On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 02:46:52PM -0300, juan wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 17:03:45 +0200
> carlo von lynX <l...@time.to.get.psyced.org> 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.
Haha.. see, you're showing a great example of how shit sticks even
if that young lady just wanted to the best she could. And you call
her a politician just because an assembly wanted her to take
responsibility for the directorate and she thought she could do
her best. Let me debug that news item:
> had success in scoring a lucrative book deal
Yes, she possibly fell prey to a Trojan horse. She was 26 years
old, how can you be so wise to refuse a good deal? I mean, it
was indeed a *good* deal, because she had them accept all the
"pirate" preconditions like refusing DRM and allowing people
to share the PDF among each other for free. So it wasn't so much
for the money - the publishing conditions were her actual achieve-
ment, getting the publisher to do it by the standards of the
pirate copyright reform initiative.
> 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, 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. 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.
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.
--
E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX
https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/
--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
