Censorship vs. Copyright

from the they're-totally-different! dept

Tue, Jun 7th 2011 1:45pm — Nina Paley

What distinguishes
Copyright from Censorship?
The profit motive.

There’s one more day to back the Mimi & Eunice’s Intellectual Pooperty minibook project! The above comic won’t be in it, alas, since I just drew it yesterday and the book is already at the printer. But there will be 40 other fine selections from the IP category, in full color.

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: censorship, copyright, free speech

79 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:56pm

blabla notartist
blablablabla unfunny
Blabla Nina sucks bad
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:49pm

Re: Hey!
What a hurtful thing to say!
She may suck good for all you know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:51pm

Re:
blahblah your all thieves.
blahblah let them eat cake.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian Schroth (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:54pm

sorry everyone
I patented haiku form
pay me royalties
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Publius (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 1:56pm

I gotta say that there is more nuance to censorship than the comic implies: Censorship is more than mere motive, it also has to do with who has the power, which is why me telling someone to shut it because I don't like their opinion is different than when a city council does it.

And as an earlier story today portrays nicely, copyright has certainly been used as a means to try to quiet legitimate speech on a private, civil level.

Then again, these are editorial cartoons. I should really just relax.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 7 Jun 2011 @ 2:04pm

Re:
It seems as if you
Are experiencing some
Butthurt, bro. U MAD?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 7 Jun 2011 @ 2:05pm

Re:
Censorship is more than mere motive, it also has to do with who has the power

I see your point. I think she nails it, though. Copyright censorship is more than someone telling you to 'shut it'. Copyright censorship is 'shut it' backed by the power of the state.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 2:15pm

Re:
Should have copyrighted the form like me. You owe me 6000% of what ever money you make off your patent as emotional distress , plus defamation, plus dilution. Meh i will make it easy, just give me eternal control of you for how ever I see fit, and I will lop 10% off your total debt to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FUDbuster (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 2:49pm

Censorship attempts to limit the dissemination of ideas, while copyright attempts to promote it. Big difference. And do you really think that those who practice actual censorship aren't motivated by personal profit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 2:50pm

Re:
Wait, so copyright exists to promote censorship? Finally it makes sense!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chargone (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 2:52pm

Re:
...

"...while copyright attempts to promote it."

... what planet are YOU living on?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 7 Jun 2011 @ 2:53pm

Re:
"Censorship attempts to limit the dissemination of ideas, while copyright attempts to promote it...and STILL manages to limit it."
Fixed that for ya.

"And do you really think that those who practice actual censorship aren't motivated by personal profit?"

Woh, dude, I think you just discovered irony. Now how can we make some MONEY off it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 2:54pm

Funny comic. I'm curious about something else that just popped into my head. I know that if a certain number of people watch a movie or something it is considered a public viewing and could interfere with copyright law. Does the same hold true for music? If somone plays their car stero really loud so that a lot of people can here it, is that CR infringment? What if you are doing that and charging people to hang out and drink beer or something?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian, 7 Jun 2011 @ 3:07pm

Re:
"...while copyright attempts to promote it"

I wish I could mark this as funny more than once.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 3:14pm

Re:
The performance rights groups in the U.S. have lobbied to declare cellphone ringtones as public performances. In the UK, they have demanded payment from a woman who had a radio in her stable for the horses, and a grocery store employee who sang songs while stocking the shelves.

So while I'm not sure if the car thing has come up yet, it's not at all crazy. In fact it's much less crazy than some of the things they have done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 3:47pm

Re:
copyright troll go away :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 3:52pm

Re: Re:
Silly Dave, you should know by now; the corporations write the laws and the government enforces them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FUDbuster (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 3:53pm

Re: Re:
This planet. I take it you disagree. Can you explain to me how copyright blocks the spread of ideas?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 3:54pm

Re: Re:
Just refresh your browser and mark it again? (If you're using firefox, make sure you do a ctrl+shift+R).

Here, I'll mark it as funny for you to help you out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FUDbuster (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 3:54pm

Re: Re:
Same question to you. How does copyright block the spread of ideas?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 7 Jun 2011 @ 3:55pm

Re: Re: Re:
DMCA takedowns on videos that have a legitimate fair use defense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 3:57pm

Re: Re:
That is what I was thinking; it's much less crazy to go after people that have their stereo turned up to 11 and their license plate rattling to the bass. However, imagine the uproar from all the gangsters, want-to-be (not phonetically spelled) gangsters and other bone heads if some cop/politician told them that playing their music was infringing. Ha. It's easier to go after nerds or housewives that usually don't have guns and/or aggressive attitudes.

In fact, politicians, regulators, police and big business have a similar MO than that of the gangsters. Pick on easy targets that are weak, stupid, alone, discriminated against, na�ve or compromised and exploit the shit out of them. That way people either fall into line with what you are trying to do (not let anyone else sell drugs in your hood without giving you a cut/ not let anyone play music or other media without giving you a cut � ensuring your profit) or you play hard ball (come at them with all you guns and homies/ throw all your lawyers and law enforcement at them � making them wish they had ensured your profit). The age old business model has never disappeared thanks to� profit motive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 4:56pm

Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't, not to mention that fair use ameliorates that which many decry as a 1st Amendment concern.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 5:42pm

Who pays Nina Paley's rent again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 6:07pm

This would be a funny post if it wasn't for the fact that TechDirt is doing their own censorship of people today. Considering that I have to keep having my posts 'cleared' by the 'staff' on this website (and for the past week or so, none of them have appeared).......
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich, 7 Jun 2011 @ 6:16pm

Re:
Ah, Fudpacker is spouting his bullshit again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich, 7 Jun 2011 @ 6:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Booyah! And Fudpacker takes it on the chin!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 6:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
DMCA takedowns on videos that aren't even 'owned' by the DMCA takedown requester, but instead are intended to censor the videos opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DandonTRJ (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 8:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair use is a last resort, an affirmative defense you don't get to rely on until you get dragged into court. If someone doesn't have the resources to risk going to court at all, they will choose not to speak rather than rely on a court determination of fair use. Thus, copyright will have chilled speech, fair use not withstanding. Not really the greatest safety valve if Promoting the Progress is copyright's chief goal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 7 Jun 2011 @ 8:04pm

Re: Re: Re:
Silly AC, who doesn't know that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DandonTRJ (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 8:06pm

Re:
Yes, potentially. One of the 17 USC 106 rights is to control the public performance of a copyrighted work in any place open to the public or where a substantial number of people outside the normal friend/family circle are gathered. This goes for whether you are charging people or not. Though curiously enough, sound recordings have no general public performance right -- only when they're performed via digital transmission [i.e. internet streaming]. So by blasting your car stereo really loud, you'd only be liable [if at all] to the publishers who own the song compositions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 7 Jun 2011 @ 8:08pm

Re: Re: Re:
"Your logic does not resemble our earth logic."

-Buffy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 7 Jun 2011 @ 8:15pm

Re: Re: Re:
Same question to you. How does copyright block the spread of ideas?

How does a system designed to limit the distribution of ideas to only those authorized to spread them and the constant use of legal action targeted to stop other people from spreading them block the spread ideas? Gee. The question practically answers itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 7 Jun 2011 @ 8:29pm

Re:
You're dumb. I guess your implication is that no one is going to give money for something that is freely given away. Or you could just click the link.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 9:09pm

Re:
Who pays Nina Paley's rent again?

Nina Paley?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 9:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't, not to mention that fair use ameliorates that which many decry as a 1st Amendment concern.

If that were true, we wouldn't have stories on copyright being used to censor people nearly every day, would we?

I mean just today we had two separate stories on that.

So, yes, it does. And no, fair use does not ameliorate the problem.

I mean are you so in denial as to pretend that what we see happening is not happening?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 9:13pm

Re: Re:
I doubt it. I can't imagine this stuff generating any real income.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
disfit (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 10:01pm

An example (Was: Re: Re: Re:)
I can give you one that is actually hampering me virtually daily (virtually because I am less bothered by it in the weekend).

(Peer reviewed) scientific journals. I have a couple of personal subscriptions in which I now and again find papers or articles that are of interest to my colleagues (for the record I work in Law Enforcement, amongst other areas covering the fight against malware).

The copyright of the papers and articles in question is either held by the publisher (the authors and peer reviewers do not get paid and only have boasting rights .. it's an honor you know) or is in some cases held by the author.

If it is held by the publisher, there is an easy way to get permission: pay. Unfortunately this would mean that I would have to pay hundreds of dollars in order to share a particular paper with my colleagues (+/- 20 people). Monthly I will find about 10 papers that are of interest to our work, either directly or indirectly. I would be out more money than I make if I would use the pay-for-the-right-to-copy. I can hear you think: well, let the organization pay. Government budgets around the world are (rightfully) scrutinized and personally I would not be happy with my organization spending money for about 120 scientific papers per year instead of two feet on the ground.

If the copyright is held by the author I used to ask for permission. My experience has given me a somewhat mottled view. Sometimes I hear nothing back, leaving me in limbo. Sometimes I receive permission with the remark "But of course, please do". And on occasion I have received permission after many weeks or months with comments like "Sorry for responding so late, I am busy you know". In the latter case it would often no longer be relevant, and kept a busy person from important work.

Of course I could spent my time writing a blog or synopsis where I highlight the important aspects. But doing so I would not be able to put my time into catching criminals (okay, presumed criminals). Apart from that there is an inherit danger of filtered knowledge: people read and process the same text differently and discussing the different viewpoints actually increases the understanding of all. Just giving my take on the text diminishes the preferred outcome.

So when I fully adhere (and I am not saying I do not) to the existing copyright laws & regulations, I either have to convince my organization to let an officer go and have me spent time on getting permissions, or just shrug and keep us (and with that you) in a worse position to take down malware and the people who write, distribute and profit from it.

Which of the two do you prefer? Or do you have a third option? (And let me be clear: raising taxes to pay for an officer and copyright is theoretically an option, but not a valid one).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:23pm

Re: Re:
Sory, got that out of the way first. Beat all the other crazy folks to it. I like doing that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prisoner 201, 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
[cut to a hung-over captain Jack Sparrow]

But... how does copyright block the spread of ideas?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:27pm

Re: Re: Re:
Dude, you're talking less sense than a foetus on smack and crack.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prisoner 201, 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:27pm

Re: Re: Re:
My condolences for your lack of imagination.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greevar (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 12:07am

My ideas.
I had ideas
I could not use them freely
Copyright had me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2011 @ 12:13am

There are people who
Censor due to copyright
I call them spoiled brats
[ link to this | view in thread ]
darryl, 8 Jun 2011 @ 3:17am

I guess truth, and accuracy gives way to "trying" to be 'funny'.
"Silencing you because I don't like what you say is CENSORSHIP"

Nina or Mike, I wonder if you know that you CANOT censor me if you do not like what I say, (yes, Mike I know you can censor this web site) but that statement is a complete and utter LIE..

If I do not like what you say, how can I (or ANYONE) use censorship to silence me ? YOU CAN't

Im am sure even Mike would be able to understand that you cannot use censorship to silence someone saying something you do not like !!!..

Perhaps Nina or Mike, you would like to explain to us how someone can go about using censorship in that way? (or how YOU would be able to do that?)

"Silencing you because I can make more maney that way is COPYRIGHT"

Again,,, YA THINK !!!! ?????

So Nina or Mike, plese explain how I could use copyright to silence you?
Because I do not like what you are saying ?

Do I automatically own the copyright to everything you say? and If I can find a way of making more money than you, gives me copyright rights to WHAT????..

Oh thats right, NOTHING... If you do not own the copyright you cannot silence me to make more money or because you do not like what I say..

THEY'RE TOTALLY DIFFERENT

THEY'RE TOTALLY WRONG

THE PROFIT MOTIVE MAKES IT OK

Nothing makes comments or stupid comics like this OK !!!

Really Nina, you really do have to get out a bit more or something.

Because you're grip on reality is quite tenious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
darryl, 8 Jun 2011 @ 3:36am

Re: An example (Was: Re: Re: Re:)
why dont you just read the papers, learn what they are talking about, then offer you're services to your clients as your own conglomerate of expertise, and knowledge of your subject of specialisation.

You're clients do not need to read the papers, that is YOUR JOB.

If your level of expertise is the scour the web for possible information that will help your clients, then just providing that info directly to them, (without YOU inbetween as a filter/interpreter).

Then really, what point is there for you in doing ANYTHING ???

As an electronics engineer, if someone asked me to design something, and I just searched the web for something "almost like" what they want.

Then I would NEVER EVER get any work, my clients would drop me like a bomb.

They expect ME to do the research, to find the information and to present that information to my clients in a clear and consice and informative manner.

If I ever forwared them something I found 'off the net' or the result of someone elses 'paper'.

They would think I am an idiot and incompetent.

If I have to purchase data sheets on components that are copyright there is NO way that I would consider that I needed to purchase that information for my clients as well.

No, I buy the data sheets, and I design the system, then when I invoice them for MY work, I include the price of the components, and my time.

those components would include the actual physical component and the data sheets and any other copyrighted material that I had to purchase.

The client does not get the copyright to those data sheets, neither do it, therefore I cannot copy that information and provide it to my clients.

Everyone in the 'loop' understand this process, they know that when they ask me to design something, I will NOT require them to "train" me on how to do my job.

They will NOT expect to pay for any text books, or for my past years of study, they hired me because they understood that I have allready gone to the expese of studying and buying the material I need.

If someone asked me to design and build a radio transmitter and I came back to them with "Sure, but you are going to have to teach me how to do it, or pay for me to learn how to do that"..

They would say "on second thought, we'll get someone else"..

It all boils down to "what are YOU doing for your clients?"

If you just pick the eye's out of others work and 'pass it on to you're clients' with no 'value adding' then I would expect you not maintain that position for any decent period of time, or if you do, you are a good con artist.

Either way, its a bit sad to think that is how most people think that is how they have to work.

that if you cannot use other peoples stuff for free, you cannot do anything creative yourself, independently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darryl, 8 Jun 2011 @ 3:50am

Re: An example (Was: Re: Re: Re:)
Which of the two do you prefer? Or do you have a third option? (And let me be clear: raising taxes to pay for an officer and copyright is theoretically an option, but not a valid one).

Yes...

(Darryl to client)...

" I read this really interesting scientific paper last week, it was called Principia Mathematica by this guy called Isaac Newton.

I read it, and understood it, and I feel that some of the techniques and idea's presented in it can be applied to OUR work!"

"Ive read it, and using the idea of an integral and 'the limit' can be applied to anti-malware techniques."

(YOUR CLIENT, BOSS).

Great, will it cost us anything.

(Darryl)

"No, you do not have to read the paper if you do not want too, and you do not have to purchase it either, or even understand it,,, thats MY JOB, after all you employed ME as the expert, im just doing my job, which includes knowing my job, and knowing and keeping up with advancements in science and technology, THAT IS WHY YOU PAY ME, VERY WELL!!!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian Schroth (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 6:05am

Re: Re: Re:
Blocking the spread of ideas is the explicit purpose of copyright. If it doesn't block ideas, it doesn't do anything.

If a person tries to disseminate an expression of an idea that is protected by copyright, that is infringement. The person, not wanting to pay $150,000, chooses not to disseminate the idea. Copyright has thus blocked the spread of the idea.

How is this difficult to understand? It's the whole point of copyright: To give you a monopoly on spreading your idea, as incentive for you to come up with it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 6:09am

Re: Re: An example (Was: Re: Re: Re:)
And again, you miss the point. These are relevant to the poster's field, and would cost the equivalent of a fifth of a field agent's salary, just to get two relevant articles a week.

The Web and the Undernet are some of the best possible places to acquire malware information, so that it can be combatted out in the field.

Technical engineering != software engineering.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 6:13am

Re: I guess truth, and accuracy gives way to "trying" to be 'funny'.
Bogus DMCA takedowns
ICE seizures of websites for "copyright infringement"

Look at the following two sentences you posted:

"Silencing you because I don't like what you say is CENSORSHIP"
"Silencing you because I can make more maney that way is COPYRIGHT"

Posting someone else's expression is an expression, meaning that you are trying to say something. DMCA takedowns are legalised censorship, plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dcee (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 6:28am

Re: Re: An example (Was: Re: Re: Re:)
Again as noted above, you missed the point, well, more than one point:

1. He works with the government.
2. He wans his colleges to read the papers, not to found an agency, try to get hired by the government to get the job he's already doing at a lower cost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDR, 8 Jun 2011 @ 6:30am

Fudblower: It blocks it by locking them up for over a century (all thanks to the entertainment industry). Do I really need to go any further than that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2011 @ 7:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
DMCA takedowns on videos that have a legitimate fair use defense.

That's blocking an expression, not an idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FUDbuster (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 7:46am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
How does a system designed to limit the distribution of ideas to only those authorized to spread them and the constant use of legal action targeted to stop other people from spreading them block the spread ideas? Gee. The question practically answers itself.

The system limits the dissemination of expression, not ideas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FUDbuster (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 7:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Blocking the spread of ideas is the explicit purpose of copyright. If it doesn't block ideas, it doesn't do anything.

I thought the purpose was to promote the progress by granting a limited monopoly to the author/artist. And more importantly, I think you're confusing the idea with the expression.

If a person tries to disseminate an expression of an idea that is protected by copyright, that is infringement. The person, not wanting to pay $150,000, chooses not to disseminate the idea. Copyright has thus blocked the spread of the idea.

Nothing stops you from disseminating the idea.

How is this difficult to understand? It's the whole point of copyright: To give you a monopoly on spreading your idea, as incentive for you to come up with it!

The monopoly is on the expression, not the idea. No wonder you guys hate copyright so much. You don't appear to understand it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FUDbuster (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 7:49am

Re: Re:
Rather than call me names and insult me, why don't you explain how I'm wrong?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FUDbuster (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 7:51am

Re:
Who pays Nina Paley's rent again?

Why do you care who pays her rent? That's none of your business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FUDbuster (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 7:52am

Re:
It locks up expressions, but not ideas. Do you guys not really understand the difference?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2011 @ 8:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is problems (and even then only a very, very few) that make the news. After all, how newsworthy are items that do not run into a problem?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FUDbuster (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 8:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right. Pointing out a few people who might be abusing copyright law doesn't mean much if the bulk of the time there are no such problems.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 9:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But if you do nothing with the information, which is avidence that there is a problem, then how can you progress?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 9:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about fines well out of proportion to actual, provable harm? Is that not a valid concern in your world?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 9:38am

Re: Re:
Expression is speech, therfore it blocks speech. I don't know how much simpler I can make it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 9:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A few?

Righthaven, the entire domain seizure problem, the MPAA's hard stance on copyright enforcement, and the entirety of chillingeffects.com, are a *FEW* problems?

Really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bill Benzon, 8 Jun 2011 @ 11:19am

Re: RIAA & MPAA=MAFIAA
No. That is grossly oversimplifying. Copyright doesn't restrict expressions of speech any more than anti-assault laws restrict expressions of violence.

Copyright only affects very narrow realms of expression of speech, particularly those that originated from another individual. Even then, you can simply take the original author's idea and express that very same idea in your own words. Copyright can't touch that (well, ideally, that is. I won't deny that the laws have been abused, but that's the nature of any system, and can be addressed).

Anti-assault laws don't restrict expressions of violence in totality, only very narrow instances where that expression actually impacts another person. And even then, not totally; boxing, wrestling, karate, and many video games are perfectly legal expressions of violence.

So copyright only restricts speech in the same way that the law says a person is not legally protected from yelling "Fire!" for no reason in a crowded theater. It has to do with the way that expression affects third parties. Yelling "Fire!" for no reason in an empty theater is perfectly OK.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 1:59pm

Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps it's because you'll react like this:

As I've said before, this makes you a fool.

[...] Your music, like your legal analysis, are [sic] the definition of cacophony.

You quite simply are one of the biggest fools that I've ever had the displeasure of meeting in my 20+ years on the internet.

[...] Ah, techdirt. Normally one would have to be in maximum security lockup to meet such wonderful creatures.

Go ahead and get the last word. I won't even bother reading it. I wash my hands of your idiocy.

In case you can't remember: I was arguing that Righthaven is not any kind of legal copyright owner. After you called me a "fool," all their cases in Colorado were put on hold... for exactly that reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg, 8 Jun 2011 @ 3:05pm

Re:
The answer, sadly, is yep.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg, 8 Jun 2011 @ 3:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your position presupposes that the limited monopoly is the only way to promote progress. That's been accepted as gospel ("If musicians don't get paid, they won't make music!") but payment is only one reason people engage in the "useful arts." And, for that matter, it's probably the worst reason, since the vast majority of useful artists make little or nothing for their efforts....and still continue to make things.

On idea vs. expression, you're right, but that only gets you so far. The above is where you fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg, 8 Jun 2011 @ 3:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Service!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg, 8 Jun 2011 @ 3:13pm

Re:
This one did, and that's enough for me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg, 8 Jun 2011 @ 3:14pm

Re: I guess truth, and accuracy gives way to "trying" to be 'funny'.
Dude, you are dangerously unhinged. I have no idea what you could possibly be saying in the above.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg, 8 Jun 2011 @ 3:17pm

Re: Re: RIAA & MPAA=MAFIAA
I think, mate that the abuse you allude to in your parenthetical is exactly what every comment in this thread is about. Don'tcha think? Is that maybe why you tried to hide it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
McBeese, 8 Jun 2011 @ 3:58pm

Worst so far...
This is the worst cartoon I've seen from Nina Paley so far, clearly demonstrating her inability � or unwillingness � to grasp the real issue.

People aren't being silenced from expressing their own work, which would be censorship. People are being prevented from distributing others' work when it's against the rights holder's wishes. Nina can distribute her own material as much as she wants. If she starts to distribute someone else's work � reducing scarcity without permission � they have a right to shut her down.

Same applies to books, music, and movies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
McBeese, 8 Jun 2011 @ 3:59pm

Worst so far...
This is the worst cartoon I've seen from Nina Paley so far, clearly demonstrating her inability � or unwillingness � to grasp the real issue.

People aren't being silenced from expressing their own work, which would be censorship. People are being prevented from distributing others' work when it's against the rights holder's wishes. Nina can distribute her own material as much as she wants. If she starts to distribute someone else's work � reducing scarcity without permission � they have a right to shut her down.

Same applies to books, music, and movies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xebikr (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 6:49pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You might think that, if you believed that copyright wasn't completely broken. However, people get sued for the ideas all the time. Like this.

I really think you are relying on semantics. The idea/expression dichotomy expressed in copyright law means ideas in a totally abstract way. The censorship of copyright is applied to ideas that have been expressed.

The system limits the dissemination of the expression of ideas. Tell me that's wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xebikr (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 6:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Better example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchwald_v._Paramount
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 8 Jun 2011 @ 7:34pm

Re: Worst so far...
If she starts to distribute someone else's work � reducing scarcity without permission � they have a right to shut her down.

Curious. What "scarcity" was reduced when "Coming Through The Rye" was released? That's a banned book.

That's censorship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff Rife, 10 Jun 2011 @ 10:34am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, what you're saying is that if the government said that you couldn't express your idea using television, radio, newspapers, or the Internet, that wouldn't be censorship because it's only blocking the expression, not the idea?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 12 Jun 2011 @ 1:06am

Re: Worst so far...
So no one can make fan art based on Mickey Mouse.

Or post up video game materials...

Or put up a 5 minute video of their favorite movie.

Or post commentary of their favorite song.

And you have yet to answer the "Coming through the Rye" question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]