[tor-talk] Manipulation is a bitch and you're all pawns

[juan]

On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:39:50 +0200
carlo von lynX <lynX at time.to.get.psyced.org> 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 <lynX at 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.



> 
> > 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.
> 
>