[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by anappo

Utter disbelief. Your average text editor has order of magnitude more confusing UI features than your torrent client..

Don't really care if you believe or not.

Originally Posted by anappo

But doesn't matter - as mr. Jordan said - the quality (time and skill investment required to reformat bootleg copies) is more deterring than inability to use a torrent client.

Agreed. However, just because something else is more of a deterrent doesn't mean that this particular issue is not a deterrent at all

Originally Posted by anappo

For your sake let's hope then that we develop easy method for copying and distribution of supermodels. For digital content exactly that has happened - don't be so envious!

You forget the part where I said just because I thought something would be good for me personally that didn't mean it should automatically be allowed.

And anyway, even if we could copy supermodels, I'm sure my current wife would cut my genitals off if I was caught mucking around with one so, much like the suggestions about DRM needing to be less hassle than the darknet, it would not be worth my time.

Originally Posted by anappo

Well, you made it impossible to provide argumentation to you why the above is nonsense, by dismissing the basis for those arguments as "mere semantics".

I don't get what you mean here. If you are referring to the semantics of saying "I should have free and unlimited access to any and all "copies because digital media has zero" and suggesting that "copy" is somehow different to "content", then yes it is semantics and if that invalidates your argument then so be it.

If you want to argue that you should have free and unlimited access to any content that you have legally obtained then that is another matter.

Of course we both know that is not what is wanted though. What is wanted, at least by those arguing going to the darknet and obtaining anything you want free of charge is ok, is free and unlimited access to all digital content because digital media has zero value.

Originally Posted by anappo

Which is quite absurd because the cure you suggested for these attitudes was education - which is basically convincing people of something. How do you propose doing that without proper regard to semantics? Brute force? Propaganda? Hypnosis?

I dread to think of the schools you went to where brute force, propaganda and hypnosis were considered part of the education system.

What I meant by education was(as taken from The free Dictionary online) "The knowledge or skill obtained or developed by a learning process."

Now, of course you need a proper regard for semantics for that. Proper semantics requires that you properly define and state what you are talking about.

Claiming that "I should have free and unlimited access to any digital media I have legally purchased" is the same as claiming that "I should have free and unlimited access to any and all digital media because digital media has zero value and therefore should be free" is not a proper regard for semantics. As I'm sure you would agree.

Originally Posted by anappo

Take this thread here - people were going bananas over whether infringement is thievery or harrassment or "badcrime". Then one clever semanticist amongst us came up with "bootlegging"! And behold - everyone is happy now, almost hugging and stuff.

Personally I find it very funny that those who kept arguing about theft not being the right term(which I agree with by the way, in legal parlance theft is a different thing to copyright infringement) seem happy to accept bootlegging as accurate when it is no more accurate than theft.

So why the acceptence of the term? It is just as inaccurate as theft so that would suggest the problem they have with the term theft isn't so much about it being inaccurate as it is about something else altogether. What could it be?

If I may be so bold, I believe the reason people are happy with the term bootlegging is because it conjures up images of people doing something that, whilst technically illegal, is not really wrong or doing any harm. Much like the "bootleggers" who supplied alcohol to the masses during prohibition. In fact it even has conotations of a much maligned "hero of the people" fighting back against the oppressive government to give the people what they want.

Doesn't that sound much better than being a theif? Small wonder the term has been accepted.

Originally Posted by anappo

Ok, so we agree it's a small problem. Let's also agree that it -could- get worse in the future. Can you estimate, how much worse must it get in the future for it to be worth obsessing about now?

I would think it would be logical to tackle a problem whilst it is still small rather than waiting for it to become a big problem before doing anything about it.

Cheers,
PKFFW