You don't. You explain to them that corporations and governments are criminals and then teach them how to defend themselves from them by using darknets, etc.

I compiled some research recently to assess creative work ethic amongst musical artists from the 60s to the present. It had nothing to do with copyright originally, but the data can easily be arranged to show some interesting things about what effect increasing copyright lengths may or may not have on creativity.

Using album lengths of studio albums for these artists I came up with a figure I called CPY, which just stands for content per year, which is measured in minutes. For this post, I took my data and divided the artists between 2 groups: Pre 1978 & Post 1978. Jan 1, 1978 is when the 1976 Copyright Act took effect BTW.

The Pre 1978 group had an average CPY of 42.55 minutes
The Post 1978 group had an average CPY of 30.6 minutes

This is about a 28.1% reduction in creative output after the copyright act took effect. Now, correlation does not imply causation, so it can't necessarily be said that this dramatic drop was caused by the copyright act. However, it can certainly be said that the copyright act definitely is NOT causing an increase in creative output. There is no evidence of such in the data whatsoever. In fact, creative output has held close to the margin of error from the 80s onward in my data.

Absolutely. I can't even use Google by accident by following a link as their entire domain and all of their subsidiary's domains that I know of are completely blocked from my network.

This has had virtually no impact whatsoever on my existence. There are plenty of replacements for everything they do.

It's rather ironic that you have used up a lot of censorship points to attempt to bury other people's opinions through promoting those opinions you do approve of and hence burying those you don't, if not burying them directly, and then turn around and post anonymously to say people shouldn't be afraid to say unpopular things.

The fear of being modded into oblivion stifles unpopular speech on this forum, doesn't it?

Moderating is ultimately the same kind of social tyranny you say you don't want to exist in the world and yet you admit to having done lots of it...

Oh, if only that were true. Only nut-jobs like me "shy away" from Google. Everyone else will use it until they can't, completely missing the point that they shouldn't be supporting it in the first place once it achieves a given mass.

The biggest threat to liberty and equality in the world is the unchecked accumulation of wealth, and the power inherent in it, in individuals and the organizations (corporations, governments, etc.) said individuals collude together to form. History has been quite clear on this. There have been no exceptions.

As such, everyone who cares at all for posterity and justice should oppose such accumulation to the best they can.

Personally, I try not to support any company that controls over 10% of its market. I haven't completely succeeded yet, but I'm getting damn close...

I agree with you in "spirit" (hehe), but they aren't being thrown in jail and there is quite a lot of arguing over interpretation so something needs to be done. Maybe my answer isn't the right one, but there still needs to be one.

Now I like the idea even more. We can trap the politicians in such an infinite loop that they will be unable to do their jobs at all. They'll just argue about it for all eternity...

Not an entirely new constitution, but an update that removes bugs, unwanted features, and security holes while improving its documentation. Constitution 1.1 if you will...

This is really important if you ask me. It's basically tyranny to force people to adhere to a social contract they had no part in making.

The American Constitution is dead. It's an outdated document that has been viciously exploited by the frauds who claim to represent us. What we need to do is to call a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the thing with a clearer and MUCH expanded Bill of Rights.

In fact, I think that such a convention should be mandatory about every 50 years and there should be very clear rules that each iteration must always err in favor of the rights of the people and never increase the power of government. In fact, it should be mandatory that any increases in power that have occurred in the interim be removed at each convention.

I realize that I am far from an average user, but I have been using computers for 30 years (the last 15 using Windows) and have never gotten a virus, worm, or any other form of malware on a single computer I have ever owned despite not really using AV software, always logging in as admin, and spending an inordinate amount of time acquiring software on 119th St.

I don't deny that these things exist but obviously the user is the weakest link as everything you have said is already available to any user who knows how to apply them. Education would go a long way to fixing the problem. Maybe we should require the completion of a computer safety course before a person can be issued a license to use a networked computer?

As for the article topic, I have blocked google from my network, so again this malware in its current form doesn't exist for me...

I've been gaming since the Apple II came out and you missed an age when it was just as bad. The pre Win3.1 era was loaded with even more annoying and intrusive DRM. Not only were the floppies copy protected, but you had all sorts of in-box DRM such as code-wheels, having to type words in from the manual and other game-stopping, annoying BS.

The games were also more expensive when you adjust for inflation and often had horrible game design flaws like dead-ends in them. Get stuck? Sorry, no Internet. You can call an outrageously priced hint-line though...

The CD-Rom is what made the PC platform playable again. Developers got rid of all the annoying DRM until about late 1999 and then the 00s became the new 80s, with shitty value and annoying DRM coming back into the scene.

Strangely enough, I didn't pirate in the 90s, but pirated like crazy in the 80s and 00s. Perhaps there is a correlation?

The market decides the price, not the publishers, and if people refused to pay those prices they would drop down to affordable levels.

The fact is that people are spineless consumers who never take a stand on anything. They are happy to take it in the ass no matter how loudly they proclaim otherwise. They create all their own problems and then blame the companies whose power they've created through their own pusillanimity. They're basically slaves, but have convinced themselves otherwise.

I swear Nike could come out with manacles with their iconic swoosh on them, push it with a catchy commercial and a celebrity sponsor and people would line up to buy them and brag to their friends about how awesome their $200 Air Chains are. Isn't hyperbole fun?

Slightly off-topic, but I was doing research recently on how prolific various artists were over the last 50 years and hence needed to get the lengths of their studio albums to determine it. For artists from the 60s it was often impossible to get this information from Internet discographies. As such, I simply pirated the music to get the running times.

Rather ironic that piracy does a better job of preserving information about our historical artistic culture than the legitimate Internet in my specific case.

I actually did delete every file I downloaded once I got the info I needed BTW. Not because I care in the slightest about copyright, but because I don't support patented formats, and hence won't use mp3s.

Indeed. As a musician myself, I literally cringe when someone uses the word "create" in reference to writing music. It's so utterly arrogant and delusional. No one creates music. We build by accretion upon the works of past artists and within the influence of the culture and technology we grow up in and with.

Human beings have been playing music on instruments for about 40,000 years and much longer without. Funny how all these nonsense "rights" only sprung up in the last couple centuries and the lies that music wouldn't be written without them as well...

The only reason it's a step in the right direction is because every other browser has dragged Microsoft kicking and screaming into the present. They certainly wouldn't have done it on their own...