - this fucks the market completely because in effect you have a glut of products of zero value given infinite value through coercion - they can be monetised indefinitely. Not only have they fucked the market, but they are extending copyright law into areas of our personal lives where they have no business being, trashing privacy rights, due process, freedom from arbitrary punishment , among other things - in the process enabling intrusive state surveillance from the proto-Stalinists in government.

You seem to be confused, or a simpleton, or both. If a product is to have monetary value, it must be traded in a market, the value of a product in a market is not set by the seller, but the price the buyer is willing to pay.

0
0
Troll

I'm sorry I think you are stupid.

Why would I be frustrated when I don't care if you agree with me or not? I haven't hidden the fact that I don't think you are the brightest, and I'm obviously not very fond of your close-mindedness and self-righteousness.. but it happens I'm not actually a pirate, or a member of the pirate party! It's been fun presenting you with totally rational, amoral arguments and seeing you try to find something wrong with them, and I'm surprised you failed to see I was totally trolling the troll all this time.

However, I do honestly believe that you don't understand most aspects of the piracy problem (neither its moral, economic or philosophical parts), so I'm not sure if you're qualified to be on a crusade against piracy.. Admittedly, it's not very often that I get the chance to study someone as.. odd as you and that's why I've kept stoking your fire.

I don't still see where you get your motives, and suspect that pretentiousness and self-righteousness may truly be what has set you on this strange quest.

There is, of course, the possibility that you have vested interests -- for instance, you may aspire to make a living from art when you grow up, and are afraid of a future without copyright protection, where business acumen (a quality you don't seem to possess) will be what makes or breaks you.

There's also the possibility that your views were implanted in you by someone of the previous generation, who does not understand how a digital economy really works, such as a parent working for a record company hit by the recession.

Alternatively, you may simply be doing this out of spite, because someone you personally don't like is a piracy advocate.

0
0
Flame

:D

"There is, of course, the possibility that you have vested interests"

Keep smoking that pipe...everyone has an agenda and is working against you!

I think you're forgetting that the transcript of this discussion is above...and to me it shows a rabid little ranting pirate who doesn't like being called such. I don't think you were troll bating and unsurprisingly I find your arguments specious, pretentious and utterly self righteous (not to mention some of the most bizare doublethink I have ever seen)...funny that isn't it.

I think we are coming at this from two sides which can never be reconciled. I know I don't deprive people of a living due to my greed and you know that you can feel better that sometimes you buy a genuine copy now and then. I just hope you enjoy the future 'digital economy' based on base greed and devoid of morality...but I doubt that will get a chance...loads of fun legislation in the pipeline!

0
1
Flame

Yeah yeah.

Thanks for another articulate response Steen. What you have typed is extremely interesting...you keep refering to a 'market' and how the 'market' will dictate the price. I think you are very confused! As far as I recall, the seller DOES set the price of a good, and the market responds to the price by either buying the good, or not buying the good. That way the price can be reduced or increased based on demand at that price. In A/C's and your fun time world, you have said "fuck the seller", and decided that the buyer is the individual who should be entitled to the good, and THEN pay for it if they want to. That's not a market...that's just theft and then a guilt contribution. How can a proper market exist without both the buyer and the seller being involved in a transaction? Your new paradigm involves me walking into a grocery store, taking an apple, eating it, then deciding if it was tasty enough for me to pay some arbitrary amount dictated by some feeling of satisfaction. No, no and more no! The market SETS the price, the consumer RESPONDS...that's why we have an economy and that's why I can go about my pampered existence and have the luxury of coasting through life being an ignorant fuck troll! You don't appear to understand your own lessons.

"Entities with vested interests in intellectual "property" are so powerful that they have made *real* rights subservient to their imagined property "rights". ... you have a glut of products of zero value given infinite value through coercion - they can be monetised indefinitely. Not only have they fucked the market, but they are extending copyright law into areas of our personal lives where they have no business being, trashing privacy rights, due process, freedom from arbitrary punishment , among other things - in the process enabling intrusive state surveillance from the proto-Stalinists in government."

Here is the nub. YOU have valued these products at zero NOT the market. You have gone outside the market place, taken what you want, and then do exactly what you said shouldn't be done above (made charitable donations to the seller). When I go to a shop, I see CDs, games, films with PRICES on. If I don't want to pay the price I DON'T...therefore I am participating in the marketplace. Your zero value market exists in your head. If there is demand for a good, it DOES NOT HAVE zero value. It has a MARKET PRICE dictated by the SELLER. This can alternate based on demand...and low! We have a market. No matter how many first year text book passages your recite you really are just dressing up your turd like arguments in little suits and bow ties.

Your argument appears to be "the man is out to get us so fuck everyone". Well. Clap, clap.

0
0
Headmaster

LOL

You do know what "trolling" means exactly, yes? Egad, the stupidity knows no bounds.

0
0
Thumb Down

One more time, with feeling

"Unless the studies lie, no matter the amount of piracy, there will always be a market for content and software. Also, intelligent musicians can do concerts and sell merchandise. Intelligent filmmakers will make the cinema experience worthwhile. Intelligent software developers will concentrate on consoles and online services. Alternative business models exist, it's just that people like you don't understand how the market is changing and are failing to adapt."

CITATION NEEDED.

0
0
FAIL

Yeah Yeah

Two words. "price" and "value". Come back and argue once you learn the difference.

0
1
Flame

Again...a first year argument, for a global problem.

Again. You are confusing the two. The price is what the seller sets to make a return on his investment. The value is what the buyer will pay. You appear to suggest that a buyer can just rip something off anyway and pay what he or she likes. That is the critical failure in your argument and why you cannot pretend to understand the market, or apply market rules as they exist in a normal capitalist environment. You are advocating someone saying "I don't think this product is worth this much...but I'll take it anyway (i.e. rip it off) and maybe give something back as long as it isn't the end of the month and my mum doesn't want her fag money up front". You are MASSIVELY distorting the market by authorising theft. The VALUE of a good is what I am prepared to pay for it. The PRICE of a good is what the seller is prepared to offer me that good at. The difference in MY equation is, if the VALUE is more than the PRICE I'll buy it..if it is less I WON'T. In your fucked up market, if the VALUE is LESS than the PRICE you seem to think it is OK to steal it. This will distort the market because people who are prepared to pay the price will have been shafted, the seller will have lost a sale and will possibly have to increase the price to compensate. You may find this a bit shocking, but you are not entitled to own everything everybody produces. Just as you can't afford the latest BMW (which you will value highly, but not as highly as the price is set), you SHOULDN'T steal the latest album or game because the value to you is less than the price it is selling at. You have no entitlement to the product. When the price is low enough for the value you equate it to, you will buy it in a proper market...

0
0

hmm

I'll try not to feed the troll too much...

>You call *yourself* a capitalist despite confessing to stealing work and only deeming it worthy of renumeration to the artist if it meets some arbitrary scale judged by your smug self?

Economics 101 for you: There is only a limited amount of money that can be spent on entertainment, so it is FAIR to try before you buy. If you always buy the first thing you find, then capitalism _does not work_. As mentioned by someone before, it's a process of survival of the fittest: artists whose art isn't good won't make money, while artists who produce good art will.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018