pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Emanuel Berg]

Hello Saturday night party people. Now I'm so tired
from not sleeping but I'm still convinced this will be
my best Usenet post ever. Here, I know what you are
thinking: "How can he be so sure?" Let me tell you: I
have already visualized success! Now I'm not talking
visualization like in a hot shower with the lights
off. No, I'm talking visualization like a true
Taekwondo champion from the United States of America.
(Taekwondo is originally Korean but I don't know if
they do the visualization stuff as well. Most
definitely some of them do.) And now you are thinking:
"OK, let's hear it then, what did you visualize?"
Well, problem is, it is always difficult to put in
words any decent visualization - but here goes:

As you might know, the Swedish police a couple of days
ago raided the high-profile torrent site "The Pirate
Bay", and put it down. For good? That remains to be
seen.

The Swedish police don't care about some
military-cinematic complex on the other side of the
world. Their only desire to do it would be to impress
their colleagues in the US Air Force fighting
"cyber-crime" - (I mean, how cool is that? Wait... it
*is* pretty cool!) - but it isn't cool enough for them
to actually do it. So it is a big-business, government
thing behind it, no doubt. Anyway it is done.

This isn't the first time that happened. It happened
once before. Then, there was a big ruckus and people
were banging on the big drums with both arms, and even
some sticks as well. Some people literally took to the
streets. It wasn't in numbers that would impress the
Autonomous Left in Hamburg, but it happened.

But other things happened as well. Many people from
all over the world took part in revenge DoS attacks
that temporarily put down some government websites.
Sure, those people hatched some eggs. But did they
make an omelette as well?

Well, perhaps not exactly them, but other people did,
for sure. Because the site was soon up again - which
is logical: otherwise the police wouldn't raid it
again, brainiacs!

This time, the reaction hasn't been the same, and the
event has passed unnoticed to a large extent. Some of
the people that way-back put up the site have
expressed that "the site sucks, the code and
technology is dated, the site had distasteful adds all
over, let it rest in peace, move on" - that kind of
talk.

But of course the most critical people of anything are
the people who did it. The most critical guy at the
theater is the guy who wrote the play - he can barely
watch it out of fear and embarrassment the first
couple of runs.

Because the service provided by the pirates wasn't bad
at all. And as for the ads, which seem to be
especially painful for the creators, this is an
example of how the focus should always be on what is
provided - and what can be provided in any way anyone
would like, given just a small effort!

The future of computing is interface-agnostic. I'm
writing this mail in the Emacs Gnus message-mode. Are
you reading it just fine in Thunderbird or in a
web-GUI? I'd be damned!

Here is a couple of w3m defuns that demonstrate an
interface which is 100% lacking of any distasteful
interactive and/or sexual ads on the old pirate
stronghold:

    http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/conf/emacs-init/w3m/dl.el
    http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/conf/emacs-init/w3m/search.el

Then just use it with a couple of zsh functions to
beam the data to rtorrent -

    http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/conf/.zsh/download

- and you are done: you have the file in no-time and
didn't even have to play a JavaScript sorry excuse for
a game to get it.

Look, I'm not advocating piracy - or saying you
shouldn't do it, for that matter - I'm saying, don't
get stuck on the surface. If you don't like it, make
your own, the fun and easy way for all us dummies.

(Here, when I'm done with the visualization thing I
think I'll just not send the post. Or should I? Fine,
I'll do it.)

-- 
underground experts united

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Paul Rankin]

Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se> at 10:46 on 14 Dec 2014:

> Look, I'm not advocating piracy - or saying you
> shouldn't do it, for that matter - I'm saying

Look, you quite clearly are, which is quite offensive for those of us
who believe that all people should be afforded equal rights under the
law, including that tiny minority who strive to improve the world
through the creation of art. It's not up to you to decide that this
minority does not deserve the right to the work to which they give their
lives.

Please refrain from posting such discriminatory ideology to a public
list.

-- 
Paul W. Rankin
http://www.paulwrankin.com

Before printing this email please take a moment to think about the
environment. Just stop and think about it. Think about the last time you
were walking alone in a forest, how you felt at peace, how a wave of
clarity seemed to overcome you and you had to stop and reevaluate your
life, what you're doing with the limited time you have here. "Damn," you
thought, "life is so precious. I should really be doing ______." Are you
doing that now? Why not? Go on, pick up your computer and throw it out
the window! It'll be great, like that scene from Network where everyone
starts yelling "I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANY
MORE." That'll be you, but it will be real. Now's your moment.

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Stefan Monnier]

> Look, I'm not advocating piracy - or saying you

I think using the name "pirate" and "piracy" is a mistake, unless you
want to depict this activity as distateful and/or violent.

> Look, you quite clearly are, which is quite offensive for those of us
> who believe that all people should be afforded equal rights under the
> law, including that tiny minority who strive to improve the world
> through the creation of art. It's not up to you to decide that this
> minority does not deserve the right to the work to which they give their
> lives.

Most illegal copying doesn't hurt any artist, but only hurts companies
that engage in entertainment.  Notice that they don't call themselves
"the cinema industry" but "the entertainment industry", and indeed
99% of it has nothing to do with art.


        Stefan

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Paul Rankin]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> at 15:14 on 14 Dec 2014:

> Most illegal copying doesn't hurt any artist, but only hurts companies
> that engage in entertainment.  Notice that they don't call themselves
> "the cinema industry" but "the entertainment industry", and indeed
> 99% of it has nothing to do with art.

It seems that this kind of naive armchair perspective is spouted so
profusely that its validity is taken prima facie. No, the companies in
question don't gnash their teeth and take the losses, they pass them on,
mostly to their predominately middle-class workforce, but also by
shifting output to focus exclusively on opening-weekend,
merchandise-friendly fare and away from anything "cinematic" in the
Steven Soderbergh sense. It is myopic to suggest piracy has no affect on
cinema-as-art when it has all but killed it.

Please don't perpetuate this kind of false Robin Hood myth, it's
wilfully ignorant self-interest under a thin veil of trumped up "people
vs the system" garbage. Whatever of this self-deception one practices,
the truth is piracy is stealing from real people.

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Marko Vojinovic]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2014 15:45:41 +1000
Paul Rankin <paul@tilk.co> wrote:
> 
> Please don't perpetuate this kind of false Robin Hood myth, it's
> wilfully ignorant self-interest under a thin veil of trumped up
> "people vs the system" garbage. Whatever of this self-deception one
> practices, the truth is piracy is stealing from real people.

It isn't really stealing because information is not a scarce resource.

The basic misunderstanding is in the fact that some people want to
treat information as property, in the face of the fact that
information is not a concept that can be treated in such a way.

The entertainment industry have based their business model on the
mistaken idea of treating information as property, and now they are
trying to save it from collapsing by the propaganda that copying is the
same as stealing. But the vast majority of "entertainment consumers" do
not fall for that fallacy. The business model of selling information is
conceptually flawed and should be let to die a bitter death, like any
other flawed business model.

Artists should make a living by live-performing for audiences and
securing sponsors to support their creative work. Like the rest of the
world does. Scientists for example make a living in exactly that way
--- by being paid to teach science to others and by securing research
grants. And their creative work is free for everyone to read, copy and
"consume" free of charge. And this is *never* considered stealing.
There is no conceptual difference between scientific creativity and
artistic creativity, and the corresponding "product" (i.e. information)
should be treated the same way.

What would prevent a famous actor/composer/writer to make fantastic
money by giving lessons to others in acting/composing/writing? The
demagogy that poor sorry artists will starve to death if their recorded
art is being copied instead of purchased is just that --- a demagogy.

Best, :-)
Marko

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Paul Rankin]

Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko@gmail.com> at 18:22 on 14 Dec 2014:

> It isn't really stealing because information is not a scarce resource.
>
> The basic misunderstanding is in the fact that some people want to
> treat information as property, in the face of the fact that
> information is not a concept that can be treated in such a way.
>
> The entertainment industry have based their business model on the
> mistaken idea of treating information as property, and now they are
> trying to save it from collapsing by the propaganda that copying is the

Um, the basic misunderstanding is that in society we pay for both goods
and services. We call this "work." The scarcity comes from the finite
nature of human life.

History has been full of groups who use their majority to arbitrarily
strip the rights away from a minority. They had ways of rationalising it
away too. Just be sure of who you're aligning yourself with.

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Óscar Fuentes]

Paul Rankin <paul@tilk.co> writes:

> History has been full of groups who use their majority to arbitrarily
> strip the rights away from a minority. They had ways of rationalising it
> away too. Just be sure of who you're aligning yourself with.

I suspect you have the typical capitalistic, myopic financial interest
on this topic. Otherwise is hard to understand why you say this things.

The entertainment industry is at the forefront on the attack to free
speech, individual privacy and creativity. They are pushing for a police
state, using war-like propaganda and exploiting political corruption
against the rights of the citizenry. Just look at the legal changes they
are proposing all the time.

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Paul Rankin]

Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> at 00:46 on 15 Dec 2014:

> Paul Rankin <paul@tilk.co> writes:
>
>> History has been full of groups who use their majority to arbitrarily
>> strip the rights away from a minority. They had ways of rationalising it
>> away too. Just be sure of who you're aligning yourself with.
>
> I suspect you have the typical capitalistic, myopic financial interest
> on this topic. Otherwise is hard to understand why you say this things.

I say these things because I believe that art is the closest we have to
the sacred. It is the only thing that we have to enshrine what we
collectively refer to as "humanity."

Politically I'm of a socialist leaning.

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Óscar Fuentes]

Paul Rankin <paul@tilk.co> writes:

> Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> at 00:46 on 15 Dec 2014:
>
>> Paul Rankin <paul@tilk.co> writes:
>>
>>> History has been full of groups who use their majority to arbitrarily
>>> strip the rights away from a minority. They had ways of rationalising it
>>> away too. Just be sure of who you're aligning yourself with.
>>
>> I suspect you have the typical capitalistic, myopic financial interest
>> on this topic. Otherwise is hard to understand why you say this things.
>
> I say these things because I believe that art is the closest we have to
> the sacred. It is the only thing that we have to enshrine what we
> collectively refer to as "humanity."

You have a very poor opinion of Humanity, if the closest we have to the
sacred if Justin Bieber, Mickey Mouse and C.S.I. (Only half joking: if
some kind of social covenant existed for not "pirating" that type of
products at all, the industry would instantly forget about those who you
do consider true artists.)

The existence of Art does not depend on schemas for maximizing profit.
Those who consider themselves artists are not entitled to thwart civil
rights for protecting their business models. Not to mention that those
that reap the lion's share on this bussiness are not artists at all.
They are artisans, on the best case, often "content producers",
sometimes just businessmen.

Art (whatever it means) existed for all human history. Only recently was
possible for "artists" to become instant millionaries because of the
capability of mass-producing the physical or virtual media that carry
representations of their creations. The technical landscape that made
that bussiness model possible is obsolete now, but they insist on
negating reality, regardless of the social consequences, just like any
other evil lobby.

And that's the most benevolent view of the matter. The vast majority of
artists have nothing to obtain from all this mess because they work as
their pre-20th century counterparts. They are the true artists, that
create because is what they soul demands, not because of becoming rich
and famous. We can know about their existence thanks to the same
technology that the industry wants to control and restrict. Oh, the
industry. Do you defend them too? Do you think that Art is benefited by
the entertainment industry?

> Politically I'm of a socialist leaning.

That would explain why you think that an enlightened elite has the right
to impose its personal views on the People. For their own good, of
course.

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2014-12-14, at 15:46, Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> wrote:

> Paul Rankin <paul@tilk.co> writes:
>
>> History has been full of groups who use their majority to arbitrarily
>> strip the rights away from a minority. They had ways of rationalising it
>> away too. Just be sure of who you're aligning yourself with.
>
> I suspect you have the typical capitalistic, myopic financial interest
> on this topic. Otherwise is hard to understand why you say this things.
>
> The entertainment industry is at the forefront on the attack to free
> speech, individual privacy and creativity. They are pushing for a police

Just to be precise: what is at the forefront on the attack to free
speech is the idea of "political correctness".  Though it might be the
case that the media industry (which is something broader than the
entertainment industry) is right behind it.

> state, using war-like propaganda and exploiting political corruption
> against the rights of the citizenry. Just look at the legal changes they
> are proposing all the time.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Óscar Fuentes]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes:

> On 2014-12-14, at 15:46, Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> wrote:
>
>> Paul Rankin <paul@tilk.co> writes:
>>
>>> History has been full of groups who use their majority to arbitrarily
>>> strip the rights away from a minority. They had ways of rationalising it
>>> away too. Just be sure of who you're aligning yourself with.
>>
>> I suspect you have the typical capitalistic, myopic financial interest
>> on this topic. Otherwise is hard to understand why you say this things.
>>
>> The entertainment industry is at the forefront on the attack to free
>> speech, individual privacy and creativity. They are pushing for a police
>
> Just to be precise: what is at the forefront on the attack to free
> speech is the idea of "political correctness".

I was viewing the issue from a different POV: for implementing the legal
measures demanded by the entertainment industry it is necessary to
create a surveillance infrastructure. If the clandestine surveillance
schemas revealed by Snowden are frightening, the consequences of having
such *legal* device are overwhelming.

It is true that others are putting in place the Internet Police State
with other stated motivatios ("think of the children", terrorism...) but
the entertainment industry has a very effective method: famous, admired,
good-looking people saying that it is a noble goal.

> Though it might be the
> case that the media industry (which is something broader than the
> entertainment industry) is right behind it.

Yes. It is a confluence of groups fighting for the same goal because of
different reasons.

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2014-12-14, at 09:22, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko@gmail.com> wrote:

> [...] Scientists for example make a living in exactly that way
> --- by being paid to teach science to others and by securing research
> grants. And their creative work is free for everyone to read, copy and
> "consume" free of charge. And this is *never* considered stealing.

As much as I agree with many of your points, I am really sorry to say
this is profoundly untrue.  Have you ever heard about Aaron Swartz?

> There is no conceptual difference between scientific creativity and
> artistic creativity, and the corresponding "product" (i.e. information)
> should be treated the same way.

FTFY: "There is no conceptual difference between scientific
publishing industry and entertainment industry".

> What would prevent a famous actor/composer/writer to make fantastic
> money by giving lessons to others in acting/composing/writing? The
> demagogy that poor sorry artists will starve to death if their recorded
> art is being copied instead of purchased is just that --- a demagogy.

This is in fact how many artists earn they living.  (At least musicians:
my sister is a musician by profession - not the top percentile, but
definitely above the median, though I'm obviously biased;-), and that's
why I know that.)

> Best, :-)
> Marko

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Stefan Monnier]

> This is in fact how many artists earn they living.  (At least musicians:

Same for programmers, of course,


        Stefan

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Emanuel Berg]

Paul Rankin <paul@tilk.co> writes:

> History has been full of groups who use their
> majority to arbitrarily strip the rights away from a
> minority. They had ways of rationalising it away
> too. Just be sure of who you're aligning yourself
> with.

You are telling us we are doing the Robin Hood thing.
But it is you who put yourself in a hunted, creative
minority that is assaulted by the big, bad and
ignorant majority. I don't think you are in any way
part of some unprivileged minority of unsung heroes
(on the contrary), and as for creativity it is not
only writers and movie makers that are creative and
"artistic" (in you phrasing) in the way they go about
their daily activity. Clint Eastwood once said~ that
making movies is of course an art, but so is plumming.
Now that's a healthy attitude, and correct as well.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Rusi]

On Sunday, December 14, 2014 1:53:03 PM UTC+5:30, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2014 15:45:41 +1000
> Paul Rankin  wrote:
> > 
> > Please don't perpetuate this kind of false Robin Hood myth, it's
> > wilfully ignorant self-interest under a thin veil of trumped up
> > "people vs the system" garbage. Whatever of this self-deception one
> > practices, the truth is piracy is stealing from real people.
> 
> It isn't really stealing because information is not a scarce resource.
> 
> The basic misunderstanding is in the fact that some people want to
> treat information as property, in the face of the fact that
> information is not a concept that can be treated in such a way.
> 
> The entertainment industry have based their business model on the
> mistaken idea of treating information as property, and now they are
> trying to save it from collapsing by the propaganda that copying is the
> same as stealing. But the vast majority of "entertainment consumers" do
> not fall for that fallacy. The business model of selling information is
> conceptually flawed and should be let to die a bitter death, like any
> other flawed business model.
> 
> Artists should make a living by live-performing for audiences and
> securing sponsors to support their creative work. Like the rest of the
> world does. Scientists for example make a living in exactly that way
> --- by being paid to teach science to others and by securing research
> grants. And their creative work is free for everyone to read, copy and
> "consume" free of charge. And this is *never* considered stealing.
> There is no conceptual difference between scientific creativity and
> artistic creativity, and the corresponding "product" (i.e. information)
> should be treated the same way.
> 
> What would prevent a famous actor/composer/writer to make fantastic
> money by giving lessons to others in acting/composing/writing? The
> demagogy that poor sorry artists will starve to death if their recorded
> art is being copied instead of purchased is just that --- a demagogy.

Demagogy... yes, I see a demagogy competition here :-)

Consider
1. The market capitalization of google/amazon etc
2. How much that depends on the contributions of GNU/Linux etc
3. Are the reimbursements reasonable (leave aside remotely fair)?

JFTR I am not blaming the money-spinning corps.
Its just that we do not know yet how to make sense of 'ownership'
in a world where suddenly the links between work (aka sweat/blood)
and physical objects is no longer what it used to be.

Want a single point of blame? Consider rms ;-)

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Paul Rankin]

Rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> at 19:02 on 14 Dec 2014:

> Consider
> 1. The market capitalization of google/amazon etc
> 2. How much that depends on the contributions of GNU/Linux etc
> 3. Are the reimbursements reasonable (leave aside remotely fair)?
>
> JFTR I am not blaming the money-spinning corps.
> Its just that we do not know yet how to make sense of 'ownership'
> in a world where suddenly the links between work (aka sweat/blood)
> and physical objects is no longer what it used to be.

This is a very good point. Especially in the 21st century, it's
insulting and just plain dumb for someone to tell another human being
that their work has no value because it did not produce a scarce
physical object.

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Emanuel Berg]

Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko@gmail.com> writes:

> It isn't really stealing because information is not
> a scarce resource.
>
> The basic misunderstanding is in the fact that some
> people want to treat information as property, in the
> face of the fact that information is not a concept
> that can be treated in such a way.
>
> The entertainment industry have based their business
> model on the mistaken idea of treating information
> as property, and now they are trying to save it from
> collapsing by the propaganda that copying is the
> same as stealing. But the vast majority of
> "entertainment consumers" do not fall for that
> fallacy. The business model of selling information
> is conceptually flawed and should be let to die a
> bitter death, like any other flawed business model.
>
> Artists should make a living by live-performing for
> audiences and securing sponsors to support their
> creative work. Like the rest of the world does.
> Scientists for example make a living in exactly that
> way --- by being paid to teach science to others and
> by securing research grants. And their creative work
> is free for everyone to read, copy and "consume"
> free of charge. And this is *never* considered
> stealing. There is no conceptual difference between
> scientific creativity and artistic creativity, and
> the corresponding "product" (i.e. information)
> should be treated the same way.
>
> What would prevent a famous actor/composer/writer to
> make fantastic money by giving lessons to others in
> acting/composing/writing? The demagogy that poor sorry
> artists will starve to death if their recorded art is
> being copied instead of purchased is just that --- a
> demagogy.

One hundred percent correct. Excellent!

-- 
underground experts united

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Stefan Monnier]

>> Most illegal copying doesn't hurt any artist, but only hurts companies
>> that engage in entertainment.  Notice that they don't call themselves
>> "the cinema industry" but "the entertainment industry", and indeed
>> 99% of it has nothing to do with art.
> It seems that this kind of naive armchair perspective is spouted so
> profusely that its validity is taken prima facie.
[ etc... ]

I see you have as much evidence to back up your claims as I have to back
up mine.


        Stefan

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Paul Rankin]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> at 23:19 on 14 Dec 2014:

> I see you have as much evidence to back up your claims as I have to back
> up mine.

This is the Soderbergh "state of cinema" address to which I was
referring, in regards to the shrinking role of cinema-as-art:
http://youtu.be/ZQrFSUwFwUM

I really respect the work you do on Emacs. I consider that work to have
real value (even if it does not function as economic scarcity).

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 647 bytes --]

() Paul Rankin <paul@tilk.co>
() Mon, 15 Dec 2014 00:03:57 +1000

   I really respect the work you do on Emacs.
   I consider that work to have real value
   (even if it does not function as economic
   scarcity).

The act of working on Emacs is indeed scarce!
However, the product of that action (Emacs) is not.

Confusing the production w/ the product is propaganda.

M-x turn-off-agitprop RET, please.

-- 
Thien-Thi Nguyen
   GPG key: 4C807502
   (if you're human and you know it)
      read my lisp: (responsep (questions 'technical)
                               (not (via 'mailing-list)))
                     => nil

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Paul Rankin]

Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnu.org> at 01:20 on 15 Dec 2014:

> The act of working on Emacs is indeed scarce!
> However, the product of that action (Emacs) is not.
>
> Confusing the production w/ the product is propaganda.

Thank you, good to know someone sees the difference between someone's
work and the digital representation of it!

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1205 bytes --]

() Paul Rankin <paul@tilk.co>
() Mon, 15 Dec 2014 01:25:00 +1000

   Thank you, good to know someone sees the difference between
   someone's work and the digital representation of it!

The digital representation of work is the key and click stream.
That is a third concept in this discussion (that you raise to
add to the confusion, i suppose).  In outline form:

 1. production
    a. context (community, vibe, etc)
    b. Emacs hacker
    c. keystrokes / mouse clicks
 2. product
    a. Emacs
    b. "private"[0] / mailing list messages
    c. "intangible" :-D perturbations in the context

That 2.[abc] feeds into 1 is vexing to the proprietary mindset,
so we see the rise of professional (paid) confounders, and must
endure their wiles, both opportunistic and premeditated.  It's a
good opportunity to hone one's patience and astuteness, and help
others to do likewise.

__________________________________________
[0] See rms email boilerplate.

-- 
Thien-Thi Nguyen
   GPG key: 4C807502
   (if you're human and you know it)
      read my lisp: (responsep (questions 'technical)
                               (not (via 'mailing-list)))
                     => nil

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Rusi]

On Sunday, December 14, 2014 11:03:49 PM UTC+5:30, Paul Rankin wrote:
> Thien-Thi Nguyen at 01:20 on 15 Dec 2014:
> 
> > The act of working on Emacs is indeed scarce!
> > However, the product of that action (Emacs) is not.
> >
> > Confusing the production w/ the product is propaganda.
> 
> Thank you, good to know someone sees the difference between someone's
> work and the digital representation of it!

Digitally representing is the work of (the kind of) people who
make emacs.

Put differently recursion is more pervasive than we may think:
http://blog.languager.org/2012/05/recursion-pervasive-in-cs.html

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Paul Rankin]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> at 23:19 on 14 Dec 2014:

> I see you have as much evidence to back up your claims as I have to back
> up mine.

This series might also prove interesting:
http://iveybusinessreview.ca/blogs/lbolukhba2010/2014/07/13/us-film-industry-growth-business/

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2014-12-14, at 06:45, Paul Rankin <paul@tilk.co> wrote:

> the truth is piracy is stealing from real people.

No.

1. It's not "piracy".  It's "illegal copying of stuff".  Piracy is when
I have a ship, and I'm attacking other ships, take prisoners etc.

2. It's not "stealing".  Stealing is taking a *physical* object away
from its owner so that he/she cannot use it anymore.

3. That said, I am not saying that illegal copying is legal (by
definiton, it's not) or moral (I am pretty confident that in many cases
it's not).  This is why I do not download music or movies from the 'net,
even though it is perfectly legal (at least in my country – provided I
do not distribute them further).  But fighting immoral deeds with
immoral propaganda (because that's what the "entertainment industry" is
doing: essentially they spread lies, like in the infamous "you wouldn't
steal a car" clip) is again, by definition, immoral.  And I do not
believe they have the artists' interest in mind *at* *all* (possibly
with very rare exceptions).

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Paul Rankin]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl> at 00:01 on 15 Dec 2014:

> 1. It's not "piracy".  It's "illegal copying of stuff".  Piracy is when
> I have a ship, and I'm attacking other ships, take prisoners etc.

Meh, I'm a linguistic descriptivist.

> 2. It's not "stealing".  Stealing is taking a *physical* object away
> from its owner so that he/she cannot use it anymore.

Again, descriptivist. But even the "first profession" lacked the
exchange of a physical object, so I don't think you can hold onto this
idea (I'm actually surprised people still say this).

> 3. That said, I am not saying that illegal copying is legal (by
> definiton, it's not) or moral (I am pretty confident that in many cases
> it's not).  This is why I do not download music or movies from the 'net,
> even though it is perfectly legal (at least in my country – provided I
> do not distribute them further).  But fighting immoral deeds with
> immoral propaganda (because that's what the "entertainment industry" is
> doing: essentially they spread lies, like in the infamous "you wouldn't
> steal a car" clip) is again, by definition, immoral.  And I do not
> believe they have the artists' interest in mind *at* *all* (possibly
> with very rare exceptions).

This raises a very good point. I think there has been something of a
cultural shift in the last few decades, or maybe even century, wherein
people have detached somewhat from their communities and constructed a
kind of internal morality. This may seem a plainly obvious point to
make, but contrast it with the kind of deontological societies of a few
hundred years ago and I think we can say we're in a very different age.
So yes, there seems a tendency to look upon the community and judge this
or that law/rule as fair or unfair, then appropriately internalise it,
for example, one might reject with ease the paternalistic law requiring
one to wear a seat-belt, but then become irate at the driver who runs a
red light. Sure, the driver running the red endangered others while
you're only endangering yourself, but that's not the point. We seem to
want the game to have enforced rules because the rules give the game its
meaning, but then accept/reject the rules based on internal criteria.
This of course collides with a contradiction as the overarching rule for
any of this whole humanity project to work is that we all follow the
rules (thank you Kant) and, given the veil of ignorance (thank you
Rawls) we all want that others do the same.

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Rasmus]

Hi Paul,

For the record, the post below contains some sarcasm.

Paul Rankin <paul@tilk.co> writes:

> Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl> at 00:01 on 15 Dec 2014:
>
>> 1. It's not "piracy".  It's "illegal copying of stuff".  Piracy is when
>> I have a ship, and I'm attacking other ships, take prisoners etc.
>
> Meh, I'm a linguistic descriptivist.

If not an embracer of Newspeak...

>> 2. It's not "stealing".  Stealing is taking a *physical* object away
>> from its owner so that he/she cannot use it anymore.
>
> Again, descriptivist. But even the "first profession" lacked the
> exchange of a physical object, so I don't think you can hold onto this
> idea (I'm actually surprised people still say this).

And how do you 'steal' sex without physically harming prostitute?

Perhaps the usual classification of goods would help you appreciate the
opposite point of view:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_good

As you might agree, the film lobby is trying to portray movies as private
goods, though it is non-rivalrous in the terms of the above article.

> This raises a very good point. I think there has been something of a
> cultural shift in the last few decades, or maybe even century, wherein
> people have detached somewhat from their communities and constructed a
> kind of internal morality.  This may seem a plainly obvious point to
> make, but contrast it with the kind of deontological societies of a few
> hundred years ago and I think we can say we're in a very different age.

Yes, them youngsters these days, they are /all/ wrong!  How do they not
see the integrity of the carefully-crafted established wisdom?!

> [...] Sure, the driver running the red endangered others while you're
> only endangering yourself, but that's not the point.

They are not comparable.  To understand see,

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

> We seem to want the game to have enforced rules because the rules give
> the game its meaning, but then accept/reject the rules based on internal
> criteria.  This of course collides with a contradiction as the
> overarching rule for any of this whole humanity project to work is that
> we all follow the rules (thank you Kant) and, given the veil of
> ignorance (thank you Rawls) we all want that others do the same.

Clearly!  A couple of years ago this guy at some institution in New
England questioned the righteousness of the terms of use of some printer
drivers and started a project to "liberate" people in the domain he cared
and knew about. . .  I'm sure you will agree that such a strike is an
attack on Project Humanityᵀᴹ©?

Crush Galileo!

—Rasmus

BTW: The signature was chosen by cookie1.el.  I have not checked the
     source, but somehow the Emacs Pixes always find an appropriate one.

-- 
Vote for proprietary math!

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Stefan Monnier]

> for example, one might reject with ease the paternalistic law requiring
> one to wear a seat-belt, but then become irate at the driver who runs a
> red light.

There is no contradiction here, as long as one does not get irate when
someone else doesn't wear a seat-belt.

> This of course collides with a contradiction as the overarching rule for
> any of this whole humanity project to work is that we all follow the
> rules (thank you Kant) and, given the veil of ignorance (thank you
> Rawls) we all want that others do the same.

But there's also the question of which rules we should follow.
And given that we can't all agree on that, there is necessarily some
laws which we'll only abide to grudgingly, and the dual is that there
are also rules which aren't law but which one considers that everyone
should follow.


        Stefan

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 00:39:21 +1000 Paul Rankin <paul@tilk.co> wrote: 

PR> I think there has been something of a cultural shift in the last few
PR> decades, or maybe even century, wherein people have detached
PR> somewhat from their communities and constructed a kind of internal
PR> morality.

I find this statement somewhat funny because the entertainment industry
has managed to extend copyright terms beyond the ridiculous[1] and there
was no such thing as copyright for most of humanity's existence. It
takes a nuclear village to raise a copyright-abiding child, I guess.

Ted

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Emanuel Berg]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes:

> 3. That said, I am not saying that illegal copying
> is legal (by definiton, it's not)

It is perhaps not legal but that doesn't always
matter.

Sometimes you meet lamers that make your life
unproductive and for no reason less enjoyable. Yet I
don't punch those guys to the ground. What's stopping
me isn't the law saying it is illegal, and conversely,
just because the law says piracy is illegal won't make
me believe it is wrong. It isn't.

--
underground experts united

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Emanuel Berg]

Paul Rankin <paul@tilk.co> writes:

> Please don't perpetuate this kind of false Robin
> Hood myth, it's wilfully ignorant self-interest
> under a thin veil of trumped up "people vs the
> system" garbage. Whatever of this self-deception one
> practices, the truth is piracy is stealing from real
> people.

Digital piracy isn't stealing because stealing implies
someone loosing something. Here, nothing is lost, on
the contrary: it is multiplied.

If you are so fond of cinema and books, why don't you
want anyone that enjoys them as much as you to have
the same access to them? And not just the rich people
who can afford to buy it all without discretion?

Note that the people who isn't "rich" isn't only
third-world peasants living in huts, although they
certainly qualify. Even in Europe it is enough for a
mother to be divorced, and retired, and to have two
sons say who are problematic in behavior and thus
don't work, and this is all enough for her private
economy to not allow her to go to the cinema, or buy
the fancy magazines she likes to read.

I think it is you who are advocating stealing, because
without piracy, neither the Asian poor peasant or the
European poor-but-in-another-way mother in this
example will have the culture they need - and frankly,
deserve! Don't you agree? Don't you want them to read
your books and thus have increased life-quality?

People who are successful writers, movie-makers, or
musicians will always have money and love and
appreciation from themselves and the people around. No
one is trying to take that away from them. But you are
trying to take the culture away from people who cannot
afford it.

-- 
underground experts united

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Emanuel Berg]

Paul Rankin <paul@tilk.co> writes:

>> Look, I'm not advocating piracy - or saying you
>> shouldn't do it, for that matter - I'm saying
>
> Look, you quite clearly are, which is quite
> offensive for those of us who believe that all
> people should be afforded equal rights under the
> law, including that tiny minority who strive to
> improve the world through the creation of art. It's
> not up to you to decide that this minority does not
> deserve the right to the work to which they give
> their lives.
>
> Please refrain from posting such discriminatory
> ideology to a public list.

I'm not discriminating.

It is a fact that some people can buy all material
they want for money they earned after years of honest
labor.

Some people can buy all material they want for money
they got from their affluent parents working in
offices mostly doing no good.

And yet other people cannot buy it, because they
cannot afford it, so they download it free of charge
and it doesn't hurt anyone.

I don't see how this group is any worse than those
other groups, or any other you can think of, for that
matter. If there is a book and someone wants to read
it, or ditto watch a movie, why not? I cannot see the
harm in that and I would suspect many artists would
want the maximum spread of their creations, including
people who would rather buy bread and beer if they
were given the cash to buy the book/movie.

You might have noticed how I shared my code without
blinking. While I don't consider myself an "artist", I
don't really see "art" anywhere: I see craft, and I am
definitely a craftsman as much as any author writing a
book.

> ... including that tiny minority who strive to
> improve the world through the creation of art ...

In order for people to be creative, they must have
access to creative material. Making material available
in numerous forms boosts creativity. But not only
indirectly: my w3m hacks are an example of creativity
fueled by the piracy itself. This isn't unheard of: do
you know of the ultra-creative C64 demo scene in
Sweden and other countries in the 80s? All that
marvelous work originated from the swapping business -
the "sneakernet" as it sometimes is called today, long
after. Google "Fairlight" and "Triad" - the most known
groups - and tell me that isn't creative. With no
money involved, and accessible to anyone, the whole
demo scene a direct offspring of the crack intros to
pirated games... If people had cared for the laws,
would any of that happened?

-- 
underground experts united

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Glen Stark]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 23:08:03 +0100, Emanuel Berg wrote:

>> Look, you quite clearly are, which is quite offensive for those of us
>> who believe that all people should be afforded equal rights under the
>> law, including that tiny minority who strive to improve the world
>> through the creation of art. It's not up to you to decide that this
>> minority does not deserve the right to the work to which they give
>> their lives.
>>

I have a big problem with the language of this paragraph.  

First of all, there are just and unjust laws.  Current copyright law is 
pretty far from just in almost any country with trade agreements with the 
United States.  

The copyright law spreading out from the United States is far from 
optimized to protect the rights of creative types.  In fact the losses 
which creators suffer due to the beneficiaries of copyright law is far 
greater than the losses they suffer due to the violators of copyright law.

Copyright law is an infringement of free speech rights.  When the 
founders of the American constitution decided to allow copyright and 
patent law, they did so with great reservation.  Thomas Jefferson 
expressed these reservations quite elegantly.  There was spirited debate 
about the merits of encouraging creativity and research through copyright 
and patent law, and the cost to society through the impingement of the 
fundamental freedom of free-speech.  

Over the subsequent 2XX years that followed, copyright holders gained 
more and more wealth, and Americas legal system grew more and more into a 
cash-for-laws system.  The carefully crafted compromise that the founders 
created, which balanced the goals of rewarding creative endeavors against 
the public good has eroded into a system where copyright terms exceed 
over 90 years, where copyrights have been retroactively stolen from the 
public domain and granted to large copyright oligarchies, and where fair 
use has eroded to the point of non-existence.  Worse, the media 
oligarchies are capable of disseminating propaganda so ubiquitous and 
nefarious that Goebbels would have felt like an amateur to behold.  

Before getting offended at viewpoint that are more nuanced than yours, 
you should really inform yourself better.  Some good places to start are:

1.  Free culture by Professor Lawrence Lessig.
2.  Any talk on the subject by Cory Doctorow.
3.  "The Internet's Own Boy", a documentary about Aaron Schwartz.
3.  chillingeffect.org
4.  questioncopyright.org

"Free Culture" is one of my favorite books on the subject, and is an 
excellent starting point, as it does a great job of synthesizing the 
negative impact of today's out-of-control copyright law on society, the 
economy, and especially creativity and the artists who want to exercise 
it.

If one starts from a position of ignorance, and accepts the propaganda 
that copyright-law is somehow an embodyment of a natural right, as 
opposed to an a restriction on a natural right, and accepts the fallacy 
that copyright benefits artists and creators, as opposed to the truth 
that copyright (as currently practiced) benefits copyright *holders*, 
it's easy to get sucked into the fallacy that copyright-violation is thef, 
and get judgmental and offend.

If one is informed about the history and facts of the economics of 
copyright law,  it's much easier to understand how some might consider 
copyright-violation to be an act of civil disobedience.

You may not find it such an act of civil disobedience justified, but I 
find that high-horses on this subject have been bred from ignorance.

Cheers,

Glen Stark.

Re: pirate bay, w3m, and the interface is just an interface (BEST post ever)

[Emanuel Berg]

Glen Stark <mail@glenstark.net> writes:

> On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 23:08:03 +0100, Emanuel Berg
> wrote:
>
>>> Look, you quite clearly are, which is quite
>>> offensive for those of us who believe that all
>>> people should be afforded equal rights under the
>>> law, including that tiny minority who strive to
>>> improve the world through the creation of art.
>>> It's not up to you to decide that this minority
>>> does not deserve the right to the work to which
>>> they give their lives.
>
> I have a big problem with the language of
> this paragraph.

The language, and even more so what it says, is
a joke. I don't feel like picking up that discussion,
though I remember it being a fun one. The subject
phrasing indicates the author being in a good mood and
enjoying himself. No, I only write this to say that
I didn't write that quote - some Australian (?)
writer (?) did. So it should actually say
"Emanuel Berg didn't write:" as the first line.

-- 
underground experts united