Monitoring the Internet

Your thoughts on ACTA, electronic ID card, copyright, anti-piracy laws, TPB court case, cloud-computing, etc.

The Internet is for everyone to use, there should be no rules that decide how it's run/used.

Well, except maybe against child pornography. That's just sick.

Well on the topic of Government Checking my Mail.

Tell me when something Important comes in my inbox


EDIT: I think its great so far, Copyright/Anti-Piracy laws are great, helps keep business earning money.

The Internet should not be an unlegislated area, but people should also not be made criminal suspects and potential terrorists only because they telecommunicate, and this is what telecommunications data retention does. The Internet must remain anonymous, or it can't be free - or would be able to surf freely without consideration if you would be using electronic ID cards?

I actually think DRM is good, but companies should go no further than that. DRM ensures that the company is able to sell enough, and that everyone who really appreciates its products, buys them (for multiplayer). But if ACTA comes into effect, you will become criminally liable if you just download a song "illegally".

The TPB operators are my heroes, and i think everyone should be able to exchange any information, if he so desires. These people are even ready to go to jail, for the rights of billions: http://thepiratebay.org/legal

Child pornography has of course to be fought, but at its roots. The servers (which are US-based), should be shut down, and the child protection in 3rd world countries should be increased, as well as the persecution and prison sentences for pedophiles. The freedom of information should not be infringed at any cost.

This is a matter of high importance, and affects us all. We all must act if we desire to keep our democracy and freedom, whether it be by spreading awareness and/or supporting the according political party.

Do net let the Internet become a police state!

The greatest aspect of the internet is the anonymity. That anonymity gives us a mask so we can express or indulge ourselves without fear the retribution of society for our legal actions.

If the mask we wear is taken off, then everything you do on the internet will be monitored. They would claim it's "for your safety" for them to have access to all your data and know what websites you visit, who you talk to,etc. There is already a movement to force websites to apply for licenses. Why is this bad? Because the Government will have far more control over the flow of information than ever before. It's very Orwellian for the state to say what is or isn't news and dictate who can report what. They already regulate radio and television dictating what can be played and revoking the operating licenses for any who dare step out of line.

Imagine if whistle blowers like wikileaks were shutdown for uncovering Government corruption, or if a local journalist uncovered a police cover up? The anonymity of the internet protects these people. It protects, your privacy as you cruise porn sites, it protects your privacy if you visit political dissenting websites. The internet is the last bastion for free speech. Once it is censored then we have lost our very freedom because somewhere, someone behind a desk can tell us what we can and can't say.

Copyright and anti-piracy laws/technology are outdated. The use of DRM prevents the end consumer from utilizing their property how they see fit. D.R.M. prevents the end consumer from truly owning their own property. How would you feel if whoever made your car (lets, take Toyota for example) tried to prevent you from changing out the stereo, or making any other modifications to your vehicle.

As far as making copies, it is only going to get easier to make copies and it is senseless for artists and companies to continue spending millions to fight a losing battle. It is time for these companies to change their business models and accommodate the new market environment

The current trend amongst D.R.M. technology will ultimately lead to individual or a universal equivalent to "Steam". Where you will be required to play on their networks,their servers in order to ever play your game. Not only for multiplayer aspects of games but, to even play the campaign in Medal of Honor or Dragon; Age. This is a slow movement on behalf of companies to subvert the basic property rights of the consumer simply because companies refuse to adapt to changing market conditions. Once you buy that game, book or movie, it's yours do with it as you please. Anything less violates the rights of the consumer.

Finally, Child Pornography, while I detest those who molest children and exchange the information. I hold my rights in the highest regards and I will not turn every citizen within my country into a suspected criminal in exchange for protecting a few children. Yes, it is a terrible, horrible thing they do to those children but, removing the anonymity of the internet is drinking cyanide for a case of food poisoning. The "cure" is worse than the disease.

Regarding DRM:
What I meant by buying a game to play it for multiplayer was, that if you download it cracked, you have no license. You still can play it on a pirate server, but thats not where the majority of the people is at. I am well aware that since 1-2 years a approval by the license-server is required to play a game at all.

The user does not buy software, he buys the license to use it. Someone must pay the developing, the server maintenance, the roll-out and everything else. Without intellectual property, there is no intellectual creation. You can't copy and re-sell a book you bought, but you should be able to share it as much as you want. So intellectual property must be protected, but it must also be free for private use and research.

As you correctly stated, the market has to adapt. In the case of gaming this would include a radical lowering of the prices. Almost no one wants to spend 60 € for a game he has only seen a trailer of, but with prices from 5-20 € virtually everyone would buy games. The prices also would have to be more modular, less basic price, more monthly fees, and more prepaid (like steam wallet). However, this would lower the profits of the gaming industry, so they try to force us to buy their games just as the system is now. This of course won't work, unless the governments pass all anti-piracy laws and agreements like ACTA.

But the worst thing of all is cloud-computing - this is virtually the transparent citizen.

Lugwin von Mises Institute.

They make a persuasive case against I.P. Discussing Intellectual property is not something I wish to spend time explaining myself when someone more qualified than I can do it. If you are not up to reading the entire thing, I am willing to upload an audiobook version for you to listen to, though it is lengthy.

It also puts down the argument that artists would no longer create without I.P protections but, instead would create more and innovations would increase. It also argues against a state backed monopoly on ideas.

Very interesting. I have never seen someone questions intellectual property, not even in very leftist circles. I will definitely read that up, and it actually isn't much at all, since the pages are full of annotations and very narrow as well.

Thank you!

Hrm, that does raise some interesting points. But there are some things I disagree about.

First off on patents. Constant Innovation isn't as glamorous as you might imagine it. Ignoring the fact that it would increase the amount of failed business from the already substantial amount. It would actually put quite a bit of power into the hands of big businesses, already beyond what they have. Because they could just scoop up whatever idea or invention a person would have without the lack of patents, and force them away. Basically put, it would make it easier for big business to prevent small businesses from entering the market.

Another side of the issue, is that constant innovation would lead to less effort to perfect innovations. Think about all the problems and issues brand new items have when they first hit the market. Now imagine that being five times worse with everyone doing it. The amount of failed products released would increase. The number of recalls would increase. The amount of deaths and injuries from products would increase.

The costs from that would definitely outweigh the costs from patents and patent lawyers.

Though it does give reasoning for say, decreasing the time of a patent because the current time now is way too long to really promote healthy competition and we do have a bit of stale period with innovation under the current guidelines.

The mentioning of ideas and stuff being free for use kind of irks me. Tell me, go through science and tell me how often you hear about the person who came up with the theory, or came up with the idea.

Pretty much every freaken time. Essentially you aren't paying them money, or keeping the idea away from people. But you are being charged with accrediting them the idea instead. This is how we reward these people for their discoveries instead. They get to make their mark in history. And most of these people knew this when they went into doing this.

And that doesn't mean that people don't make money from this. Plenty of people have used this accreditation for their ideas to get well-paying, high stature jobs in these fields. This is even more true nowadays than before. Most people do research to either keep their jobs, or get new ones. Sure many enjoy it, but that's only a portion of it.

Things like art, books and games are different because they have a different type of purpose in life. And the livelihood of the creator is more directly tied to the source than things like scientific ideas and such. So it makes sense to do it this way you know.

Oh, and the last mention of the article about trademarks and such. That also irks me. The customers CAN sue the owners of that company. For false advertisement.

And the Trademark can affect the other company due to bad press and loss of brand loyalty and defamation of brand image.

Even if the other company is ousted out for it, that doesn't change the fact this will still occur. Not to mention all the lost sales due to the company stealing and using their brand image.

So yeah, it does affect the other company.

So it is morally acceptable for a smaller business to use the power of a state backed monopoly to stay in business? Big businesses already scoop up patented technology by buying the patent owner out. Simply, offer enough money so the patent holder sells their ownership OR agrees to use the larger company to sell their product and split the profits. Removing state backed monopolies would have little effect on such behavior as such behavior already exists in copious amounts might I add. Currently, large energy (oil) companies are buying up patents left and right on solar, wind and battery technology. So the only issue here is smaller companies finding it harder to enter into the market where larger companies have bought a state backed monopoly on those ideas.



Quite the alarmists aren't you? Reread the section on the better mousetrap to see how patents actually hold back innovation. Removing patents wouldn't remove consumer protections that we currently have in place. The author nor I are arguing for the removal of consumer protections. Simply, the removal of state granted monopolies and all capitalists will agree that monopolies are bad for the market.



Exactly, removing or reducing the monopoly state of the patent holder would increase innovation and productivity by preventing the patent holder from excluding others from it's use.




I'll take it you're in the natural rights group on IP protections. The problem is you have to draw arbitrary distinctions on what types of creations deserve protection. Einstein didn't invent the theory of relativity he simply was the first to discover it thus, allowing others to manipulate matter in new manners. To continue, we would also have to draw arbitrary amounts of time for the holder to maintain their monopoly on the idea. We could use perpetual rights but, then we come into the problem of nobody ever being able to use a light bulb without getting permission from Edison's heirs, nor would we be able to pickle our foods without paying royalties to the first person to discover such a method. So unless we go with perceptual property rights for the inventor, we are merely drawing arbitrary distinctions on what is to be protected and how long it should be protected. Sort of an all or nothing scenario on ideas, protect them all no matter how inane or asinine or protect none. Protect them forever or not at all. Anything less is subjective to an individual person at the time.



The last section explains how the consumers rights were violated by Lachmannian by fraud and breach of contract. It is arguing the it should be the consumer who should sue the fraudulent chain not Rothbard as Rothbard's rights were not violated in any manner but, instead it was the consumer who was the victim of fraud not Rothbard.