Christian Engström, Pirat

4 oktober 2011

Copyright law turns kids into criminals

Filed under: Copyright Reform,English,informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 15:35

Read more at New Europe

The paper New Europe has an opinion piece by me this week:

Copyright law turns kids into criminals

Reform will enrich artists and the public

Today’s copyright legislation is out balance, and out of tune with the times. It has turned the entire young generation into criminals in the eyes of the law, in a futile attempt at stopping the technological development. Yet, file sharing has continued to grow exponentially. Neither propaganda, fear tactics, nor ever harsher laws have been able to stop development.

The Internet is the most fantastic public library that has ever been created. It means that everybody, including people with limited economic means, has access to all the world’s culture just a mouse-click away. This is a positive development that we should embrace and applaud.

Read more at New Europe

Update: Techdirt writes about the article

38 kommentarer

  1. Good points and a very nice photo of young pirates winning political power to create a better future for all🙂

    Kommentar av jeffer — 4 oktober 2011 @ 16:43

  2. ”Today’s copyright legislation is out balance, and out of tune with the times. It has turned the entire young generation into criminals in the eyes of the law, in a futile attempt at stopping the technological development.”

    No, this is incorrect. The copyright legislation hasn’t turned anyone into a criminal, ”it” has no power to do that. It’s the young generation and their parents that have turned part of the young generation into criminals. Laws have not turned parts of the young generation into shoplifters, the shoplifters have done that by themselves.

    Stop blaming someone else, ”the legislation”, ”it” etc. What about personal responsibility?

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 4 oktober 2011 @ 19:06

  3. @ nejtillpirater

    *** ””Today’s copyright legislation is out balance, and out of tune with the times. It has turned the entire young generation into criminals in the eyes of the law, in a futile attempt at stopping the technological development.”

    No, this is incorrect. The copyright legislation hasn’t turned anyone into a criminal, ”it” has no power to do that.” ***

    You are more than welcome to try and argue that the very existence of a law can’t turn a person into a criminal for performing an activity that was fully legal to do before the law came into existence. Do you deny the simple fact that you would no longer be considered a criminal if the law would be removed? Do you deny the simple fact that the very existence and substance of a law criminalizes certain actions and thus turns people into criminals in the eyes of the law?

    . ***”It’s the young generation and their parents that have turned part of the young generation into criminals.” ***

    It’s only one part of the equation. The other side is the law itself. A law granting state monopolies arbitrarily without demanding any sorts of proofs to justify the fact that these monopolies circumscribes people’s freedom and rights and criminalizes people simply for sharing information.

    ***”Laws have not turned parts of the young generation into shoplifters, the shoplifters have done that by themselves.” ***

    You are comparing apples and oranges here. The discussion were about the law turning people into criminals, and not about the law making people do certain things.

    ”***Stop blaming someone else, ”the legislation”, ”it” etc.” ***

    There aren’t anyone here blaming ”someone else”, are there? If you see an unjust law criminalizing a large part of the population you have three options: ignore it, change the people, or change the law. It’s as simple as that. The fact is that technological changes has changed the world radically. That is no ”blame”. Another fact is that this particular legislation has fallen behind. That is no ”blame” either.

    ***”What about personal responsibility?” ***

    What about it?

    Kommentar av Professor — 4 oktober 2011 @ 20:45

  4. @Professor

    ”Do you deny the simple fact that you would no longer be considered a criminal if the law would be removed? Do you deny the simple fact that the very existence and substance of a law criminalizes certain actions and thus turns people into criminals in the eyes of the law?”

    That applies to all laws.

    Do laws against speeding turn drivers into criminals? No, it’s a decision of each driver to obey the laws or not.
    Do laws against shoplifting turn customers into criminals? No, it’s a decision of each customer to obey the laws or not.
    Do laws against piracy and filesharing of copyrighted files turn computer users into criminals? No, it’s up to each computer user to obey the laws or not.
    Almost 100% of the ”entire young generation” are perfectly aware of that they’re breaking the law. It’s up to each person to be a criminal or not.

    ”What about personal responsibility?”

    Still don’t get it?

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 4 oktober 2011 @ 21:13

  5. @nejtillpirater:
    Yeah, and women should not be able to vote, and those damned homosexuals should simply not exist.

    Times change. Accept it.

    Kommentar av mindmaze — 4 oktober 2011 @ 21:34

  6. It must be kind of embarrasing for copyright monopolists that work they do that once was necessary (because there once was no other obvious way to do it) is now being done much cheaper by 10-year-olds. The only thing more embarrasing must be to try and sue the shit out of those kids so they have no reasonable chance of ever becoming debt free in adulthood…

    Oh damn… They’re already trying to do that you say?? Unscrupulous! Do they have no sense of shame at all..?

    Well, I think most people see who the bad guys are in this context…

    Kommentar av ForskarGurra — 4 oktober 2011 @ 21:37

  7. @mindmaze

    ”Times change. Accept it.”

    That’s correct and this applies to pirates as well.

    The problem is that pirates want to make their own rules, they obviously don’t accept that times change.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 4 oktober 2011 @ 21:41

  8. @ForskarGurra

    ”It must be kind of embarrasing for copyright monopolists that work they do that once was necessary (because there once was no other obvious way to do it) is now being done much cheaper by 10-year-olds.”

    So the 10-year-olds compose, arrange, record, master etc. quality music for free nowadays?
    The 10-year-olds do the equivalent of shoplifting, that work was actually never done by the ”copyright monopolists”.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 4 oktober 2011 @ 21:44

  9. @nejtillpirater
    ”The problem is that pirates want to make their own rules, they obviously don’t accept that times change.”

    Are you joking? (Scrap that….)
    So women who wanted to have the right to vote were simply ”wanting to make their own rules”? You seriously cannot see anything wrong with copyright today?

    Kommentar av mindmaze — 4 oktober 2011 @ 21:48

  10. @mindmaze

    You can’t just pick out any old and removed law as an excuse for breaking another one. We live in a democracy, laws can be changed but shall be respected before being changed.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 4 oktober 2011 @ 22:00

  11. @nejtillpirater
    ”We live in a democracy, laws can be changed” – Thank you, wasn’t so hard, was it?
    ”laws can be changed but shall be respected before being changed” – So in your opinion, the copyright laws have never been respected?

    Kommentar av mindmaze — 4 oktober 2011 @ 22:05

  12. @mindmaze

    If we’d produce a prioritzed list of all horrible laws that have been removed or need to be removed, on which place would removal of a law against stealing copies of music and movies for luxury be?

    1000?
    10000?
    100000?

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 4 oktober 2011 @ 22:12

  13. @nejtillpirater
    Before I answer your question, how about you answer one of mine – I’ll reiterate:

    ”women who wanted to have the right to vote were simply ”wanting to make their own rules””?
    ”You seriously cannot see anything wrong with copyright today”?
    ”in your opinion, the copyright laws have never been respected”?

    Kommentar av mindmaze — 4 oktober 2011 @ 22:16

  14. @ nejtillpirater

    ***””Do you deny the simple fact that you would no longer be considered a criminal if the law would be removed? Do you deny the simple fact that the very existence and substance of a law criminalizes certain actions and thus turns people into criminals in the eyes of the law?”

    That applies to all laws.”

    I haven’t said otherwise…

    Have you already forgotten that it was you who tried to argue that a law can’t turn people into criminals, which I clearly proved to be wrong.

    ***”Do laws against speeding turn drivers into criminals? No, it’s a decision of each driver to obey the laws or not.” ***

    Laws turn people driving faster than x km/h on particular roads into criminals. The driver’s decision here is completely irrelevant to my point.

    ***”Do laws against shoplifting turn customers into criminals? No, it’s a decision of each customer to obey the laws or not.” ***

    Laws turn people stealing from others into criminals. The customer’s decision here is completely irrelevant to my point.

    ***” Do laws against piracy and filesharing of copyrighted files turn computer users into criminals? No, it’s up to each computer user to obey the laws or not.” ***

    Laws turn people sharing certain information with others into criminals. The computer user’s decision here is completely irrelevant to my point.

    ***”Almost 100% of the ”entire young generation” are perfectly aware of that they’re breaking the law. It’s up to each person to be a criminal or not.” ***

    Which is once again, and hopefully for the last time, completely irrelevant for my point. In fact, your whole comment to this point is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

    Since you didn’t deny the simple fact that you would no longer be considered a criminal if the law would be removed, and didn’t deny the simple fact that the very existence and substance of a law criminalizes certain actions and thus turns people into criminals in the eyes of the law, both being presented to you as direct questions, and instead stated that this applies to all laws, you are in fact openly admitting that you are agreeing with my viewpoint and that you were wrong in your former statement that laws can’t turn people into criminals.

    ***””What about personal responsibility?”

    Still don’t get it?” ***

    You still haven’t made any kind of effort to clarify your utterly vague question on such a general topic. If you decide to do, you may get an answer. You could as well take the time to answer that simple and direct question that you received asking you if there really is someone around here blaming ”someone else” as you were trying to depict.

    Kommentar av Professor — 4 oktober 2011 @ 22:22

  15. @mindmaze

    OK

    ”women who wanted to have the right to vote were simply ”wanting to make their own rules””?

    They didn’t break the law by voting despite the fact that they were not allowed to.

    ”You seriously cannot see anything wrong with copyright today”?

    Of course I can, it’s a complicated law. All laws are compromises, never perfect.

    ”in your opinion, the copyright laws have never been respected”?

    Yes they have but not that much today since the risk of getting caught and punished is extremely low.

    Now it’s your turn to answer my question about the list.

    1000000?

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 4 oktober 2011 @ 22:23

  16. @nejtillpirater
    Thanks for your answer(s). Much appreciated.
    So by saying ”yes” to ”in your opinion, the copyright laws have never been respected”?, while also stating ”laws can be changed but shall be respected before being changed.”, it’s fair to say you’re all for people and/or organisations working to change legislation when they think it’s wrong? Pretty much like women, who god forbid, never broke the law while fighting for the right to vote. Bet you’re a right old mucker with the Social Democratic Women at the conferences…

    Right then…
    ”If we’d produce a prioritzed list of all horrible laws that have been removed or need to be removed”

    I haven’t got a scoobys of ”all horrible laws that have been removed” (I bet you do though), but if you’d ask me about current ”horrible” laws (in Sweden), I’d say we’re closer to the 1000 mark.

    Kommentar av mindmaze — 4 oktober 2011 @ 22:43

  17. @ nejtillpirater

    ***”@mindmaze(…)”Times change. Accept it.”

    That’s correct and this applies to pirates as well.
    The problem is that pirates want to make their own rules, they obviously don’t accept that times change.” ***

    Care to elaborate? Make their own rules as in getting new and modern laws in place? To reform a law granting state monopolies arbitrarily without demanding any sorts of proofs to justify the fact that these monopolies circumscribes people’s freedom and rights and criminalizes people simply for sharing information?

    About accepting that times change. The technological advancements in addition to our human rights have made sure that the times change in favor of Pirates, and thus it’s obviously not Pirates that have to accept that times change.

    ”***@ForskarGurra(
    ”It must be kind of embarrasing for copyright monopolists that work they do that once was necessary (because there once was no other obvious way to do it) is now being done much cheaper by 10-year-olds.”

    So the 10-year-olds compose, arrange, record, master etc. quality music for free nowadays?
    The 10-year-olds do the equivalent of shoplifting, that work was actually never done by the ”copyright monopolists”.” ***

    Obviously ForskarGurra were talking about the distribution part, and thus is the part that the 10-year-olds do. Furthermore, I can see that you are still spreading the same ”downloading copyrighted files is equivalent to stealing”-fallacies as usual. How many times do you have to be proved wrong on this point?

    ***”@mindmaze
    If we’d produce a prioritzed list of all horrible laws that have been removed or need to be removed, on which place would removal of a law against stealing copies of music and movies for luxury be?” ***

    I seriously don’t think that he would want to remove any laws against actual theft…

    When it comes to a law granting state monopolies arbitrarily without demanding any sorts of proofs to justify the fact that these monopolies circumscribes people’s freedom and rights and criminalizes people simply for sharing information, it would probably end up along with other arbitrary laws that circumscribes peoples´ rights and freedoms without any good reason.

    ***””in your opinion, the copyright laws have never been respected”?

    Yes they have but not that much today since the risk of getting caught and punished is extremely low.” ***

    The risk of getting caught has no correlation with the actual respect level of the law, and thus your whole argument is irrelevant.

    Kommentar av Professor — 4 oktober 2011 @ 22:58

  18. @nejtillpirater:
    ”The problem is that pirates want to make their own rules, they obviously don’t accept that times change.”

    If you by ‘pirates’ mean the Pirate Party and other ‘pirate’-related organization, then they have truly accepted that the time has changed and are working for adjusting the laws to be in par with the new times.

    But for the millions of people who are sharing culture and experiences only the technology has changed, not the need to share. And they are truly not ignoring the change in technology, they are embracing it.

    If you are upset that people aren’t changing their behavior just because a new law made it criminal you should be aware of that the lawmakers has in no way been successful in explaining why their behavior is harmful to society and needs to be criminalized.

    Kommentar av Patrik — 5 oktober 2011 @ 6:23

  19. nejtillpirater wrote:

    [Women who wanted to have the right to vote] didn’t break the law by voting despite the fact that they were not allowed to.

    Just for your information, please feel free to have a look at the Wikipedia article on the Suffragette movement:

    ”1912 was a turning point for the Suffragettes in the UK as they turned to using more militant tactics such as chaining themselves to railings, setting fire to mailbox contents, smashing windows and occasionally detonating bombs. […] One suffragette, Emily Davison, died after she tried to throw a suffragette banner over the King’s horse, Anmer at the Epsom Derby of June 5, 1913.[4] Many of her fellow suffragettes were imprisoned and went on a hunger strike as a scare tactic against the government.”

    And while you’re at it, please feel free to learn more about the origins of the gay rights movement, also from Wikipedia:

    ”The Stonewall riots were a series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations against a police raid that took place in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn, in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of New York City. They are frequently cited as the first instance in American history when people in the homosexual community fought back against a government-sponsored system that persecuted sexual minorities, and they have become the defining event that marked the start of the gay rights movement in the United States and around the world.”

    It would, of course, be better if all political progress came without anybody having to break any laws (and without any activists being harassed by the judicial system). But historically this has not been the case, unfortunately.

    No other parallels with the Pirate Party, but you may find the above references interesting.

    Kommentar av Christian Engström — 5 oktober 2011 @ 13:14

  20. Nejtillpirater: ”compose, arrange, record, master…”

    No, many of today’s artists do much of that themselves on cheap PCs and ever cheaper software. Maybe some of them need help with some of it – well… then it’s up to the artist to decide, really… We have the chance to put the artists in control of the income that their work generate for the first time in history. There’s no reason to waste that chance🙂

    It is the distribution that the 10-year-olds can do damn much cheaper than a cheesy and expensive workforce of ”content managers”, lawyers and CEOs.

    ”Downloads” or ”sales” of immateria have no value anymore! Just trust me on that, will you..?

    Kommentar av ForskarGurra — 5 oktober 2011 @ 14:07

  21. Nejtillpirater: ”Stop blaming someone else, ”the legislation”, ”it” etc. What about personal responsibility?”

    We pirates ARE taking personal responsibility for letting the new technology compete with the old fashioned media industry. There is no ”responsibility” in trying to stop the technical development and effectivization of various businesses. History have taught us that one. Oil lamps were losing sales to light bulbs and electricity. That sure hurt the Oil lamp industry. Would that have been a good reason to ban light bulbs or electricity?? Hell no!

    With that kind of thinking that you propose – to protect old businesses from competition – we would still be in the dark ages or with some luck in the renaissance by now…

    Kommentar av ForskarGurra — 5 oktober 2011 @ 14:19

  22. @ForskarGurra

    There´s nothing wrong or illegal with the technology but it can’t be used for illegal purposes. File sharing is not illegal. Bittorrent is not illegal. A knife is not illegal. But a knife used to hurt or kill people makes it an illegal use, just like use of file sharing for copyrighted music or movies is. Your parallels about oil lamps has nothing to do with this.

    Regarding competition, there is enough competition since there are so many composers, music producers, record labels etc. You can start composing and start to sell your own music, nothing will stop you. The problem with pirates is that they want competition from an illegal market, just like the mafia.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 5 oktober 2011 @ 18:55

  23. Nejtillpirater:

    ”Your parallels about oil lamps has nothing to do with this.”
    Yes it does. There are many other examples as well. Tailors trying to outlaw or bash Spinning Jennies, workers trying to physically destroy machinery that ”took their work away from them”. The unlimited usage of file sharing technology in immateria business is just one new opportunity for making the production of immateria ever more cost efficient by cutting down unneccessary costs in the labour. It’s a natural process – you can view it as a natural continuation of the industrial revolution if you will. Some steps of development of human society:

    0. Hunting. Nomadic lifestyle. No one even knew about farming.
    1. Farming started. No more nomad-style living. (bronze age?)
    2. Farming got more efficient, not as many farmers needed anymore -> ppl move into towns, start businesses, small shops, guilds and so on. (Anything between bronze age and renaissance)
    3. Industrial revolution and continued effectivization of farming, even more farmers move into cities, building of factories. Businesses and guilds in pt.2 get pwned by the effectiveness of factories and industries – with or without the help of the law. (1850-ish)
    4. Automatization & miniaturization – more factory labor can be done by machinery -> factory workers lose their jobs, more and more move into ”office & immaterial related works”. Huge upswing for universities and higher education. (1960-ish)
    5. Internet and information revolution – ”Bureaucratic office workers” lose their jobs to information technology in computers and communication possibilities of the internet. ”Bureaucratic office labor” move into [fill in this when we know wtf happened] (well, just about NOW and the following ??? years)

    Kommentar av ForskarGurra — 5 oktober 2011 @ 20:23

  24. @ForskarGurra

    ””Bureaucratic office workers” lose their jobs to information technology in computers and communication possibilities of the internet. ”

    Who are those bureaucratic office workers?

    Pirate MEPs?

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 5 oktober 2011 @ 21:03

  25. nejtillpirater: I don’t think MPs will be replaced by computers anytime soon. Not in EU or on any nation-level governing body either. We don’t trust computers enough to make political decisions of that scale as of today.😛 But we do trust them with copying files, file sharing, data storage, automatization of various practical tasks of information and ”content” handling and so on. Computers are getting steadily better in most areas..

    What will be left will be depending on the artist’s choice. Some artists will be able to do everything for themselves, some may need help with mastering, et.c. The key point being that the creators of the content will have the economical power and the right to distribute the money their work is worth to the fans.

    Kommentar av ForskarGurra — 6 oktober 2011 @ 9:20

  26. @ nejtillpirater 15 and Christian Engström 19

    Nejtillpirater usually does not check facts and your (Christian E) post about women breaking laws is proof of that once again:) Nejtillpirater hates pirates and is so desperate to find arguments against them that he is forced to use a very dishonest rethoric over and over again. He does not admit that of course but one can easily see that for himself just by reading previous posts made by Nejtillpirater on this blog.

    Kommentar av Anonym — 6 oktober 2011 @ 11:47

  27. @Anonym

    ”Nejtillpirater usually does not check facts and your (Christian E) post about women breaking laws is proof of that once again:)

    There were no facts to check in this case and yes, I did now about the Suffragettes and the gay movement. I pointed out that the women not entitled to vote didn’t break the law by voting – which they weren’t allowed to. Breaking other laws had now relevance to my statement and I never said that they didn’t break the law.

    This is what I said in #15:

    ”They didn’t break the law by voting despite the fact that they were not allowed to.”

    ”Nejtillpirater hates pirates and is so desperate to find arguments against them that he is forced to use a very dishonest rethoric over and over again. He does not admit that of course but one can easily see that for himself just by reading previous posts made by Nejtillpirater on this blog.”

    No I don’t hate pirates. I don’t use dishonest rhetoric but we obviously have different opinions.

    I think that you’re dishonest by accusing me of not checking facts regarding something you think I stated incorrectly but in fact (#15) was something I actually never stated even if Christians reply may have fooled you into believing that.

    So who is the dishonest here?

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 6 oktober 2011 @ 16:49

  28. @ nejtillpirater

    @Anonym

    ”Nejtillpirater usually does not check facts and your (Christian E) post about women breaking laws is proof of that once again:)

    There were no facts to check in this case and yes,

    That’s funny, considering that you just got a history lesson because of that reason.

    I did now about the Suffragettes and the gay movement.

    If that were the case, then why did you write something so clumsy and ill-thought out like what you wrote before?
    Let me refresh your memory. Here is the relevant part with your response at the bottom:

    ”women who wanted to have the right to vote were simply ”wanting to make their own rules””?
    They didn’t break the law by voting despite the fact that they were not allowed to.

    If you actually knew that laws were in fact being broken, then why did you try to cover it up with stating that no laws were being broken in way x? That’s just dishonest.
    Either you were unaware of this simple fact, which would have been quite innocent, or you were actually aware of this fact and resorted to dishonest and desperate tactics just to win an argument.
    You chose option number two in your answer, and by that you have just produced yet another lie on this blog, namely the one below where you are stating that you don’t use dishonest rhetoric, even though you just indirectly admitted it by your answer above, and even though, and this is a big one, there is a blog post not long ago full with examples of your dishonest rhetorics on this blog.

    I pointed out that the women not entitled to vote didn’t break the law by voting – which they weren’t allowed to.

    Which is completely irrelevant to the text that you replied to if what you are saying now is true, that you were actually aware of that laws were in fact being broken.

    What default interpretation do you prefer that we apply to all the irrelevant arguments that you manage to produce on this blog? That the irrelevancy is part of a dishonest rhetoric or part of a cover-up for refusal to admit lack of knowledge? You choose…

    Breaking other laws had now relevance to my statement and I never said that they didn’t break the law.

    Breaking other laws had no relevance to your statement because of the simple fact that your statement, if what you are telling us now is actually true, had no relevance to the text that you were replying to. The lack of relevance is on your part here. The person who replied to you interpreted your comment like it was actually relevant, which it still can be if it turns out that you were unaware of the simple fact that laws were being broken. Either way you have now painted yourself into the corner.

    ”Nejtillpirater hates pirates and is so desperate to find arguments against them that he is forced to use a very dishonest rethoric over and over again. He does not admit that of course but one can easily see that for himself just by reading previous posts made by Nejtillpirater on this blog.”

    No I don’t hate pirates. I don’t use dishonest rhetoric but we obviously have different opinions.

    You just indirectly admitted above that you do in fact use dishonest rhetorics. It has nothing to do with your opinions, it’s a proven fact by now, impossible for you to refute. This also means that the statement in the quote is a direct lie. See more below.

    I think that you’re dishonest by accusing me of not checking facts regarding something you think I stated incorrectly but in fact (#15) was something I actually never stated even if Christians reply may have fooled you into believing that.

    As I have already explained further up, the only thing the person you are replying to can be found guilty of is believing that your response would actually be relevant. There’s nothing dishonest with such a belief. And if it isn’t obvious by now, even Engström made the assumption that your response would be relevant. Good luck getting out of that corner I mentioned.

    So who is the dishonest here?

    In actual fact, every available piece of evidence points to you being the only one dishonest in this discussion. And you haven’t forgotten about the list of your dishonest rhetoric past, have you?

    https://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/dundersucce-for-piratenpartei-i-berlin-85/#comment-19301

    Almost forgot. Questions Nejtillpirater have been dodging in this thread:

    Care to elaborate? Make their own rules as in getting new and modern laws in place? To reform a law granting state monopolies arbitrarily without demanding any sorts of proofs to justify the fact that these monopolies circumscribes people’s freedom and rights and criminalizes people simply for sharing information?

    Kommentar av Professor — 6 oktober 2011 @ 21:54

  29. @Professor

    Deptite your efforts, you can’t prove that I’m dishonest or have lied. The list you’re referring to does not prove that either, it only proves that you have a very odd and incorrect definition of words. I think that Christian should act on all your tries to sabotage the debate by making all those false accusations on me instead of debating the actual issues.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 7 oktober 2011 @ 6:14

  30. @urban/ntp

    Professor has used your OWN words to prove that you keep contradicting yourself and posting false statements. Anyone that can read (with the obvious exception of you) can see this clearly. Don’t you ever wonder why everyone is saying the same thing? The only one that keep seeing it differently is you. That ought to tell you somthing.

    Kommentar av YesToPP — 7 oktober 2011 @ 9:25

  31. @ nejtillpirater

    @Professor
    Deptite your efforts, you can’t prove that I’m dishonest or have lied.

    That’s exactly what I have done, on this blog post and on many others before.

    The list you’re referring to does not prove that either, it only proves that you have a very odd and incorrect definition of words

    Oh it does, and you can’t possible deny that fact without lying once again. Just take that example where you dishonestly and wrongfully claimed that you don’t use Ad-Hominem on this blog, and yet there is 3 very clear examples on that page that proves you wrong. Your response to this particular proof were to try to drag everyone else down into your pit, something that didn’t succeed at all because you couldn’t prove that one single person in the discussion had used the same dishonest rhetorics as you did. And that’s only one example out of many.

    If the list wouldn’t hold its weight as you try to imply, then you certainly would be able to disprove every single point in it. Any such attempts from your side is still absent. Oh and btw, the definitions on the word lie and on the term Ad-Hominem aren’t as hard as you try make them be…

    I think that Christian should act on all your tries to sabotage the debate by making all those false accusations on me instead of debating the actual issues.

    There are no false accusations here. Everything is backed up with real world examples, proof that you still haven’t been able to successfully refute. What’s more, the only occasions where I mention this list of your wrongdoings is when you are trying to glorify yourself in such a dishonest way. That’s hardly worth comparing to sabotaging the debate.

    The truth is, if you could manage to stick to the actual debate in an objective way without resorting to these subpar arguments, than we wouldn’t have this discussion here, would we? So who is the person trying to sabotage debates? The person filling A4 pages with dishonest and untruthfully arguments? Or the person spotting and informing about these dishonest and untruthfully arguments?

    To add to the list of questions that Nejtillpirater have been dodging in this thread:

    Care to elaborate? Make their own rules as in getting new and modern laws in place? To reform a law granting state monopolies arbitrarily without demanding any sorts of proofs to justify the fact that these monopolies circumscribes people’s freedom and rights and criminalizes people simply for sharing information?

    If you actually knew that laws were in fact being broken, then why did you try to cover it up with stating that no laws were being broken in way x?

    What default interpretation do you prefer that we apply to all the irrelevant arguments that you manage to produce on this blog? That the irrelevancy is part of a dishonest rhetoric or part of a cover-up for refusal to admit lack of knowledge?

    Kommentar av Professor — 7 oktober 2011 @ 13:19

  32. @Professor

    You’re beyond hope…

    ”If you actually knew that laws were in fact being broken, then why did you try to cover it up with stating that no laws were being broken in way x?”

    Cover up? I’m not covering up something. You’re also making assumptions regarding Christians response to me, why not let Christian ask more questions to me and let me answer?
    Also note that despite all postings I’ve made in Christians forum, he’s never accused me of anything. I have respect for Christians way of writing even if I disagree in most matters. Regarding you, you’re completely hopeless, only trying to destroy the debate. I still think Christian should do something about you but until then, I’m not going to spend any more time trying to answer your false accusations. I honestly don’t understand how you come to your strange conclusions, on the other hand that kind of reasoning may be a prerequisite for making it possible to understand ”pirate logic”.

    Kommentar av nejtillpirater — 7 oktober 2011 @ 17:33

  33. @ Nejtillpirater

    You’re beyond hope…

    In the event of this Ad Hominem you have once again, although indirectly, admitted that you do indeed resort to dishonest rhetorics and lies on this blog.

    ”If you actually knew that laws were in fact being broken, then why did you try to cover it up with stating that no laws were being broken in way x?”

    Cover up?

    Yes.

    I’m not covering up something.

    Yes you are, as I have already explained to you. It’s not wise to try and cover up a cover-up.

    You started all this by writing:

    ”The problem is that pirates want to make their own rules, they obviously don’t accept that times change.”

    Mindmaze followed with:

    So women who wanted to have the right to vote were simply ”wanting to make their own rules”?

    hinting at the very fact that these women did break laws in their struggle for voting privileges.

    Your answer were:

    They didn’t break the law by voting despite the fact that they were not allowed to.

    Now here it starts to get interesting. The only way that your argument could have been relevant and honest is if you in fact were unaware of the simple fact that laws were actually being broken. But when Engström showed you that laws were in fact being broken, you said that you already knew that laws were being broken:

    I did now about the Suffragettes and the gay movement.

    So, already knowing that laws were in fact being broken you still posted an irrelevant and dishonest answer to Mindmaze stating that laws weren’t being broken in way x. A cover up of the simple fact that laws were in fact being broken, which you already knew.

    Then you even tried to convince us that the simple fact that laws were being broken didn’t have any relevance to your statement, and thus indirectly admitting that your own statement was irrelevant to what you were replying, and that you actually did attempt a cover-up:

    Breaking other laws had now relevance to my statement and I never said that they didn’t break the law.

    So yes, you have been trying to cover up the simple fact that laws were being broken. Unless you actually were unaware of this simple fact. In that case you are only guilty of trying to cover up your lack of knowledge and also spreading of lies. Either way you are guilty of trying to cover up something, which in turn means that you lied when you said that you aren’t trying to cover something up. So, either way, you are guilty of covering up things and spreading lies.

    (Continues in next comment)

    Kommentar av Professor — 7 oktober 2011 @ 22:16

  34. @ Nejtillpirater

    You’re also making assumptions regarding Christians response to me, why not let Christian ask more questions to me and let me answer?

    First of all. I made the assumption that Christian regarded your comment as relevant. I don’t know about you, but I think that it’s a valid assumption?

    Secondly. Engström hasn’t even asked any questions to you on this page!

    Regarding you, you’re completely hopeless, only trying to destroy the debate

    On the contrary. As I have told you every time you have come with this type of accusation towards me; I have always replied with objective arguments regardless of the subject of the discussion. Now, if you don’t want your dishonest rhetorics and lies to surface, there’s two things that you will have to do.

    1. Stop resorting to dishonest rhetorics and spreading of lies.
    2. Cease with trying to glorify yourself by stating that you don’t restort to dishonest rhetorics and spreading of lies on this blog, when you in fact are still doing it.

    It really is as simple as that. Be honest and don’t lie. Do that and the discussions will remain on the original topic far longer.

    . I still think Christian should do something about you but until then, I’m not going to spend any more time trying to answer your false accusations.

    Why? Should Engström do something about people only resorting to objective arguments and the exposing of dishonest argumentative flaws and lies? Or should he do something about people actually resorting to dishonest argumentative flaws and lies? Which one sounds more logic according to you?

    I honestly don’t understand how you come to your strange conclusions, on the other hand that kind of reasoning may be a prerequisite for making it possible to understand ”pirate logic”.

    Here we go again. Guilt by association… You know, for someone who desperately claims that he doesn’t resort to dishonest argumentation and lies, you are fairly often caught with your pants down… The list is ever growing, for each day it seems.

    Oh, and yes. The list of questions that Nejtillpirater are dodging on this page:

    Care to elaborate? Make their own rules as in getting new and modern laws in place? To reform a law granting state monopolies arbitrarily without demanding any sorts of proofs to justify the fact that these monopolies circumscribes people’s freedom and rights and criminalizes people simply for sharing information?

    If you actually knew that laws were in fact being broken, then why did you try to cover it up with stating that no laws were being broken in way x? (question remains)

    What default interpretation do you prefer that we apply to all the irrelevant arguments that you manage to produce on this blog? That the irrelevancy is part of a dishonest rhetoric or part of a cover-up for refusal to admit lack of knowledge?

    The truth is, if you could manage to stick to the actual debate in an objective way without resorting to these subpar arguments, than we wouldn’t have this discussion here, would we? So who is the person trying to sabotage debates? The person filling A4 pages with dishonest and untruthfully arguments? Or the person spotting and informing about these dishonest and untruthfully arguments?

    Kommentar av Professor — 7 oktober 2011 @ 22:24

  35. Merchandising is also wonderful, but just because an article is sitting right there on the shelf, it does not mean that one can have it without paying for it.

    If the originator GIVES IT AWAY, it’s clear. If they hold rights to their work, it clearly isn’t. They published it with the expectation that it would be paid for. Much as you and I RENT ourselves to our employers, they must pay us for our work. Copyright is no different.

    As to a party whose platform seems to revolve around the amusement of its’ supporters.. well, I’ll leave that up to you. It looks rather directionless.

    Besides, there is no such thing as an ”Entitilement Libertarian,” as far as I know.

    Kommentar av nopasa (@nopasa) — 12 oktober 2011 @ 22:20

  36. @ nopasa

    Merchandising is also wonderful, but just because an article is sitting right there on the shelf, it does not mean that one can have it without paying for it.

    Selling products in a store has very little in common with file sharing. Your comparison borders on the topic of theft, which is a completely different matter.

    If the originator GIVES IT AWAY, it’s clear. If they hold rights to their work, it clearly isn’t.

    What is or is not clear according to you? Care to elaborate?

    They published it with the expectation that it would be paid for.

    You mean that they published it with hopes that they their business model and market would be good enough to make money of their product? Because no matter the market, there just isn’t any guarantees that you will get paid.

    Much as you and I RENT ourselves to our employers, they must pay us for our work.

    Not really. Our employers are paying us for performing a service, to get a particular job done. Once employed we can thereafter expect to be compensated for our efforts. Simply publishing information has no such guarantees whatsoever.

    Copyright is no different.

    On the contrary. Copyright is completely different…

    Kommentar av Professor — 12 oktober 2011 @ 23:12

  37. @ nopasa

    As to a party whose platform seems to revolve around the amusement of its’ supporters..

    What political platform doesn’t revolve around ”the amusement of its supporters”?

    well, I’ll leave that up to you. It looks rather directionless.

    On the contrary. It has a very clear direction, structure, and substance. What part is unclear to you?

    Besides, there is no such thing as an ”Entitilement Libertarian,” as far as I know.

    How is that statement relevant to this discussion according to you?

    Kommentar av Professor — 12 oktober 2011 @ 23:27

  38. […] Copyright law turns kids into criminals « Christian Engström, Pirate MEP Tags: mep, copyright legislation, Public Library […]

    Pingback av Copyright law turns kids into criminals « Christian Engström, Pirate MEP — 26 oktober 2011 @ 16:07


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Blogga med WordPress.com.

%d bloggare gillar detta: