EU Internet at Risk

[hobobobo]

39 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I think you missed my point.  without CR laws or IP laws anyones content/product can be reproduced thus flooding the market.  supply exceeds demand causing the value to drop.  Yes CR and IP law effects consumer demand and it's place in market forces.

They do not though affect it directly, not demand. It affects supply and changes in supply change demand. And you are literally saying that fierce competition in the market is not a good thing. And i dont see how the value drops, sure there would be lower value offerings but there as well will be superior value offerings. Value to consumer, aside from purely psycological, is in usage/cost while to company its dependant on the business model. The great thing about market economy, which is dying, is the adaptability of marketplace as a whole. Nowadays its less in less so thanks to licensing, ip, cr and other things. Its hard to convey this point nuanced, its not all cancer with cr ip and all that stuff, but the current implementation is mostly cancer.

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Read my comment you quoted and said im repeating myself.... And i think by tracker asus killer meant torrent site. Not all of them is run for profit, same for release groups.

Your post simply makes no sense even with that explanation.

13 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

They do not though affect it directly, not demand. It affects supply and changes in supply change demand. And you are literally saying that fierce competition in the market is not a good thing.

No I'm not.   Please re read my posts, I said nothing about fierce competition, I said quite clearly that lack of IP protection (which equates directly with security to invest in development) is no good for consumers because no one will develop anything.

Quote

And i dont see how the value drops, sure there would be lower value offerings but there as well will be superior value offerings.

If company A develops a product, and company B, C and D rip it of because their is no IP protection, then all the consumers buy cheaper products from companies B, C and D (devaluing the product entirely). company A stops developing and no other companies will because they don't want to go broke either.  This is basic business 101, don't invest if you can't actively protect your investment.

Quote

Value to consumer, aside from purely psycological, is in usage/cost while to company its dependant on the business model. The great thing about market economy, which is dying, is the adaptability of marketplace as a whole. Nowadays its less in less so thanks to licensing, ip, cr and other things. Its hard to convey this point nuanced, its not all cancer with cr ip and all that stuff, but the current implementation is mostly cancer.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2013/09/24/intellectual-property-rights/#5d63e6ad1a5d

It all scales down from here.

Like it or not, if you scrap IP and let companies produce whatever they want you will not get more development and more competition. You will actually get less development and stagnation of tech. 

[mr moose]

@hobobobo Further to the above, it appears you are operating on the premise that no company can make a product of equivalent quality to the original developer, or that the original developer should make the best product in order to derive a profit from their R+D investment.  This is flawed as the other companies do not have the same expenses or investments to recoup, they can from the outset make an equivalent or better quality product cheaper.  This is in and of itself what undermines the entire development process.

 

Fierce competition will not ensue from less IP becasue their will be no product investment in the first place.

[asus killer]

28 minutes ago, mr moose said:

that doesn't make any sense.

What do trackers have to do with this?  what mistakes are you talking about?

trackers are the names given to torrent sites. Not all trackers operate for profit like i said above. 

What i said is with any generalization (like the one you did, stating all torrent sites operate for profit) you end up making mistakes with those statements that generalize things. Your case was not any different.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, asus killer said:

trackers are the names given to torrent sites. Not all trackers operate for profit like i said above. 

What i said is with any generalization (like the one you did, stating all torrent sites operate for profit) you end up making mistakes with those statements that generalize things. Your case was not any different.

1. Trackers are the servers that link all the peers for file transfers, they are not the websites you search for a torrent file on.   Some asre private and some are probably run as not for profit (that doesn't mean someone doesn't make money from them).

 

2. I didn't say ALL sites.  I said :

Quote

If there was no money in it for the torrenting sites then they wouldn't exists

Unless you can point me to evidence that a torrenting site that you can search and download torrents for pirated material exists without generating any money,  Then my statement stands.

[hobobobo]

22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

@hobobobo Further to the above, it appears you are operating on the premise that no company can make a product of equivalent quality to the original developer, or that the original developer should make the best product in order to derive a profit from their R+D investment.  This is flawed as the other companies do not have the same expenses or investments to recoup, they can from the outset make an equivalent or better quality product cheaper.  This is in and of itself what undermines the entire development process.

 

Fierce competition will not ensue from less IP becasue their will be no product investment in the first place.

Im operating on the premise that the original product by an original developer is superior for one reason only - its the only one. Im not arguing for IP wild west, but for reform of the current one in order to shorten the lengh of protection. And i strongly disagree with the last point, history shows otherwise. There would be way more secrecy with tech and the structure of investment will be drasticly different but it would still be there. Fundumental laws of the economics and marketing go nowhere, companies would still stive to dominate markets and innovation will stay the most effective way, esp with increased competition. Granted, the length of market hegemony will shorten and the pace of products getting more and more uniform quicken, but its not bad in itself and it can be adapted to. With the current form of laws the only ones with incentive to invest in r&d are the ones with a nice IP portofolio, otherwise the research is done on demand or is prepackeged for underlying ip owner

[asus killer]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

1. Trackers are the servers that link all the peers for file transfers, they are not the websites you search for a torrent file on.   Some asre private and some are probably run as not for profit (that doesn't mean someone doesn't make money from them).

 

2. I didn't say ALL sites.  I said :

Unless you can point me to evidence that a torrenting site that you can search and download torrents for pirated material exists without generating any money,  Then my statement stands.

technically you're right, still trackers are the names given to the torrent sites.

 

you're actual quote is:

"You think those sites exist because the people who run them aren't making money?  The end product is free for you becasue the service that provided that content for you made money from doing so.  That is what piracy is. If there was no money in it for the torrenting sites then they wouldn't exists, and if you think that isn't true then you are a fool."

 

still it's not very relevant, if it wasn't what you meant then i take it back. It was what i understood from your statement.

 

some really don't generate money, they have to pay the bills, money as to be envolved through ads or donations, but they really don't generate money. There are a lot of private and small niche subject trackers out there like this, those are also the most interesting where you can get an obscure/difficult/impossible to find album, movie, documentary, book, etc... some times it's not even a question of being a cheap ass

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

Im operating on the premise that the original product by an original developer is superior for one reason only - its the only one. Im not arguing for IP wild west, but for reform of the current one in order to shorten the lengh of protection. And i strongly disagree with the last point, history shows otherwise. There would be way more secrecy with tech and the structure of investment will be drasticly different but it would still be there. Fundumental laws of the economics and marketing go nowhere, companies would still stive to dominate markets and innovation will stay the most effective way, esp with increased competition. Granted, the length of market hegemony will shorten and the pace of products getting more and more uniform quicken, but its not bad in itself and it can be adapted to. With the current form of laws the only ones with incentive to invest in r&d are the ones with a nice IP portofolio, otherwise the research is done on demand or is prepackeged for underlying ip owner

Perhaps you can provide some examples to support these claims? You make a lot of claims about history saying otherwise and talks about laws of economics.

 

Perhaps even just some articles from financial or corporate economics experts that support your proposals?

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, asus killer said:

technically you're right, still trackers are the names given to the torrent sites.

 

you're actual quote is:

"You think those sites exist because the people who run them aren't making money?  The end product is free for you becasue the service that provided that content for you made money from doing so.  That is what piracy is. If there was no money in it for the torrenting sites then they wouldn't exists, and if you think that isn't true then you are a fool."

 

still it's not very relevant, if it wasn't what you meant then i take it back. It was what i understood from your statement.

 

some really don't generate money, they have to pay the bills, money as to be envolved through ads or donations, but they really don't generate money. There are a lot of private and small niche subject trackers out there like this, those are also the most interesting where you can get an obscure album, movie, documentary, book, etc...

 

Got some evidence or do you just expect me to believe that people work full time maintaining a torrent service for free?

[hobobobo]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Perhaps you can provide some examples to support these claims? You make a lot of claims about history saying otherwise and talks about laws of economics.

 

Perhaps even just some articles from financial or corporate economics experts that support your proposals?

You still take my point for what its not... its infuriating. You literally argue for the reduction of competition via leaving the same/expanding already lobbied enough laws while making me seem suggesting their complete abolition. Even the fucken greeks understood that ingenuity should be rewarded, but not abused

 

 

I dont have articles, i have books though. Read on Licensing on the Press Act, how it worked and why was it abolished. Or 1990s Guangzhou IP and tax reform.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, hobobobo said:

You still take my point for what its not... its infuriating. You literally argue for the reduction of competition via leaving the same/expanding already lobbied enough laws while making me seem suggesting their complete abolition. Even the fucken greeks understood that ingenuity should be rewarded, but not abused

 

 

I dont have articles, i have books though. Read on Licensing on the Press Act, how it worked and why was it abolished. Or 1990s Guangzhou IP and tax reform.

If that's how you feel then you are not making your point very well.   Licensing of the press act 1662?   I mean there's not much in there that changes what I've said.  In fact I think I have mention that before on here with regard's to the origins of CR law. 

[asus killer]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Got some evidence or do you just expect me to believe that people work full time maintaining a torrent service for free?

that's not a full time work or a one man job, not is it free or paying, not everything of this world or the internet is made for money, like moderators on forums usually receive shit for their work for example, and in many forums maintained for the same thing.

no, i got no evidence for you for what should be obvious reasons, you just believe it or not. Still i bet you i have more evidences of what i'm saying then you of what you're saying.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, asus killer said:

that's not a full time work or a one man job, not is it free or paying, not everything of this world or the internet is made for money, like moderators on forums usually receive shit for their work for example, and in many forums maintained for the same thing.

no, i got no evidence for you for what should be obvious reasons, you just believe it or not. Still i bet you i have more evidences of what i'm saying then you of what you're saying.

So you think because you have no evidence that what I said must also not have evidence? You can't just ignore the fact that most websites that promote piracy and supply a searchable database of downloadable torrents are generating revenue from ads.  You can try to justify this anyway you want, claim it all goes into power bills or server space or whatever. But the fact of the matter is all you have done is try to convince me that it is somehow legitimate to provide access to pirated material in order to pay for a service you voluntary make no money from.   I have an idea, lets all work for nothing providing an illegal service and run ads to keep the service afloat.  Why not just put that time into a legitimate job and actually earn real money?   Or do they do it because they enjoy breaking the law for no personal gain?

[hobobobo]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If that's how you feel then you are not making your point very well.   Licensing of the press act 1662?   I mean there's not much in there that changes what I've said.  In fact I think I have mention that before on here with regard's to the origins of CR law. 

Im under no illusion that im making it in a stellar fashion. But you refuse to read since my first post, where i continiously mention that i by no means suggest complete abolition of those laws and just leaving it at it. You are arguing the basic concept of ip protection, investment needs protection, all else be damned. Im saying it has excessive protection as of now, does not mean it should have no protection, which you take to be my point for the last several posts, it means there should be less protection. To what extent is arguable

 

Not much there? I guess London Gazette was just the titan of an industy

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, hobobobo said:

Im under no illusion that im making it in a stellar fashion. But you refuse to read since my first post, where i continiously mention that i by no means suggest complete abolition of those laws and just leaving it at it. You are arguing the basic concept of ip protection, investment needs protection, all else be damned. Im saying it has excessive protection as of now, does not mean it should have no protection, which you take to be my point for the last several posts, it means there should be less protection. To what extent is arguable

By your definition it is excessive.  You talk about the time as being damaging to development but can't show how.  As I pointed out a few posts ago, a dynamic approach to the length of patents could be done, however such an implication is fraught with problems, the lest of which is having someone outside your company tell you how much time you deserve to attain a return on your investment.

 

1 minute ago, hobobobo said:

Not much there? I guess London Gazette was just the titan of an industy

don't confuse dictatorial control of 17th century England with modern CR or IP laws.

[Thaldor]

I don't really think IP laws are bad for the competition, but I also really think as they are they are flawed beyond reasonable. You should have protection for your invention or your design, but then we have companies like Apple who basicly break the system by patenting a box with rounded edges and companies that CR a color. The laws should be strictier about what you can patent and register, not that you can walk in and patent an idea of "a system that makes things" or shapes and colors, but you should be able to patent and register "a device that makes pancakes" and the patent would include the exact system so that if someone else makes "a device that makes pancakes" which is totally different, the first one couldn't sue them because the second one tried to "steal" their idea.

 

This same vagueness makes these new EU laws a hell. What is considered a copyright violation? Is that a CR violation that you have radio on behind your vlog and the channel happens to play White Christmas sung by Elvis the whole duration of your vlog? Some one paints movie characters and posts those paintings to a forum, is that forum partner with a CR violator because that person didn't paint the actors but the copyrighted characters? Fan-fiction is very good example and more so fan-flicks; Anyone remember Star Trek: Axanar and it's whole legal battles where actually no one won anything else than the whole Star Trek franchines got mud all over it. I don't know how much of those Paramount/CBS guidlines still stand, but if I make a 10 minute short about Captain Pork who commands Expertise ship and is portrayed by Chris Pine, I'm making a CR violation because Chris Pine cannot act in any fan-flick because he has been in real Star Trek movie, by the law I would be making a CR violation with only naming my short "Star Trek".

[hobobobo]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

By your definition it is excessive.  You talk about the time as being damaging to development but can't show how.  As I pointed out a few posts ago, a dynamic approach to the length of patents could be done, however such an implication is fraught with problems, the lest of which is having someone outside your company tell you how much time you deserve to attain a return on your investment.

 

don't confuse dictatorial control of 17th century England with modern CR or IP laws.

Im not saying time is damaging to development, that would be ridiculous since its fundamental part of the concept. Im saying exclusivity periods the length of technology lifecycle is damaging to competition and innovation. Dynamic approach sounds nice on paper but in the end would just bloat the costs further. I want to shift part of those development costs from long exclusivity periods to freely avaiable for purchase license after a short exclusivity period, perhaps with time-regressive fee, bottoming at a flat rate after 20 and going public after 30 or whatever. I just dislike immensly long, in tech time, exclusivity periods

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

I want to shift part of those development costs from long exclusivity periods to freely avaiable for purchase license after a short exclusivity period, perhaps with time-regressive fee, bottoming at a flat rate after 20 and going public after 30 or whatever. I just dislike immensly long, in tech time, exclusivity periods

Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

I don't know how I feel about that. It sounds good on paper. 

[hobobobo]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

I don't know how I feel about that. It sounds good on paper. 

Well, i did put it in the 3rd post, just started kinda negative on the current state of the law, i got some passion towards it)

On 13.06.2018 at 2:17 PM, hobobobo said:

I agree with investment\return part, im not suggesting completly axing it (although it did actually work for guanzhou, they have a different r&d cycle there, less capital-intensive, more labor-intensive), i just want them to have reasonable window of exclusivity, something like 5 years from products launch, and, perhaps, mandatory small royalty fees after that.

 

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

Well, i did put it in the 3rd post, just started kinda negative on the current state of the law, i got some passion towards it)

 

Fuck, I missed that sorry.  In my defense the second paragraph was quite intensive and required some reading as it brought up several consideration and I didn't want to express all of them.  

[hobobobo]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Fuck, I missed that sorry.  In my defense the second paragraph was quite intensive and required some reading as it brought up several consideration and I didn't want to express all of them.  

Thats was more of a rant on the trend this laws are going and the way i percive their effect, since they protect any use and reproduction, not only commercial one. Even the most basic nobrainer that there should be no ip restrictions in non-commercial research is false. I understand that it would invite interesting arguments but still, esp in med it would be huge

[asus killer]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

So you think because you have no evidence that what I said must also not have evidence? You can't just ignore the fact that most websites that promote piracy and supply a searchable database of downloadable torrents are generating revenue from ads.  You can try to justify this anyway you want, claim it all goes into power bills or server space or whatever. But the fact of the matter is all you have done is try to convince me that it is somehow legitimate to provide access to pirated material in order to pay for a service you voluntary make no money from.   I have an idea, lets all work for nothing providing an illegal service and run ads to keep the service afloat.  Why not just put that time into a legitimate job and actually earn real money?   Or do they do it because they enjoy breaking the law for no personal gain?

1. i have no evidence if what you stated is right or wrong. What i said is that not all tracker do it for money, so i only have to know one that does so, for it to be true. You said they all do it for money, so in fact you had to know all of them for that to be true, and that seems unreasonable.

 

2. I never said that i think piracy is legit, that this sites are legit. In fact i stated the exact oposite many times in this forum. The authors have every right to fight for their rights.

 

PS: i think i broke the forum, i had to reply twice as the 1st try went bust.

[yian88]

Fucks sake in 2 days they are going to destroy the internet and no one even cares.

If you are from EU at least go here or anywhere you can fight it https://saveyourinternet.eu/

[jagdtigger]

16 minutes ago, yian88 said:

no one even cares

Why are you surprised? They only care if it affects them directly in the physical world. Until then they just stuck their head into the sand and live in total denial.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Why are you surprised? They only care if it affects them directly in the physical world. Until then they just stuck their head into the sand and live in total denial.

 

3 hours ago, yian88 said:

Fucks sake in 2 days they are going to destroy the internet and no one even cares.

If you are from EU at least go here or anywhere you can fight it https://saveyourinternet.eu/

In 3 days the sun will rise, the internet will still be there and operating fine.  Some court cases might start but it'll be of very little consequence to most of us and only effect those who didn't do their homework.

 

In the real world shit laws get passed all the time and the really shit ones get rescinded while everyone just gets on with life.  If you live in a third world toilet I suspect you probably have bigger issues than worrying about 3rd party content sharing websites.