*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, March 27th, 2009 10:24am PDT - promote requested by original submitter dystopianfuturetoday.

*doublepromote

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, March 27th, 2009 1:48pm PDT - doublepromote requested by jwray.

*future

Adding video to channels (Future) - requested by jwray.

So retarded , yes its not theft of the file , but if sum one is selling something and you copy it so that thay cannot make money from it you are depriving them of mony.

as an example say i copy a 5 pound note i have made 1 more but i have now devalued all the other 5 pound notes in the system essentially i have stolen value from everyone else.

granted that example is not enterly analogous to duplicating software. and i think that the financial loss from software piracy is more than just a bit exaggerated.

The worse thing is that piracy affects the small players worse than the big players.

the only solutoin is that people pay for what thay think is good. and the fact is a good propotoin of people are uneducated and un aware and given the opertunity thay will just copy something without anny thought.

in the end you cannot make a law for this as its not relay enforceable and would remove to many other liberties to Evan try to enforce.

the only real solutoin is education and for individuals that make software/music to make there audience aware that thay need money to live on.


This vid demonstrates a complete ignorance to the issue it is supposedly countering.

It's an intentionally naive piece of childish bullshit.
Look .. you can't just "copy" a bicycle the way you can copy the latest song or movie.
If I'm wrong, please do send me the torrent for your motorcycle, car or house.

'Copying isn't theft because you wind up with more'? Well, if you own the original and you haven't gotten paid for all that "more" that's out there .. do you care? If your work, whatever it is, could just be replicated and given away for free, would you get some satisfaction knowing giggling idiots were singing about it?

"one for me and one for you" .. and nothing for the people who made it too.

We need to work on copyright law and how we handle digital distribution (and obviously prosecution of violators) but this is just fucking stupid. Everything can't be free. People who invest their hearts, minds, souls, careers, and companies .. deserve to have their work protected.

Sorry DFT. I just don't agree with this at all.

Talk about missing the point burd and westy.

The moral argument about copyright isn't the point here. Defining copyright infringement as theft is the issue. It's not theft...by definition.

^Agreed. She is having some fun mocking the disingenuous arguments of the RIAA.

The "content" creation industry is still doing fine financially despite how ridiculously easy it is to circumvent *all* copyrights. Think about that.

Reminded me of "Particle Man"

You don't mock sum one eases argument buy presenting a fallacious argument yourself.


The most talented and powerful comedy is comedy that holds true.

something can not be funny to people who are aware of the arguments at hand if the argument that the comedy is based of is badly presented ore shit sh~tly reasoned.

ITs like when Christians make jokes about atheists using fallacious reasoning such as "since is a belief in the same way that religion is".

There are plenty of ways theists can take the piss out of non theists and be very funny but using comedy built on the foundation of retardation is not funny for anyone that is aware that the foundation of the joke is fallacious.





It is true "theft" is the wrong word to use for copy right infringement and its also true the big cooperate entities and the layers against copy right infringement are more often then not as stupid as this woman if not more so.

Wow this subject must be seriously close to westy's heart, his post was nearly eloquent! Go westy!

Eloquent it certainly is not.

Reason being (aside from the obvious typing while blindfolded trick he uses) he's claiming that the joke is fallacious. It isn't, the point being made is completely valid. His inability to laugh is his own shortcoming, not the jokes.

I can walk into any art gallery this very minute, take a picture of any of the many works of art walk out and print out pretty reasonable copies of the work. I'm clearly not committing theft since the original stays where it is.

I love reading anti-piracy/pro-copyright posts from people who's only rationalization is that the creator/distributor isn't getting paid.

Greed is a sickness. The sooner we get over it, the sooner everyone wins.

>> westy
Can you further explain about fallacious arguments relating to this. I find it interesting.I just don't see the correlation. And I promise not to steel(or duplicate) your bike if you don't respond.

it's charming cuz it's true.

>> ^Fade:
I can walk into any art gallery this very minute, take a picture of any of the many works of art walk out and print out pretty reasonable copies of the work. I'm clearly not committing theft since the original stays where it is.


nothing against your argument but I just want to say that there are a lot art galleries who do not allow people to take any sort of picture. Including hand draw copies. I was in the Philadelphia museum of art and they wouldn't let me carry in a sketch book to this one exhibit because of potential "copyright infringement", stupidest thing ever I couldn't sketch my own interpretation of art. haha I really don't know what to make of such a situation...

Eloquent it certainly is not.

Reason being (aside from the obvious typing while blindfolded trick he uses) he's claiming that the joke is fallacious. It isn't, the point being made is completely valid. His inability to laugh is his own shortcoming, not the jokes.

I can walk into any art gallery this very minute, take a picture of any of the many works of art walk out and print out pretty reasonable copies of the work. I'm clearly not committing theft since the original stays where it is.

^I see what you did there and find it exceptionally poignant.

She is aware of the issue and is not just attacking the false use of the word theft , for copy right infringement.

It is a fact that in some cases copy right infringement amounts to theft by proxy.

say i was sum one that designs and makes bikes i would have had to invested my time in making the bike i would have invested cost in buying the metal and then that money will have gone to the people who got the metal for me.

if you duplicated bikes ore it was passable it would no longer be financially viable for people to design and build bikes and the metal industry would no longer be able to make mony from the bike industry. and well i would no longer be able to make mony from bikes evan though it was something i loved.


Why am i not allowed to make money out of music ore software ?


If we lived in a compleaty flat structured anarchist/ socialist society then I would not mind the problem is in the current system if your default position is copy everything that's non hard ware without paying for it then you are actually stifling creativity. ( ore at a minimum the ability to derive an income from creativity)


the thing that makes it worse is the big companies who are actually pushing the anti copy agenda are the ones that are not affected by it because thay can brain wash large sectoins of the populatoin with advertising to still buy the stuff thay are selling. Where as independent artists , small dev studios are counting on 100 - 1,000 sales to bank roll there next project.


I agree that Theft is the wrong word to use but Theft by proxy is a more than appropriate description of what copy right infringement can do in some cases not all.

I am actually more on the side of people copying things and distributing materials freely Evan if that is at the determent to some indi artists (not all indi artists ) I just don't think oversimplification of the issue is constructive.


In an educated ethical society it would not be illegal to copy anything and in fact all perchises of physical/non physical goods would be the same . you would simply pay Base rate production costs + what u thought it was worth. that way people with lots of money would pay relative to what thay had and people with less would pay relative to what thay had.

In the capitalist society we are in now this is only possible for coffee shops and other small retailers that can use sociology to there advantage in terms of people fealing obliged to be reasonable and it is yet to be seen if this could work if it was the norm (although i would hope it did).