On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:39:50 +0200 carlo von lynX <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 02:46:52PM -0300, juan wrote: > > On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 17:03:45 +0200 > > carlo von lynX <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Julia Schramm who did everything > > > right, > > > > https://torrentfreak.com/fail-prominent-pirate-party-politician-polices-book-pirates-120918/#disqus_thread > > > > just in case some people still haven't realized that > > "politician" means "worthless scumbag" all-of-them. > > > Schramm and her publisher are now clamping down on book pirates > > The "book pirates" probably were journalists that uploaded the > book to Dropbox, thus breaking the "exchange among friends" rule > that Schramm and the publisher agreed upon, lolwhat you either 'enforce' state-created 'copyright' or not. Spare me the legalistic bullshit. It's completely legitimate to upload any file anywhere. Whoever uploaded the stuff to dropbox was, by definition, a 'book pirate'. And the woman was a member of a political party (i.e. a politician) who made a copyright deal with a very big americunt publisher. You can't get more self-parodic than that. > and de-facto > *republishing* the book to anyone who get that link. That of > course is illegal even by the standards of the Piratenpartei > copyright reforms. Julia didn't do a single thing, it was the > publisher who with all legitimacy asked dropbox to take down > that illegal copy. Torrentfreak republished BS from the Twitter > shitstorms that, as the name implies, were major bullshitstorms. > > By the way, the book is said to be rather mediocre. Of course. The copyright mafia paid 100,000 euros for it. And no, I'm not being sarcastic. > It's not like > she sold the copyright to some pirate manifesto. Media attention > was solely about the "hack" of posting it to dropbox and making > a story about it. > > > “We propose to legalize noncommercial copying, publishing, storage > > and use of works to improve the overall availability of > > information, knowledge and culture, as this represents an essential > > prerequisite for the social, technical and economic development of > > our society.” > > I don't know where they got this from, but this is an inaccurate > simplification. You can interpret it as a complete abolition > of copyright which is a breach of the human rights charters. Did I ask you to spare me your legalistic bullshit? So, not enforcing a criminal/mercantilistic device like 'copyright' is a breach of 'human rights'? You don't have a clue, apart from parroting establishment nonsense. Pay attention : you cannot enfoce so called IP without violating real human rights like life, liberty and property. Rest of your lawyer delusions and nonsens ignored. > The right to earn from your artistic work isn't among the highest > ranking (I think it's human right #28 or something like that) and > should always be second to the Secrecy Of Corresponence. > > You can also interpret it as the need to regulate the limits of > commercial and non-commercial use which indeed are very much to the > disadvantage of non-commercial use currently. Still this book was > clearly of little relevance regarding "information, knowledge and > culture" and therefore by allowing buyers to do all of "noncommercial > copying, publishing, storage and use" *with their friends* Julia > already obtained a lot more, than your average book author ever > negotiates out of a publishing house. > > So a successful achievement to have a publishing house publish > a book by pirate principles was turned around by the media to > look like treason, and even the pirates fell for it. > > Manipulation is a bitch. And you're all pawns. > > All of you who read the manipulatory bullshit first, then act > as spare time judges in place of a real justice system. > > I didn't read the website that was featured in the subject line > of this thread. One, because I want to hear it from judges, not > from manipulators, and two, because I certainly won't allow > bullshitstormer manipulators to execute Javascript code on my > computer. > > > When that’s the case, it appears that certain ideals and > > aspirations are easier to throw overboard than others. > > So much for journalistic independence. Can't even refrain from > commenting their wrong information. What about giving Julia a > phone call before making yourself a tool for multiplication of > false information? > > My personal suspicion is that this whole uploading to Dropbox > trick, maybe even the surprisingly good conditions of the > publishing contract, were a set-up by some spin doctor > thinktank that wanted to get rid of the "pirate problem". > I mean.. spin doctors.. that's they're business. > > And it was so frustrating to see how the majority of party > members were too lazy to figure out the truth. > > Twitter sheeple. > > -- tor-talk mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
