Comments on: Copyright Group Apologizes to “Unlicensed” Grocery Clerk Singer

By: D.AN

D.AN — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:00:58 +0000

“… the morality and therefore the legality remain unchanged.”

How does mere copying exploit a creation? You just claim it to be illegal and unethical, but what actually makes it so? If you can’t even answer those basic questions, then all your points are utterly meaningless.

By: malcolm hume

malcolm hume — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:38:33 +0000

Consider how much energy that kind of material reaction takes, and you can figure on a pretty rigid power structure around who controls the energy supply (even if we can figure how to make and control that much energy). So I doubt that’s our Utopia.

The common man will still want to protect his creations from rampant exploitation. I’ve had the equivelant of a printing press on a desktop for a very long time, but making copies of books without the right to do it is still unethical and illegal. I know guys who have had record presses (vinyl records) since the 80′s and all the know how in the world, but making copies of other people’s records without permission is still unethical and illegal. It doesn’t matter how advanced or how simple the technology, the morality and therefore the legality remain unchanged.

By: mountain_rage

mountain_rage — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:26:14 +0000

Well actually, if we get to the point where we can turn energy into matter, and find an abundant source of energy, we could in theory have a machine that creates material goods from data and energy. The other possibility would be a machine that takes matter and converts it into other matter in a controlled form. Its not all that far fetched, but not likely to happen for a while yet. If you have a beef with file sharing now, it will only get worse with technology.

By: D.AN

D.AN — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:51:50 +0000

malgre: blah blah blah blah …

By: malcolm hume

malcolm hume — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:34:14 +0000

Sorry I said it like that, but they are warmed over ideas from MIT c. 1983. That’s not really an insult though – the lineage goes de Sola Pool —> Stallman and GNU —> file sharers. Basically the ideas assume a techno-utopian society where everyone is rich and no one has to work to make a living, because technology will create perpetual abundance that there will be no strife, sickness or inequality.

To me it’s sort of like the guys that said the stock market would go up and up perpetually before the dot bomb.

By: D.AN

D.AN — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:37:27 +0000

It matters not if you lie, but you are indeed ignorantly arrogant, so you will only say things that are false.

“I’m just making a case as directly as possible.”

You call using speculations direct? Ha!

By: DrewWilson

DrewWilson — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:15:18 +0000

“You’re the one exploiting something – raping it in fact. At least I don’t lie to myself with warmed over ideas that were hip at MIT in 1983 like you guys do.

Anyway, I’m not the other guy. Not neccessary. I’m just making a case as directly as possible.”

Note to Mal: If you have any hope of appearing to be even remotely credible, it’s not the best idea to simply sit around and hurl insults to people you can’t seem to defeat logically/intelligently.

By: malcolm hume

malcolm hume — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:02:27 +0000

You’re the one exploiting something – raping it in fact. At least I don’t lie to myself with warmed over ideas that were hip at MIT in 1983 like you guys do.

Anyway, I’m not the other guy. Not neccessary. I’m just making a case as directly as possible.

By: mountain_rage

mountain_rage — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:24:54 +0000

Personally I was thinking Malcom and Composer were the same person, still don’t doubt the possibility. Either way, they are both only interested in making as much money as possible from music, exploiting it like a Taiwanese hooker.

By: D.AN

D.AN — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:21:52 +0000

How typical.