anti copyright

  • Woman: Honey, look at this love(Taylor Swift™ No copyright infringement intended. Property of TAS LLC Management 2012©)ly couch
  • Other Woman: Look at this red(Taylor Swift™ No copyright infringement intended. Property of TAS LLC Management 2012©)one though
  • Woman: That sure has style(Taylor Swift™ No copyright infringement intended. Property of TAS LLC Management 2012©)and is quite lovely.

“Anatomical Anti-Valentine”
Art is Copyright © Megan Frisco
Available prints and products here:http://www.redbubble.com/people/missmegmcgee/works/20263869-anatomical-anti-valentine?c=475557-mixed-medium&ref=work_carousel_work_collection_1

BRB SCREAMJNG COS BC/LL STANS (who for some odd reason are following Emily Bett Rickards) ARE “REPORTING” EMILY’S LATEST PHOTOSHOOT RELEASE FOR “COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT” BECAUSE SHE’S WEARING FISHNETS IM ACTUALLLY SCREAMIN YALL MIGHT AS WELL REPORT EMILY FOR BEING BLONDE TOO 😂😂😂😭😭😭😭👌🏾👌🏾👌🏾👌🏾

captxandri  asked:

I've been reading through your blog and some of your tags (such as the 'end model' one). After reading some of your commentary, I understand how more regulation can actually harm the workers/promote violence, but I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation. (If you already have a post/tag that covers this in detail, feel free to point me in that direction instead.)

captxandri, glad you are finding it useful! 

So, not everyone who talks about sex work uses these terms completely consistently, but here’s the basic definition:

decriminalization: sex work is not considered to be an occupation that is a crime. people can consensually trade sexual services in any way they see fit, subject only to laws that impact other similar businesses, such as tax requirements, anti-theft or anti-assault laws, copyright infringement, etc. Basically, the work of sex work is not treated as a special case that is somehow different than someone running an etsy shop, tending bar, selling life coaching services, or what have you. New Zealand is one of the only places where sex work is wholly (well, almost wholly, they’ve still got some shit to work out around non-citizen sex workers) decriminalized, and the studies that have emerged in the ten years since that came about have pretty well supported the hypothesis that this is the BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME for sex workers (I’ve linked to this several times, but am currently on mobile — check my new zealand tag, it’s probably in there somewhere.)

legalization: sex work is a “tolerated crime” — basically, the act of trading sex is fundamentally not legal, but is given a small pool of operation where it is legal under very specific circumstances. Some examples of legalization models involve registration and licensing for sex workers, sex work that is legal when inside a brothel, but illegal when an outcall or as a freelancer, or vice-versa, arguably also models where some niches of sex work — dancing versus fetish work versus porn production, are tolerated while others are not. legalization models all have in common that some sex workers are still criminalized for the act of trading sex (or acts that are not trading sex, but that are so inextricably intertwined as to be unavoidable, such as living off the avails of sex work, or talking about sex work in public), and that generally, the sex workers most impacted by this criminalization will be the ones who are most vulnerable in the first place: workers who can’t afford licensing or who can’t get hired in a brothel, or who need to work with others in order to be safe, etc etc.  Legalization also often takes the form of institutionalized violence against sex workers: needless and invasive mandatory testing or health exams, the restriction of sex worker’s movements, criminalization of working while HIV+, making one’s sex working history a matter of public record. This is stuff that hurts all sex workers, and does nothing to make people being coerced or trafficked safer, since they will almost always not be meeting whatever requirements legalization sets up, and will therefore still be part of a criminalized population. Examples of places with legalization models include: Nevada in the US, most states in Australia, and Ireland up until recently (they’ve switched over to an end-demand model, which I guess is technically a form of legalization, but is so famous and insidiously awful that it deserves its own conversation). 

Hope this is useful, feel free to let me know if you have any more questions. 

jay-leno-incarnate  asked:

Can u help explain the "illegal number" to me? There's a lot of unrecognized vocab on the Wikipedia that would require me to do like an hour of research to understand just why it's illegal or what it does. If not, can u direct me to some1 who can?thx

This might be oversimplifying, but basically it’s a number that you use to decrypt something– in this case a movie on a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. But it’s actually just a big number– in this case, it’s  13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,640. (The format that’s in the bot is hexadecimal, meaning base-16, as opposed to what we normally use, which is base-10.)

That number is basically the key* that unlocks the movie itself; the device playing the movie has to have it in order to play it. The Motion Picture Association of America didn’t want people distributing this key, because they could use it to unlock their movies and rip them to their own hard drives, upload them to websites or torrents, etc. (This is a form of Digital Rights Management, or DRM.)

The Motion Picture Association of America started sending out cease and desist orders to people who posted this number online; it was a big deal in the anti-DRM/copyright activism/etc circles at the time. A lot of people thought the idea of having an “illegal number” was ridiculous, and that the idea that you could copyright a *number* was absurd. Since the hexadecimal (09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0) is really easy to fit into plain text posts, people just started posting it all over the internet, becoming a kind of… activist meme, I guess?

I hope that explains it, because that’s about all the detail I know– there’s some more cultural context around why it happened that way, but I’m far from a crypto expert. (There’s got to be a crypto side of tumblr though, right?)

*It’s actually a bit more complicated than this– there are multiple “keys” that you need to unlock the movie’s content, and this number is just one of them.

okay, so i’m still pretty out of it, but can someone explain to me what the post-credits scene in the love live movie was all about? like, i got the impression that it was just alpaca noises layered over a anti-copyright-infirngement notice, but did i miss anything?

ign.com
ESA Says Preserving Old Games is Illegal Because it's 'Hacking' - IGN

The Entertainment Software Association wants to prevent the preservation of old games because it believes the process of restoring them is illegal ‘hacking’.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anti-circumvention provisions (Section 1201) prevents users, including communities, museums, archives and researchers, to legally modify games to keep them playable after publishers shut down the servers.

EFF staff attorney Mitch Stoltz says Section 1201 presents serious issues for academics, museums like Oakland, California’s Museum of Art and Digital Entertainment and non-profit organisation the Internet Archive.

Last year, the Internet Archive launched the Historical Software Collection, a collection of classic console and computer games and software. The organization recently added nearly 2,400 MS-DOS games to its growing library of classic titles, including Bust-A-Move, Commander Keen, and Metal Gear, along with 900 classic, coin-operated arcade games late last year.

like. im coming from seeing multiple artists, writers, etc. straight up saying

‘i have been personally and negatively impacted by things like piracy and people removing the protection of copyrights will hurt me, the individual.’

and then the anti-copyright arguments are coming from… political economists? software engineers??? strategic. thinkers. found a professor of philosophy

which is not to say they don’t create copyrighted media themselves, but like… what.

NO ONE is saying that current copyright systems are flawless and perfect. but if artists, photographers, writers, etc. (the ones who i feel are most affected by the issue) are saying hey this is the wrong way, maybe.. maybe they have a point?