Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.

Blogs

GMO Links

08/16: Landmark? Major Corporation Calling GMOs ‘All Natural’ Targeted for False Advertising
http://wtfrly.com/2014/08/16/landmark-major-corporation-calling-gmos-all-natural-targeted-for-false-advertising/

08/13: Monsanto Wants 14-Year Reuters Veteran Reporter Fired for Talking About GMO Dangers
http://wtfrly.com/2014/08/13/monsanto-wants-14-year-reuters-veteran-reporter-fired-for-talking-about-gmo-dangers/

08/11: Sweet victory for Mexico beekeepers as Monsanto loses GM permit
http://wtfrly.com/2014/08/11/sweet-victory-for-mexico-beekeepers-as-monsanto-loses-gm-permit/

UK Decriminalises Sharing

The Pirate Bay

This is now perfectly legal, shockingly

Sharing No Longer a Crime

Crushing blow to anti "piracy" terrorists

In a blatant act of democracy that would make Mussolini spin in his grave, the UK government reluctantly conceded that if everybody does it, it probably shouldn't be a crime.

Instead, as a nod to the intellectual monopoly gangsters, those dastardly "pirates" (i.e. everyone) will receive four spam letters a year from the Content® manufacturing industry, in a futile attempt to convince the rigidly bored audience to pay for Hollywood's increasingly derivative and uninspiring garbage.

Other than that, no action will be taken, at least not against the "pirates", not even so much as a menacing glance, much less a fine or prison sentence.

Opposing Copyright

Thomas Babington MacaulayThis is my analysis and response to Thomas Babington Macaulay's speech to the House of Commons, delivered on the 5th of February 1841, opposing the then proposed "Life + 60 Years" copyright term.

First I should state that I also oppose any extension to the copyright term, but moreover I oppose copyright in general, and seek its total abolition.

Macaulay's speech is good overall, inspired in places and clearly well-intentioned, but makes what I believe to be a fundamental logical fallacy which must be addressed. He also tends to waffle, giving far more examples than is necessary, most of which I've edited out. Therefore the following comprises a summary of the relevant parts of the original speech to which I wish to respond, and my indented responses (in blue) to each point. With the exception of Macaulay's final summary, I will only respond to those points I disagree with, so you may assume that I agree with the rest.

My objective is to demonstrate that copyright is not only morally indefensible, but also quite unnecessary.