Entertainment Industry Get Their Own 'Piracy Police' In The Justice Department
from the thank-you,-joe-biden dept
Remember back in December when Vice President Joe Biden hosted a one-sided "piracy summit", ridiculously declaring that "all of the stakeholders" were present (despite there not being a single representative from the technology industry, nor anyone representing consumer interests or ISPs). The "stakeholders" were entirely the entertainment industry. And, even better, despite promises of openness and transparency, the press was kicked out so top execs from most of the major entertainment industry companies couldAnd, indeed, less than two months later, we have Eric Holder announcing a special "IP task force" within the Justice Department designed to take on "the rise in intellectual property crime." Given how many former RIAA/MPAA lawyers ended up at the Justice Department, perhaps this is no surprise. But given that it now appears that the entertainment industry was able to create their own private enforcement division within the Justice Department without a single ounce of public discussion or transparency, and no input from those concerned about consumer rights or technology innovation, shouldn't someone be asking why the Justice Department is now functioning as a private police force to prop up the business models of a group of companies who refuse to adapt, even as plenty of upstarts have figured out how to make new business models work?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright cops, eric holder, joe biden, justice deparatment
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"The rise in intellectual property crime in the United States and abroad threatens not only our public safety but also our economic well being"
I call utter bullshit on this. The only economic well being this protects is those of the failures. I also want even one example of where the public's safety has ever been at risk because someone downloaded something online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Step 1, don't pay for content, don't pay for use, basically, don't pay for anything.
Damn, I could have plenty of good business models if I didn't have to pay for the products I resold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TAM FAIL again
Step 1, don't pay for content, don't pay for use, basically, don't pay for anything.
Damn, I could have plenty of good business models if I didn't have to pay for the products I resold."
More LIES and WILLFUL MISUNDERSTANDING from TAMSHITHOLE. You know GOD DAMN WELL that isnt what Mike, this site, or most of the people posting here advocate. NO ONE EXCEPT YOU is going around saying "dont pay for ANYTHING." Just YOU. Show me ONE FUCKING POST anywhere on the site where Mike says "dont pay for anything."
Time to put your money where your mouth is. PROVE it. If you cant, you have NOTHING to say of value. Shilling, lying, and fabricating statements never made here (werent YOU the one always whining like a little baby that people keep "putting words" in your mouth and making up things you never said?) are NOT valid arguments, no matter how many times you spew your garbage here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
"If you are not willing to take responsibility for your speech, not accept what it does to others (especially when it ir untrue), then you haven't earned it."
On the other hand, most of what TAM says is not true. He's a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
Ah good. So you really DONT have anything relevant or valid to say. Good. You are now proven out as a worthless shill. Now that everyone knows, we can dismiss your hypocritical, lying, deceitful distortions as nothing more than rantings of a corporate shill sellout who advocates fascism and sacrificing the average consumer at the altar of the big corporation, no matter the means or methods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: PSTD TAM
Maybe it is time to create a new handle and try a new method/outlook on things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: PSTD TAM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: PSTD TAM
I get it, TAM is hired by the pharmaceutical corporations to drive everyone nuts so they all take psychiatric medication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PSTD TAM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STOP POSTING
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
Show me ONE FUCKING POST anywhere on the site where Mike says "dont pay for anything."
Actually, my words are "didn't have to pay for the products I resold".
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091217/0334237405.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/ar ticles/20091215/0941527364.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090519/1127454934.shtml
"T o be honest, I'm still not sure why it makes sense that Google has to pay anything for this"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090707/1657295475.shtml
"The idea that webcasters/broadcasters should need to pay artists for the right to promote them to fans just seems bizarre and borderline incomprehensible in the first place. "
I could go on. But I think that shows very conclusively that Mike thinks that many of the web2.0 and other "new business models" should be based on not paying for the material you use.
So in the end, the only garbage being spewed here is coming from you, a guy who is attached to Mike's ass like stink on shit, and yet you don't seem to remember his very basic words.
Now, you can be a man and apologize for being wrong, or you can continue to be an asshole, call me all sorts of names, and continue to lie about my point of view. Which one will it be? Man or mouse? It's up to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
So no, nobody owes you an apology. And your attempt to accuse others of all your favourite tactics is just desperate and pathetic. I would call you the mouse, but I don't think that poorly of mice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
What about the OK go story? He says they should allow anyone to use their stuff for free, and they should be happy for the promotion.
I still wait for the apology from RealDense, who pretty much blew it this time.
Perhaps you might want to get on his case for using profanity instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TAM FAIL again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TAM FAIL again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fail Hard 2: The TAMHOLE Directive: The Movie
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091217/0334237405.shtml"
Discusses the VALUE OF FREE in promotion. Nowhere does it advocate "take what you want and resold" it.
"http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091215/0941527364.shtml"
Again, discusses the VALUE of these free options as PROMOTION. Susan Boyle sold MORE albums BECAUSE her stuff was on youtube FOR FREE.
"http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090519/1127454934.shtml"
Same argument. WHERE in these does Mike say "take what you want from anyone without regard"? I must have missed that in all his posts.
"To be honest, I'm still not sure why it makes sense that Google has to pay anything for this
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090707/1657295475.shtml
The idea that webcasters/broadcasters should need to pay artists for the right to promote them to fans just seems bizarre and borderline incomprehensible in the first place."
What is radio? Isnt it all about FREE MUSIC, and that PROMOTES the songs/artists? Sorry, I missed where radio was a for-pay medium where people were expected to pay BOTH WAYS for. Show me this.
"I could go on. But I think that shows very conclusively that Mike thinks that many of the web2.0 and other "new business models" should be based on not paying for the material you use."
Um, no, it doesnt. You are projecting your bias onto every article and claiming things not there.
"So in the end, the only garbage being spewed here is coming from you, a guy who is attached to Mike's ass like stink on shit, and yet you don't seem to remember his very basic words."
Read the other comments here. Its not just me that thinks you are wrong.
"Now, you can be a man and apologize for being wrong, or you can continue to be an asshole, call me all sorts of names, and continue to lie about my point of view. Which one will it be? Man or mouse? It's up to you."
Well, 2 things with this:
1) I put a similar edict to you recently and your response was "I dont HAVE TO do anything, I'm an adult and I can choose what I want" or something similar. So, using your own idea on this, I dont HAVE to do any such thing.
2) There is nothing to apologize for since a) I wasnt wrong and b) you failed to prove I was SO wrong as to need to apologize, as evidenced by the MANY MANY comments against you in this matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fail Hard 2: The TAMHOLE Directive: The Movie
No, what you said was "YOU MUST ANSWER THIS". I don't have to answer any of your questions. You cannot order me to do anything. I am just saying you need to either apologize, or continue to be an asshole. You aren't order to do anything.
That alone proves you can't even understand simple things.
2) There is nothing to apologize for since a) I wasnt wrong and b) you failed to prove I was SO wrong as to need to apologize, as evidenced by the MANY MANY comments against you in this matter.
in your opinion, and your opinion, in my opinion, is wrong.
Mike goes on and on about the value of free promotion, and how nobody should complain, they shouldn't bitch when they material is used for free, and plenty of good business models have been ruined because copyright holders actually expected to get paid.
I don't know what blog you have been reading, but then again, when you can't even seem to understand the difference between an order and a choice, I guess I can't expect you to understand anything else.
So sorry RealDense, but for all your long post, you still failed massively, and made yourself look even denser by posting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fail Hard 2: The TAMHOLE Directive: The Movie
No, what you said was "YOU MUST ANSWER THIS". I don't have to answer any of your questions. You cannot order me to do anything. I am just saying you need to either apologize, or continue to be an asshole. You aren't order to do anything."
No, what I said was "YOU MUST ANSWER THIS, or be proven a lying shill" or similar. Your edict was exactly the same, in principle. Once again, you focus on semantics and grammar over the PRINCIPLE of the argument. In principle, my refusal is an echo of yours. I'd rather be an asshole than an unprincipled lying fascist scumbag.
"That alone proves you can't even understand simple things."
No, it just proves you will twist any argument so YOU come out looking best, even when you completely sacrifice principles and truth to do it.
"2) There is nothing to apologize for since a) I wasnt wrong and b) you failed to prove I was SO wrong as to need to apologize, as evidenced by the MANY MANY comments against you in this matter.
in your opinion, and your opinion, in my opinion, is wrong.
Mike goes on and on about the value of free promotion, and how nobody should complain, they shouldn't bitch when they material is used for free, and plenty of good business models have been ruined because copyright holders actually expected to get paid.
I don't know what blog you have been reading, but then again, when you can't even seem to understand the difference between an order and a choice, I guess I can't expect you to understand anything else."
So, you can roll out "its my OPINION" anytime you want in the middle of a discussion and wave your hand and then its all right? Ok. Then, if this is all just opinion (YOUR OWN WORDS) then there is nothing to apologize for.
Oh can I have the address of your Granmama? I got a coathanger to send to her. In my OPINION, she missed a great opportunity to better the world, and there should be a memento of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fail Hard 2: The TAMHOLE Directive: The Movie
You are working really hard, but in the end, you are just a liar.
Sorry RealDense, you got caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fail Hard 2: The TAMHOLE Directive: The Movie
You are working really hard, but in the end, you are just a liar.
Sorry RealDense, you got caught."
Um....parroting my own accusation back at me isnt the same thing as "catching" me.
Reasoned debate is not your strong suit. You may want to consider other career options.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fail Hard 2: The TAMHOLE Directive: The Movie
Seriously, if you aren't on meds, you might consider a doctor visit to get some, because you are really losing it.
You got caught lying, you got caught changing my words, and you are just making stuff up. Whatever little credibility you had is all gone.
RealDense, you just suck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fail Hard 2: The TAMHOLE Directive: The Movie
No, that was you.
"you got caught changing my words,"
No that was you either altering them after the fact, or denying you said the things you did, in fact, say.
" and you are just making stuff up."
Nope. You were the one that cast all this into "opinion" so that absolves me JUST as it absolves you when you use that excuse.
" Whatever little credibility you had is all gone."
Nope, thats you again.
"RealDense, you just suck."
Better to suck than be a hypocritical fascist lying shill scumbag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fail Hard 2: The TAMHOLE Directive: The Movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fail Hard 2: The TAMHOLE Directive: The Movie
A hell of a lot less than you, thats for sure. I only post under RD (as I have pointed out to you MANY MANY times, as Mike has VERIFIED), though there was a post earlier that I forgot to put in on, its pretty obvious which AC post that was.
Why dont you answer the same question? Oh thats right, you have already been caught out using sock puppets, multiple accounts, and posting as multiple people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fail Hard 2: The TAMHOLE Directive: The Movie
I suspect you post much more than anyone would let on.
heck, Mike has said I posted as a bunch of different people that I didn't post as, so I don't particularly trust Mike about that sort of thing. He has accused me of comments I never made.
I notice another poster who is busy attacking me personally but isn't very good with the "reply to this comment" button, sure looks like your style there RealDense.
Oh yeah, all this is a good way to deflect away from the simple issue: You made up stuff I didn't say, you lied. Congrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fail Hard 2: The TAMHOLE Directive: The Movie
And this
I suspect you post much more than anyone would let on.
heck, Mike has said I posted as a bunch of different people that I didn't post as, so I don't particularly trust Mike about that sort of thing. He has accused me of comments I never made.
I notice another poster who is busy attacking me personally but isn't very good with the "reply to this comment" button, sure looks like your style there RealDense.
"Oh yeah, all this is a good way to deflect away from the simple issue: You made up stuff I didn't say, you lied. Congrats."
A) you do it all the time. b) no, I didnt. Thats what YOU do. You cant just reverse every argument and go "no I didnt but YOU did!" at every turn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fail Hard 2: The TAMHOLE Directive: The Movie Take 2
"if you have done it once, you have done it before."
Thats the stupidest comment I've ever heard. "if you breathed once you've done it before" DUH!
"I suspect you post much more than anyone would let on."
Nope, not even a little bit. Never sock-puppeted or posted as anyone else. Aside from the accidental "AC" (where I hit submit and forgot to put in "RD") I post as me. I dont have TIME to sock puppet and create alternate posts like you do.
"heck, Mike has said I posted as a bunch of different people that I didn't post as, so I don't particularly trust Mike about that sort of thing. He has accused me of comments I never made."
But you did. Everyone knows this. There is ample evidence.
"I notice another poster who is busy attacking me personally but isn't very good with the "reply to this comment" button, sure looks like your style there RealDense."
Maybe I'm just influential? Maybe people agree with me (or Mike) because they agree with me? I dunno, but those others arent me. Not even the pseudo-RD's that sometimes post similar comments to mine (or even opposing) but arent me.
"Oh yeah, all this is a good way to deflect away from the simple issue: You made up stuff I didn't say, you lied. Congrats."
A) you do it all the time. Both deflecting and lying. ALL the time. b) no, I didnt. Thats what YOU do. You cant just reverse every argument and go "no I didnt but YOU did!" at every turn. Thats childish, and most of us left that idiocy behind in GRADE SCHOOL. At least, I havent had to deal with a whiny little bitch as bad as you since 6th grade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fail Hard 2: The TAMHOLE Directive: The Movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fail Hard 2: The TAMHOLE Directive: The Movie
True TAM trolling technique.
(try saying that 10 times fast :p)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091217/0334237405.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articl es/20091215/0941527364.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090519/1127454934.shtml
Oh, I see, you're talking about Google and Youtube.
Your actual words were "don't pay for anything." So you're saying that Google and Youtube "don't pay for anything", eh? No salaries, no bandwidth, no facilities, no equipment, etc. It's all free to them! Man, you are one crazy liar.
Now, you can be a man and apologize for being wrong, or you can continue to be an asshole, call me all sorts of names, and continue to lie about my point of view. Which one will it be? Man or mouse? It's up to you.
That's what he should be telling you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
That's right, they don't pay for their content.
They pay for other things, but it is on par with paying rent on a store. There is a huge difference between paying the rent and paying for the products you use in your business.
Nice try, but fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
TAM: That's right,
You realize everyone who reads this can see what a liar you are, don't you?
TAM: they don't pay for their content.
That either, huh? Well, "content" isn't everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
In fact, ever since I learned that I pretty much stopped watching music videos on youtube.
But TAM will continue to tell lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
Their business model was to not pay for any of the product they used. That business model failed, and they had to change it.
As you can see from Mike's story about Olympic Videos being removed from YouTube, they are much more respectful of owners rights now then they were when the started, but you can still see that their business model is take anything, and only deal with complaints.
Sorry if you think my point of view is a lie, because history says otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
Just because YouTube isn't directly paying for the content, doesn't mean they just take the work of others and exploit it. They are offering am excellent, free, and highly accessible distribution platform for all sorts of content. Just because the content producers can't leverage that doesn't mean YouTube is evil. It means they have an open forum that some people abuse. Just like a park where someone sells weed. Don't sue the city, arrest the kid.
And, they project profitability this year. So you may be proven wrong in the near future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
So now you admit to being a liar. What you said was
"That's right, they don't pay for their content."
now you are saying the reverse. You say things that you and everyone knows are false. You're a liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
RE: Google paying for content.
"They do now, only under force, and didn't want to at all. Youtube was started without any intention of paying any royalties on anything, and they went through many variations of not wanting to pay."
What part of being completely wrong are you unable to register? You have a notable disconnect with fact and reality. You say Google doesn't pay ANYTHING, then someone points out HR costs, you say, "But that's like rent on a store, the content is still pilfered. [sidestep]" Then someone points out that Goog in fact DOES pay for youtube content, and you say "Yeah, but only recently and under force. [sidestep]"
Your crippled dancing and sidesteps don't remotely obfuscate the obvious: You got pointed out as completely wrong.
Your argument is like you said "The US is a country without any constitution, Bill of Rights, or democracy!" Then, after you are proven wrong, you respond: "It's only just recently, and because the founders forced it." OK, so what? You're still 180 degrees wrong, a moron, and/or a full of BS.
Put me in the camp that thinks you are: a shill, one who forms illogical arguments, mentally weak, and not a credit to your side in these debates. I think we respond to you because it frustrates us when someone takes it on the chin so often, but is just too punch-drunk to even realize it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
You said "anything".
Nice try, but fail.
Indeed, you did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
Here TAM, let me help you, I see that the Alzheimer is acting up. You just said:
"don't pay for content, don't pay for use, basically, don't pay for anything"
If ya don't believe me, I have a hint for you: there's a key in your keyboard that reads "Page Up". Just look for your first post in this thread, and you can read what you said.
If you think that you were somehow hacked and someone else posted in your name, it's probably just the multiple personality disorder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My right to privacy trumps your fight on piracy. True story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Transparency
> have to pay for the products I resold.
Why don't we address the fact that this is the result of yet another secret meeting to which the public is barred from participation and to which only those representing one side of the issue are permitted to attend-- all while the politicians openly lie about transparency and openness and how everyone has a seat at the table.
Whenever this issue comes up, it's interesting how you avoid addressing it like the plague.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uhh, if you didn't them in the first place then you aren't "reselling" them. You don't seem to know much about business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you didn't buy them in the first place then you aren't "reselling" them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pretty well describes how Disney started. The majority of their early animated movies were based on material in the public domain (aka content you don't have to pay for).
Or how one of the reasons movie studios moved out west was to avoid paying Edison royalties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Vincent, in all of your examples, you are forgetting important little nuggets that change everything.
public domain is public domain - anyone can use it. Disney didn't just use the public domain, they created new works, wrote new material, created new animations, etc. They certainly didn't get any of that for free.
For newspapers, the news event itself is just something that happens. The newspapers must write the stories (or pay for the newswire they get it from), pay for the images, the staff, the printing, the layout people, etc. The newspaper doesn't get "FREE" news, they take something that is in the public domain as a source for a product they pay to create.
Even a newspaper with no paid staff (volunteers) still pays in time and effort to create something. Nobody has the absolute rights to a news story (otherwise it isn't news, it is just an event), and there is no reason to pay anyone for anything. Some news organizations choose to pay for special interviews, but effectively they are paying for TIME, not the news.
It's a pretty basic concept you need to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So in two years, I can make an animated Avatar but replace all the characters with cute little forest creatures?
And no one will sue me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously - any way to block these from being displayed? They just make me angry!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We *all* know TAM is a congenitally-dishonest little worm who's gleefully admitted to spamming Techdirt with an indeterminate number of BOTH registered and un-registered ID's, as well as fraudulently impersonating others ID's/nicknames, and attempting to justify such conduct by saying it's perfectly fine, because "they don't log in."
Personally, I've become bored treating the sad little shit-stain the way It so richly deserves, and don't even bother to read it's drivel anymore. (My personal "point of no return" was It's failed attempts to justify "clawing" *anything* back from the Public Domain -- FOR ANY REASON, much less, in response to a fillibuster.
Just scroll past the idiotic little shit-stain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. Multiple sock-puppet accounts
2. Relentless taunting of Masnick, both about the content of his articles *and* about the aforementioned sock-puppetry?
3. Repeated tendency to be *first* to reply to an article, even when It's only to regurgitate RIAA talking-points.
4. Freely admits to fraudulently posting as other users, simply because they "don't log in".
5. Has actually used the phrase "just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is right" --- while acting as an (unpaid) shill for the multinational corporate megaliths who are busily turning IP "law" into the basis for digital feudalism.
Sometimes, "harshness" is justified. If the whiny little bitch can't deal with a truthful assessment of It's (total lack of) character -- as evidenced by It's OWN ADMITTED CONDUCT -- then It can simply cease posting here. One less (unpaid) corporate shilll/troll/jerkoff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How do you think that'll work out for you in the long run, there, Ayn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Better?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Goverments need to be contained to self government smaller the better
Monopolies need to be praised its a rare thing for a company to actually have no competitors in any market.
Copyrights is double speak for a "no" right to copy.
Notice I didn't use one "Ould" there as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Step 1, don't pay for content, don't pay for use, basically, don't pay for anything.
Damn, I could have plenty of good business models if I didn't have to pay for the products I resold."
What you fail to understand is that even if there are no new business models, even if the industry is dying and nothing is going to take it's place forever, it STILL isn't kosher for a private industry to be able to buy influence from public officials like this.
I know it happens all of the time, and that the RIAA is far from being the biggest leach on the public coffer (that would be ADM), but it still makes me sick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well maybe but I would give that honor to Monsanto.
It was really Monsanto that first got me interested
in the stupidity that is modern patent law.
"Monsanto sued the Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator in Pilot Grove, Missouri, claiming that offering seed cleaning services to farmers was tantamount to inducing them to pirate Monsanto seeds. The Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator had been cleaning seeds for decades before companies such as Monsanto could patent organisms."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is an assumption being made in this article that this "task force" has as a part of its charter the use of DOJ resources for matters consisting of civil infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Considering that the difference between what is considered civil infringement and criminal infringement has blurred so much, I'm not entirely sure this matters. When the Justice Department is investigating and arresting people for uploading movies and music for totally non-commercial reasons, it seems like something is not right, and their only purpose is protecting business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am aware of no such arrests and prosecutions, so I would be very interested to learn the source giving rise to this comment.
The line between civil and criminal infringement is hardly blurred, and I believe you are mistaken in so stating. 17 USC 506 sets clear boundaries for acts deemed criminal in nature, and prosecutions under this section are exceedingly rare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just because a law exists, does not mean it is followed. If everyone followed every law and every rule, then none of this would ever be an issue.
But, then enters Human nature. Human nature basically negates boundaries and laws since most humans could give a shit less about a law that prevents them from getting what they want.
This is especially true for the 'entitled' in government. How often do you hear about police being arrested for shoplifting, or government officials abusing the power of their office to commit adultery (which is still a crime in most, if not all, states).
I drive through the city all the time and get yelled at for not stopping to let someone cross when there is no cross walk. They yell about stopping for pedestrians. I shout back that it does not apply to jay-walkers. They usually roll their eyes and say whatever, and still attempt to pass in front of me as I slam on the gas. Good thing for me I hit one and a cop was there to ticket them and then send them to the hospital. He wrote a report and stated that I had the right of way and did not need to stop, and that I was well within my rights to continue forward. I went to the hearing for the guy and he actually got a year in jail. The judge ruled that he was also defrauding his insurance company by filing claims under false pretenses.
Again... just because there is a law/rule/code does not mean it will be followed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090315/2152094127.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/arti cles/20091216/1206097388.shtml
Both cases non commercial uploads of movies and music, which the feds investigated and arrested.
Apologize?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shouldn't the DOJ
To the DOJ, "piracy" as defined by the **AA is far more a threat to americans than any foreign terorist organization.
After all, how much did American Citizens contribute compared to the corporations? Not much.
Probably an excellent time for the drug dealers - they know the DOJ is more concerned about people downloading than people selling drugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: shouldn't the DOJ
The DOJ is becoming more of a threat to most Americans than foreign terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pffft
(Also, MC Frontalot has a new album dropping soon. You all need to buy it. Just so you know.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Orwell strikes again
Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Change we can believe in.
For about an unfettered decade the intent of privacy law has been demeaned to conceal rampant illegal online activity of all kinds, and rights holders have struggled trying to protect their rightful intellectual property ownership within the context of old, outdated law and profoundly falling revenue from a customer base who once purchased in analog and now infringes in digital.
Industry must adapt to shifts in product format, true, but no business should be forced to adapt to a relatively new form and entirely new scale of digital theft, "theft" being the term used by the Justice Department and courts and governments the world over.
Mike's readers inhabit the leading radical fringe of belief that digital rights holders must simply surrender their work to this free for all, and relinquish a price-for-value marketplace no less fair but more difficult to enforce in the digital domain. I disagree.
Moreover, the sensible majority still sees no valid reason why a new format should destroy price because mere copies are virtually free, ignoring the real world costs associated with creating one of the finest catalogs of entertainment the world has ever known. That entire belief system is based within hypocrisy.
Digital product won't be "free" forever just because current conditions facilitate infringement. Obama and his Justice department have been on the job only a year with several other crucial initiatives and yet he's still getting this done. Criminal convictions and online accountability grow daily now, and a civilized society relies upon accountability. The digital world can be no different.
I have mixed feelings about Obama but for rights holders, this is a long-awaited, long overdue "change we can believe in."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change we can believe in.
Q: Should people have to pay for digital content?
A: YES!!!
Now comes the problem. Where to set the price point? The music and movie industries want that price to be the same as it has always been and that just isn't realistic.
The web is just too difficult for the RIAA / MPAA to grasp. It's been stated here several times that the price for one song is just way too high. The better business model would be one that capitalizes on an extremely high volume of micropayments.
I've personally thought about paying for music online and its the price point that always makes the decision for me. Why pay $1 for some thing I can download for free? I know the argument comes back that its illegal. Just like travelling over the speed limit is illegal, but if all traffic is moving over
the speed limit, no one gets stopped. Maybe if the price was set to something like $.10 or $.05 it would be so low that a majority of people would use such a service and avoid Limewire and other P2P apps just because the price point is low enough to override the risk of penalties for illegal downloading.
This is all about value. Music is no longer scarce nor valuable as record execs would like to believe.
I think it's at this point that I should remind all the people that believe that the Music and Movie industries are being victimized, that previous changes in format have always benefitted those industries. Did they offer their loyal customers a discount on content that had already been purchased? If I owned vinyl and needed to buy a cassette and then a CD, shouldn't I have only needed to pay a small fee for the materials, since I had already purchased the content? Did anyone even bother to ask or try that business model?
The digital age is removing barriers to recording music and making movies and opening new avenues of distribution, in addition to making "piracy" so easy.
Whether you like Mike's posts or not, you have to recognize that technology has advanced to the point that the old business models are not viable. That doesn't mean that piracy will win, but it does mean that someone will innovate a business model that will cripple the current leaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Change we can believe in.
If the price is too high don't pay it. But the price being too high isn't a license to just take a copy anyway. Live without the product because you don't value it enough to pay the price they want you to pay.
This is all about value. Music is no longer scarce nor valuable as record execs would like to believe.
new quality music is very scarce, even if replicating it after the fact is not. In the end, you aren't paying for the copy (that isn't the big end of the deal) you are paying for the original, new, and very scarce good music. without great music, you would be making copies of nothing.
After all, you value the music, not the plastic disc or the ones and zeros.
If I owned vinyl and needed to buy a cassette and then a CD, shouldn't I have only needed to pay a small fee for the materials, since I had already purchased the content? Did anyone even bother to ask or try that business model?
There are DRM style systems out there that allow you to do that, but most of the "FREE MUSIC!" types hate drm and don't want to get involved. It is really too bad, because it wouldn't be that hard for you to own a single copy and move it from device to device. All the rights holders want to do is make sure that you have one copy active at a time.
People are so busy pooping on DRM that they forget that it is very likely to route to what they really want to start with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Change we can believe in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Change we can believe in.
I agree, and as near as I can tell, the majority of the people who post and comment here do as well. So I'm not sure of the point you're making.
"new quality music is very scarce,"
I strongly disagree. I find that new quality music is more common and available now than ever in my 45 year memory. Most of it isn't coming from the mainstream labels, of course (quality is becoming a rare thing amongst them), but it exists in quantity nonetheless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Change we can believe in.
"There are DRM style systems out there that allow you to do that,"
There are? Please, please point them out because I've never seen a single example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Change we can believe in.
TAM: There are DRM style systems out there that allow you to do that
Show me the DRM system that does that or I'm calling you liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Change we can believe in.
There are DRM style systems out there that allow you to do that"
Nope, this is a LIE to try to discredit any other arguments. You know DAMN WELL there is NO DRM system for music that allows interoperability. The entire POINT of DRM is to NOT allow this sort of thing. And no, you cant point to some out-of-the way, super-obscure DRM that some tiny label uses, because that only proves its POSSIBLE (which it is, easily, they just REFUSE to allow it - remember, its about CONTROL) and not the lie you are trying to perpetuate, that its somehow "common" and that "pirates" are just being "lazy and want everything free." Such a system currently DOES NOT EXIST among ANY of the major online music vendors. Period. This is a LIE.
Once again, you are caught fabricating and trying to mislead through deceit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Change we can believe in.
Actually, he can't point to such an obscure DRM because event hat doesn't exist. Because...
", because that only proves its POSSIBLE (which it is, easily, they just REFUSE to allow it - remember, its about CONTROL)"
No, it's not possible, at least not without replacing all existing means of playing media with something that is rigidly controlled and whose nature is dictated by some higher authority (government or industry, either way is the same.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Change we can believe in.
Asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Change we can believe in.
A: YES!!!
Q: How much did you pay for the digital content here on Techdirt?
A: Nothing, I'm a hypocrite!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change we can believe in.
Well, I guess I'm in a mood to feed the trolls today...
Obama campaigned to promote an open internet; to encourage diversity of media ownership; to safeguard the right to privacy; and to open up IP departments (e.g. patent offices) to the public. All of the examples you just blockquoted are 100% in the opposite direction. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/index_campaign.phpWhere he does come down on the side of the RIAA and MPAA is on counterfeiting. But counterfeiting is completely different than filesharing, and conflating the two is disingenuous and insulting.
Privacy laws have been around for a lot longer than an "unfettered decade," whatever that is. The "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" argument has been around for centuries, and there's a reason it's considered an excuse for totalitarianism. Nobody has a "right" to intellectual property, because IP is not really "property." Ideas belongs to everyone equally, and it is the IP owners who are denying "ownership." The only reason IP laws exist is to provide an incentive to produce works, for the exclusive purpose of growing the public domain. That incentive is given by the public, and may be taken away by the public; it is not a "right" like free speech is a "right."This is not just my opinion; it is the opinion of Thomas Jefferson, the former patent officer who wrote the Constitutional article that you are demeaning.
It's not a matter of being "forced" to adapt. As far as I know, nobody in government has ever arrested copyright holders for not adapting enough. You can adapt, and maybe succeed; or you can not adapt, and likely fail.Every technological innovation (VCR's, cassettes, radio, etc) has been viewed by copyright conglomerates as a "relatively new form and entirely new scale" of "theft." Until they realized that this "theft" is really just another opportunity for promotion or profit.
If government officials are using the word "theft" (and many aren't), they're using it wrong.
Nice straw man you've built there, buddy. All Mike's ever done is point out that the market has changed, so "price-for-value" has changed as well.But let's turn this around: You're defending the notion that the government must take away the public's rights, at the behest of a financial cabal, to defend "rights" that cabal didn't have in the first place. Who, exactly, is inhabiting a "radical fringe of belief?"
Completely ignoring that the fact that for decades, the majority of people got their music and TV for free, and the MPAA and RIAA still made obscene profits. Or that the "real world costs" are shouldered (in the case of music) by the artists, not the copyright holders. Or that these costs are decreasing exponentially because of technology. Or that despite your worries, more "entertainment" is being produced now than ever in the history of mankind. (I won't comment on "quality," since that's a separate argument - but if you really did value quality, you probably wouldn't call it mere "entertainment.")I don't think the majority actually believes what you think. But perhaps they're just not "sensible" to you.
Well, the entire purpose of the Internet is to facilitate the free exchange of data in a decentralized manner. So these "conditions" will be current until we get rid of the Internet. That's not going to happen soon, and do you really think it should? If there is one thing I agree with you about, it's that you can't pin this all on Obama. Mostly it's Biden (he has a long history of being anti-democracy in regards to technology). But this is one issue where Democrats and Republicans are both in the back pockets of rich but outdated corporations.[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Change we can believe in.
History of copyright? "Sam" simply ignores it.
Original justification for copyright: "Sam" just mumbles some nonsense about how "civil libertarians" (IE. those who actually give a shit about stuff like privacy, the Public domain, etc.) are ruining "the free and open network we all share" (and which "Sam" is supposedly, busily trying to lobby out of existence -- if his jabberings about how "Lammy" (the British culture minister) are to be believed.
So don't waste the time. "Sam" has been debated -- and successfully refuted -- on more blogs and sites than I can be bothered to count. The truly sad part is that he comes back for more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Change we can believe in.
Just part of the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Change we can believe in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music And Film Industry Association of America™
here it is at long last...
FUCK the MPAA..
Fuck the IRAA..
Long Live the Pirate ship!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Country Of, By and For the Corporations
Now that the Supreme Court is allowing corporate contributions, I hope that our elected official will wear corporate sponsorship logos on their clothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Country Of, By and For the Corporations
They get no police powers, they cannot arrest anyone, they cannot do anything of the sort. They have to use the copyright law and the powers of civil litigation to try to get anything done. It isn't very simple.
That the Obama administration is seeing that weakness in the IP area is a real long term issue for the US, and could really hurt investment and as a result innovation, leaves them no choice but to get involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A Country Of, By and For the Corporations
If copyright actually lasted a reasonable amount of time but it doesn't so who cares about copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A Country Of, By and For the Corporations
They get no police powers, they cannot arrest anyone, they cannot do anything of the sort. They have to use the copyright law and the powers of civil litigation to try to get anything done. It isn't very simple."
Oh, so in other words, they have to FOLLOW THE LAW. And you see this as a PROBLEM? Now you are showing your true colors: Pro-Big-Media, Pro-Fascism, Anti-consumer, Anti-public good, Anti-copyright bargain, Anti-Due Process, Anti-Rules of evidence, Anti-equality under the law, Anti-burden of proof, Anti-fair use, Anti-public domain.
Its almost like you are Anti everything or something!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A Country Of, By and For the Corporations
Well, TAM is a fan of the Chinese government. What do you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A Country Of, By and For the Corporations
Imagine if the government would do that for everyone (not just copyright holders): we would need the civil court system any more! If you thought someone owed you for something, you could just turn them into the police! No need to file any pesky lawsuits or any of that silliness. And if it turned out you were wrong (wink, wink) then they could just let them back out of jail (until they were accused again). Yeah, that sounds like a great system!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having read all of the preceeding comments is seems to be that most posting comments apppear too believe that this is the case.
Mr. Masnick, I await your response clarifying what were your assumptions when you prepared this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music And Film Industry Association of America™
here it is at long last...
FUCK the MPAA..
Fuck the IRAA..
Long Live the Pirate ship!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music And Film Industry Association of America™
here it is at long last...
FUCK the MPAA..
Fuck the IRAA..
Long Live the Pirate ship!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Origin of the Justice Dept.
Hey, it was an emergency. Nazis bad. Nazis with hydrogen bomb very bad.
The problem is that these emergency actions have become the norm -- as has the power of the President of the United States. What is what remains of the Manhattan Project's apparatus, i.e., who is in charge of briefing the President now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fat chance for fairness
Filming Star Wars was my idea
Stories,characters,speeches & concepts (as The Force, The Jedi, The Code) A Few Good Men, Aladdin, Alexander, American Beauty, American President, Apocalypse Now, Apocalypto, Armageddon, AustinPowers, Avatar, The Aviator, Back to the Future, Bandits, Batman, Beautiful Mind, Benjamin Button, Big Fish, Bourne Identity (my handprint), Braveheart, A Bronx Tale, Bruce Almighty, Cast Away, Catch Me if You Can, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Chronicles of Narnia, City of Angels, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Da Vinci Code, The Day After Tomorrow, Deep Impact, Elf, Enemy of the State, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Finding Nemo, Forrest Gump, Galaxy Quest, Gattaca, Gladiator, Green Mile, Good Will Hunting, Hellboy, Hook, Independence Day, I Robot, The Island, Jaws (styrofoam cup bit), Journey to the Center of the Earth, Juno, Lemony Snicket, LOR, Lost in Translation, The Mask, The Matrix, Meet the Parents, The Mexican, Minority Report, Munich, Mystic River, Mystic Pizza, National Treasure, Never Been Kissed, Night at the Museum, Passion of the Christ, The Patriot, Pirates of the Caribbean, Princess Frog, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Remember the Titans, Road to Perdition, Runaway Bride, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Shawshank Redeption, Shrek, Signs, The Simpsons Movie, 6thSense ,Sleepy Hollow ,Something About Mary, Space Cowboys, Spiderman, The Terminal, 300, Titanic, Troy, Truman Show, V for Vendetta, Vanilla Sky, The Village, Wag the Dog, War of the Worlds, Wedding Crashers, What Women Want, What Lies Beneath, Wild Wild West. Morning Edition, Simpsons, The Visitor, Touched by an Angel, Bones, Justice, House, Lost, Numbers, Kings, Fringe
3 ways to stop hurricanes, artificial gills, room temperature protein superconductor, effective artificial heart, artificial kidney, repair of CNS lesions.
Coined "Inclusive" and "Inclusive Democracy" from math term.
Proposed Deadbeat Dad Laws.
Proposed mecamylamine drug trials ($100-200 million/yr to USF, Tampa)
Proposed LightsOnTampa! Floating Riverwalk, WaterTaxi, Crosstown Xway bridge to StPete w/rail link&airport for MacDillAFB.
Developed pheromone cure for crime, addiction & perversion.
Proposed GA's HOPE ScholarshipProgram (Florida's BrightFutures).
Poems for DeadPoetsSociety (&sax solo), lyrics for "Light&Day" Spotless Mind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Change we can believe in
You said “Nobody has a "right" to intellectual property, because IP is not really "property." Ideas belongs to everyone equally.”
First, it’s true that ideas belong to everyone and they should. The “idea” to make music recordings or a car is not subject to copyright or patent protection and I do not argue that they should be. You can make your music and your version of a car the moment you wish, and take your chances in the marketplace. But an exact replica of an existing car? Or an exact copy of a music cd? Those are not “idea’s”, Karl, those are protectable product’s, and it was the US Constitutions INTENT to provide for their protection, specifically as a RIGHT. Your statement “nobody as a right to IP” is simply factually and historically wrong.
Art 2 Sec 8 says “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”
As far back as in the Federalist, James Madison said “Rewarding authors for their creative labor and “promot[ing] … Progress” are thus complementary; in copyright “[t]he public good fully coincides … with the claims of individuals.” The Federalist No. 43, p. 272”
And as recently as 2003, Justice Ginsburg, joined by six other members of the Supreme Court, said in footnote 18 of Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) about this very subject:
“the reward to the author as “a secondary consideration” of copyright law understates the relationship between such rewards and the “Progress of Science.” in fact, “[t]he economic philosophy behind the [Copyright] [C]lause … is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors.”
Karl, “Limited times” is a worthy discussion, whether it be 2 weeks, 200 years or forever minus a day, all are clearly “limited.” But “the exclusive right” are the words they chose to use, it’s not debatable, it’s not described as a mercantile privilege but rather and very specifically as a “right.” Contrast that with the fact that there is no unalienable RIGHT to freedom or privacy anywhere in the constitution, indeed, these are suspendible privileges, were they genuine rights incarceration wouldn't be constitutional. And today we (the law and the courts) regard software writings and book and music writings (and so on) under the same canopy as “writings and discoveries.” And that interpretation, I think, is correct. So you just have this wrong.
You also said “the majority of people got their music and TV for free” and this is such an intellectual dishonestly it damages your own credibility here. The “price for value” exchange is codified in attention and time to advertising and no more needs to be said except that you’ll have to do better than this.
Finally, you said “the entire purpose of the Internet is to facilitate the free exchange of data in a decentralized manner” and that’s true but to a point. It’s all subject to the law, right? As in all civilized societies, that’s all within legal restriction. Who would argue that the highway system, for instance, shouldn’t be subject to regulation? Where’s the sense that laws protect rights and products in the real world but those same laws shouldn’t apply to digital products? The formats change but the principles never do. There’s no difference to the creator or the end result between filesharing and counterfeiting; in both cases unlawful copies are made, unlawful distribution occurs and you get something you wanted without paying correctly for it. That’s EXACTLY why the ACTA is worded as it is. In practical terms, there is no difference.
The situation is this, Karl, copyright exists, it is a fundamental feature of the constitution. Judges and legislators exist to uphold the law and aid in the faithful execution of the letter and the intent of the constitution. It is their sworn duty to pass laws and enact rulings to protect copyright. If you own the copyright you may distribute in any manner you choose for any price you choose, but those rights are exclusively your own and legislators are bound by law to defend those rights. You are free NOT to purchase if you dislike the content, the manner of distribution, or the price. You are not free to pilfer it for your own use.
To assume that there will be some reversal of these protections granted to authors merely because some internet kids grew up with a sense of entitlement to the works of others without paying is contrary to reason, precedent, and common sense. And on a global basis, these same concepts are codified in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948, ARTICLE 27... Section (2) “Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests (emphasis mine) resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.”
Learn the law, Karl, live under it properly or take your chances with your civil disobedience as law enforcement on the internet inevitably grows to meet these legal challenges. Or work to change the laws you don’t believe in. But mostly, just learn your history and get your facts straight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: Change we can believe in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change we can believe in
You're welcome, and we'll see.
Well, according to Jefferson, those are in fact ideas. If we were to follow his line of thought, then I would have an absolute right to make an exact replica of an existing car. That right is (in theory) temporarily traded for the sake of the public good. Think of it this way: copyright is theft from the public domain. We tolerate that theft to encourage the production of more works. THAT is the U.S. Constitution's INTENT.
If your quotes proved anything, they would just prove that judges in the meantime have disagreed with that intent. But if you read them carefully, they do not. "X is the best method to promote Y" is not the same as "X is a right." It's closer to saying "Y is a right." Here, X = copyrights, Y = public domain.
That's why copyrights originally expired after 14 years (which I think is more than fair), whereas the other Constitutional rights do not expire at all. Incidentally, I find it very interesting that copyrights now last much longer than patents or trademarks, despite the fact that copyrights steal from the public domain and the others mostly do not.
Also, not to be a grammar Nazi, but you really should learn the difference between "ideas" and "idea's."
You're kidding, right? Since we're throwing quotes around, here's a couple:
By your line of reasoning, there are no rights anywhere in the Constitution, because they can all be taken away by incarceration.
Radio and television transmit copyrighted material to users who do not pay money for it. Advertising is a business model to monetize what they are "giving away" for free. It is not a "price" because there is no obligation to pay attention to ads - if you turn off your radio or TV while they're on, you still won't be "stealing" anything.
I'm just pointing out that users getting content free of charge is not incompatible with massive profits for content creators. If anyone is being dishonest, it would be someone who claims that listening to the radio is "stealing." And yes, before content creators figured out this leads to more profits, they were making exactly that claim. Just as you are now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Change we can believe in
Even if such a problem exists, it's not a moral problem. No one is forcing you to release something to the public and when you do so you have no inherit right to control what they do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Change we can believe in
But it's MY problem - not the government's. If people are pirating my music and not buying it, then I'm the one who needs to change my tune.
In any case, there's no conclusive evidence that non-commercial peer-to-peer filesharing hurts profits, and no evidence whatsoever that shutting it down will get people to buy anything.
Not that the big-media lobbyists care. When Congress recently earmarked $30 million to fight "piracy," they used "Operation Holiday Hoax" (an anti-COUNTERFEITING sting) as a success story. Yet of that $30 million, $20 million of it was budgeted to fight filesharing.
That's right: they are spending twice as much money to arrest torrent users than they are to fight actual counterfeiting.
(From The Register: US Congress earmarks $30m for anti-piracy fight)
It's bait-and-switch stuff like this that makes me angry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Change we can believe in
See, "Sam" is some kind of fashion-designer/lighting guy (I've never quite figured out which -- wouldn't even give a shit except for the fact that he had a tantrum over on p2pnet about how he and I are both from Pennsylvania, but he "made it out of there", or some elitist bullshit. This was also during various exchanges where he couldn't resist taking pissy little pot-shots at my wife, my cats, his presumption that the only reason I give a shit about copyright reform is because I'm some sort of un-creative boob. (Or, "shop-lifting pottymouth" -- which is also why I tend to insert the phrase "two liquidy shits" into anything directed anywhere near him).
Anyway, in among his maudlin tantrum, was a bunch of crap about how, even though he wholeheartedly supported anything and everything the RIAA and other corporate lobbying organizations did, he was "no friend" of them, because every time he wanted to use music in his fashion-shows, they would "extort" him for the privilege.
Well, any halfway honest or sane person would realize that a drastically shorter Copyright term would put more current music out of reach of the RIAA, providing "Sam" a larger pool of "cultural content", which they wouldn't be able to "extort him", whenever he used it.
Unfortunately, as I've learned from repeatedly having the same discussion with "Sam" (and watching *others* on various sites debunk his jabbering repeatedly), "Sam" is neither honest *or* sane.
Great refutations, by the way -- too bad that -- as always -- they were wasted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Change we can believe in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Persuasive Pitfalls
Inappropriate tone: Writing in a manner that offends the very readers you are trying to convince.
Overgeneralization: Making absolute or almost absolute statements about a topic instead of using supported figures with citation.
Loaded language: Using emotionally charged language to label persons or situations negatively.
Hasty conclusion: Basing a conclusion on very limited experience or data; thus causing doubt in the reader.
Red Herring (AKA Chewbacca Defense): Diverging from topic or diverting attention from the real issue.
Ad hominem: Attacking a person instead of their position on an issue being debated.
Circular reasoning: An argument which assumes what is to be proven has already been proven.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (doubtful cause): mistaking correlation for causation.
Non sequitur (irrelevant proof): A line of reasoning which produces a conclusion that is not the logical result of the premise.
False analogy: Assuming without proof that if two or more things are similar in one way, they are similar in other ways.
Either/Or: Falsely restricting solutions to either/or when other solutions can or do exist.
Ad populum (Bandwagon): An argument whose basis of proof is a popular majority.
And there you have it. Logic! It's great but please remember don't let friends drink and derive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Persuasive Pitfalls
So, in other words, virtually all the arguments put forth by the labels, *IAA's, and copyright maximalists. Because your list reads just like a recap of the very methods they have been employing for the past few decades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyrights Should be Protected
My concern is that the government is not that silly as to provide free police and legal resources to corporate oligarchies. This may be a cover for more government infringement of privacy under the guise protecting American capitalism from evil doers (mostly teenagers with more time than money). Even scarier, what if the government IS that silly as to provide free police and legal resources to corporate oligarchies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyrights Should be Protected
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyrights Should be Protected
Who said anything about prates and terrorists? I want to able to send an email and not have it read, with no warrant or probable cause, by a technician at Verizon, two people at the NSA, and a local Homeland Security goon squad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyrights Should be Protected
As an example of this trend take a look at regional DVD restrictions and copying legally acquired music and copying it from one device to another. Each time there is a technological advancement, the strong copyright crowd claims infringement and tries to criminalize those activities.
When you buy content, you have bought the right to use that content. So I would claim that calls by the strong copyright crowd for so-called "protection" is really a form extortion. They are "stealing" from me by denying me my use of the content that I bought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyrights Should be Protected
The major concern is that the "protect the starving artist from the giant international pirate-mafia-terrorist-nazi-commie-taliban conspiracy" rants by the MPAA and governments are being used to remove whatever rights to privacy we have remaining after September 11th made us so numb we agreed to anything.
Now that those idiots in the supreme court have ruled to allow corporations to spend unlimited funds in support of politicians you're going to see the laws being dictated by Sony and Universal using all of those record profits that are mysteriously unaffected by the claimed "billions" of bit torrents they rant about destroying their ability to pay the rent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyrights Should be Protected
The *Public Domain* is the only thing in need of "protection". Copyright monopolies are, at absolute most charitable assessment, a "neccesary evil" (and even *that* is debatable.)
If any of those basic truths "offends" any monopolist or fellow-traveler, then ultimately, that's just too goddamn bad.
Personally, I find runaway IP "law" bought by corporate lobbyists, via extremely-secretive "treaties" to be really, REALLY "offensive".
But hey, ultimately, we *deserve* the sort of legal system we permit, runaway corporate misconduct included.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now for a serious question
It's almost as if like they all have a love for adopting retarded babies and somehow it's America's problem that their baby is retarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Nothing New
==========
The alcoholic beverage insdustry got the exact same thing when the DEA was formed. So what's your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]