The article isn’t advertising anything, and the author isn’t employed by the State (see the part about “running a company?” Doesn’t mention the State anywhere in there, eh?) Your intent is clear. Your excuse is insufficient, and a judge wouldn’t buy it for a second.

As for your final statement, that’s just the truth and a friendly warning about the action you chose to take. Do your research. Criminals aren’t likely to do anything wrong if they’ve got a stable home, a stable job, and stable family and social support. A lay-off or home burning down is one thing, but someone like you who prefers to maliciously attempt to cause such destabilization puts yourself in a very non-lucrative position should the guy totally go off the deep end. Or file a lawsuit or something.

The intent was to provide lawful information to others. Must be lawful information since it is the LAW that the information must be disseminated on the Internet and by other means, too. Seems to me that it is particularly important to alert others if the person concerned used State computers to distribute child porn, and advertises for work on other people’s computers.

As for threatening or harassing behavior, seems clear to me that this is clearly meant to intimidate and threaten: ” I’d be careful if I were you, because the fact of the matter is that the person who is the most dangerous is the one who has the least to lose.” Bet I can guess who posted that.

I agree. The question was made to facilitate the introduction of an argument, that restrictions to copying will eventually reduce first the distribution of the created works and then, as a byproduct, creativity itself.

After all, no one (that I know) has actually made a controlled experiment to see if giving monopolies over art or ideas (patents) really produces an overall benefits to society. My hunch is that the results of such an experiment, if made, would not be good for the those whose income (a bias in itself) depends on being a copyright or patent owner.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

Sorry..

But say we lived in a flat world where DRM worked. It would not just restrict the output as there will always be the so-called”analog hole”: anything that can be output for human enjoyment can be recorded by technology designed to record the same sights, sounds, etc that our senses detect.

The simple fact is that any device that is used by an artist to record their work (IE: what the creator uses to create the digital work in the first place) can be used by an infringer to make unauthorized “re-recordings”. There is no possible way any technology can tell the difference between creativity and infringement as, from a purely technical point of view, there is no difference.

When these major media and content industry companies are pushing DRM what they are really doing is trying to ensure that only “authorized creativity” is possible. You can see this in the “Professional Device Hole” that they are lobbying for in the legislation http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/1875 They fully recognize that there is no technical difference between creativity and infringement, and are trying to craft laws so that only the “professionals” that are employed by these major studios are allowed to create.

It has taken a decade of outright lies for us to get to the “Professional Device Hole” honesty, and it is now critical that we inform people about what the real purpose of DRM is.

However, if we asked the question “What if DRM worked, would it be a good thing?”.

The answer is no. As structured now, copyright law actually results in the opposite of what was allegedly intended, to promote the creation of artistic works by authors. The arguments to prove this point are too long to explain here, but they are here:

The Copyright Funnel:
http://chocoweb.blogspot.com/

However, if DRM worked, it would only reduce the output, as authors would more likekly turn to other endeavors as the distribution process becomes more entangled in economical, technical and legal issues, which is precisely the reason that quality output of musical authors has decreased drastically in the last few decades.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

~Jody

It is the dearest hope that the cartels will be able to turn the internet in the virtual market of the 21st century. Through squeezing of the sales points, the cartels have set this one upon themselves. Chain markets have demanded the cartels sell to them at far lower prices than any other market can get due to volume turnover. Since mom and pop stores can’t compete, they are and have been closing in record numbers. Chain markets are setting new price ranges as the expected price that customers will pay and no more. It has been very easy to blame “those pirates” as the problem without having to show anything in the line of proof in bottom line figures.

Instead the cartels now figure the endless shelf space of the virtual store is their answer to raise prices back to previous levels. They are scared, with just reason that since they have done the work to change it to digital files that anyone can just use them in whatever. So in the interest of “improved customer value” DRM has been added. Make no mistake, for all the trumpeting over DRM it does nothing to enhance the customer experience. It does the very opposite as is demonstrated in this article. It’s sole purpose is to styme customer actions and prevent what ownership through buying is supposed to mean. Instead, it is now a rental proposition at the price of ownership. Worse, it isn’t enough that lower quality is now supposed to be the same value as what was offered previously on the market but that it is now being considered that when the time is right, the market price of those offerings are too low. At some unannounced time in the future when the market numbers are there, it is already an all but foregone conclusion that those prices will rise.

Products that don’t meet customer expectations don’t last on the market. These less than worthless products are being shown for just what they are in the market forces and more and more are finding out what it means to buy these limited goods.

Only thing I can say is that the best is yet to come. With the sueing of their own best customers, there is no way that this sort of business will survive as it is being run. Accounting seems to be able to rule the selection process of what is to be the next hit and time after time they are wrong. Blandness rules the airwaves as the process of payolla continues without the middleman in it. Now instead of having a third party that takes a portion out of the middle of the cash flow, it is now alive by buying playlists of preposed ranks and orders to continue the influance of what will be played on the airwaves. The playlists have a fake value in the thousands and through this method the influance is still being made to control the airwaves and what song becomes the top of the most played across the nation. It has in fact become the sole limiting factor in the listener being able to hear new music.

New music is critical to the market in that without that new music there is no exposure to new listening experiences. One must hear new stuff to be able to judge if it is worth buying. Since the dropping of singles into album only sales, it has been the practice of the cartels to include filler to make enough to have an album. Another practice that has turned customers away.

DRM has the only purpose of locking the customer down. Since it is now more of a hassle to use the purchased product than it is worth, the customer is abandoning what they see as an obsolete business model supporting an worthless product.