Online Technology Entrepreneurship Class At Stanford Postponed... Because Of Copyright

from the first-lesson:-fix-copyright dept

Fri, Feb 24th 2012 9:51am — Mike Masnick

The Constitutional clause often referred to as the Copyright Clause involves granting the power to Congress:

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.

Many people get confused and don't realize that the "Science" part was really about copyright (not the "useful arts.") And, by "science" they really meant "learning." In fact, the very first US Copyright law, in 1790, was entitled:

An ACT for the Encouragement of Learning

So you would think that the use of copyright law to block the encouragement of learning would be unconstitutional. Unfortunately, it happens all the time. Jon sent over the news that the online Technology Entrepreneurship class he'd been looking forward to taking from Stanford University has apparently been postponed due to copyright issues. According to the classes' professor, Chuck Eesley:

Unfortunately, the launch of my Technology Entrepreneurship online course has been placed on hold, due to delays surrounding copyright and intellectual property clearance issues. We are working on this and I anticipate providing you with an update within the next few months.

In an age where there's lots of support and interest in online education, to find out that copyright law, of all things, is being used to block education seems like a complete travesty.

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, culture, education, entrepreneurship, learning, stanford university

100 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

bob, 24 Feb 2012 @ 9:55am

It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
He is such a 1% whiner. It's easy to give a cool lecture with fancy slides and great material if you don't have to pay the people who take the photos, write the words and build the extra material you hand out. If he's a business school professor, he could be pulling down a fat 1%'s salary.

Once again, this site takes the side of the billionaire and the 1%ers, creating astroturfing to encourage the 99% to give up their rights. If you don't let the 1% plunder your hard work, you're not "sharing". Such clever tripe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 9:57am

Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
I know right! They could have easily used material in the public domain, pre-1923, to teach people about technology. This site is so stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kathy (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:02am

I don't understand - aren't educational and teaching purposes exempt under copyright?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PlagueSD (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:13am

We all know the Government and Corporations are against education. Why would we want smart citizens that know their rights??? Keep everyone dumb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:14am

Re:
I don't understand - aren't educational and teaching purposes exempt under copyright?

Sadly, no. It's part of a Fair Use defense - but not an automatic exemption. And the copyright cartels have been pushing universities for years, indoctrinating them and their students to the idea that every single use of anything has to be paid for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:14am

Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
I suspect you are right Bob.

The problem here is that people expect to get a pass on almost every use of copyright material, without consideration at all.

I love that there is absolutely no indication of the material this guy was trying to use. Was he trying to use Hollywood movies to spice up his presentation?

Come on Mike, how about actually asking a question rather than rushing off to damn copyright holders. Maybe this guy's presentations aren't exactly straight forward.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:16am

Re: Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
Yes you are correct. People would learn so much by seeing educational material created before the world went copyright crazy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:16am

Re:
Should be. No student should be required to pay for any book (ie: they should be allowed to freely copy books) and teachers should be free to do anything with any book. Copyright is not about protecting or promoting anything except for the pockets of some greedy morons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:19am

Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
Before we get too deep into this debate, it's worth pointing out that it's not yet clear which direction the copyright issues are running. It could be issues to do with clearing course material - but it could also be internal issues with Stanford, who may have an issue with a plan to post all of the lectures and materials on YouTube. I suspect the problem might lie there, in university contracts to do with the copyright on lectures. But no way to know for sure right now, it seems.

I'd suggest reserving judgement until more information emerges.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:19am

Re: Re:
"indoctrinating them and their students to the idea that every single use of anything has to be paid for."

Not paid for, you git - just authorized. There is no requirement for payment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
big bob, 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:21am

Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
We can't have Big Content without Big Copyright everywhere you go! Big Media just wouldn't allow it! My Big Blindness won't let me see what's really out there, just the Big Myth that I want to see. So I come up with Big Bull to spew here 'cause I'm a sucker for Big Money and Big Government and anything else that's Big! It's gotta be Big, Big, Big! Reality? Who needs it when you've got Big Delusion? And who's best at providing Big Delusion? Big Hollywood, of course! My favorite Big Masters! I just can't get enough of the word Big! Big! Big! Big! Big! Nevermind that I don't have any evidence to support a thing I say. Big Deal! Nobody's Big enough to matter except those I shill for. Big! Big! Big! Big! Big!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:28am

Re: Re: Re:
Authorized use in education. Forbidden knowledge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:31am

Re: Re: Re:
You're either being disingenuous or ignorant. The copyright holders want to get paid. It is their raison d'�tre. "Authorized" is a code word for "properly licensed with full payment received."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kenichi tanaka, 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:32am

This is what our educational system is coming to. Soon, you're going to see parents and college students being forced to pay a copyright or license fee in order to take any class.

Can you imagine? Having to pay a license fee in order to take Algebra or Molecular Chemistry?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Logician, 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:35am

Re: Re: Re:
It is the very permission culture you promote that is the core of the problem. Knowledge does not require permission. It simply is. And with the ease of spreading information with today's technology, permission culture is both unworkable and obsolete. All it has accomplished is to create a tangled, bureaucratic knot out of culture.

One should not need to obtain half a dozen (usually very expensive) licenses to use a part of human culture. They should just be able to use it. And digital technology makes it possible to do so. It is only those still clinging to the old system and who fear change who still wish to place tollbooths on as many pieces of culture (and multiple tollbooths per piece, whenever possible) as they can. There is a word for such behavior, and it is called greed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:36am

Re: Re: Re:
Not paid for, you git - just authorized. There is no requirement for payment.

Nevertheless, what they are usually asking for is payment deals where the students or schools or both pay levees for the use of copyrighted material.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:36am

Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
What does the income level of the instructor have to do with the fact that students of whatever income-level who want to learn are being prevented from doing so because greedy corporations want to milk a turnip for blood?

"Mike quoted a possible, but unconfirmed 1 percenter about a topic unrelated to income disparity! He must be a 1% apologist! It's blatantly obvious!"

Tell me, are your corporate overlords not also 1 percenters? Why do they get a free pass from your ire if you're such an occupy protester? Keep mowing that astroturf.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:40am

Re:
Damn it, Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī's descendants are starving in the street and all you care about is "learning" and "knowledge" and "advancement of the species". Where is your morality man?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:41am

Re:
Fortunately, there is a movement in the higher educational field concerning the release of Creative Commons-licensed text material for core subjects. It's just a matter of the movement maturing and getting adopted by more institutions and not getting absurdly sued out of existence by gatekeeping copyright holders in the textbook publishing industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lorpius Prime (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:43am

Re:
Lab fees, library fees, the cost of textbooks for every class, not to mention original tuition itself. Yeah, I can imagine that really easily.

I'll tell you though, the really horrifying moment will be when universities start charging their alumni license fees for every time they use the knowledge they learned in classes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daniel, 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:45am

copyright
nowadays the internet is so stuffed that is hard to figure out what things are copyrighted and what not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, in the case of educational uses, it could be nothing more than clearly stating the source (and perhaps providing a website link) or otherwise highlighting the source. It may require that certain things (say like a logo or trademark phrase) are not used, or something similar.

They may also not want to get used as part of the presentation - using a company's copyrighted material in a way to negatively portrays that company to students would likely not get authorized.

Thinking that it is only about payment is a real failing to understand reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:48am

Re: Re:
Yes, and the people who make text books should work for free, and not expect to get paid for their efforts.

It's for a good cause, after all.

Say, are you volunteering for a life of writing textbooks? There is no pay, but you get a nice warm feeling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:55am

Re: Re: Re: $
Yep, 'cause nobody ever does anything without being paid to do so.

Hell, I don't even breathe in the morning until somebody hands me a dollar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thinking that it is not only about payment is a real failing to understand reality.

FTFY!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thinking that it is only about payment is a real failing to understand reality.

...and trying to downplay the fact that it is mostly about payment is a transparent attempt to distort the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 11:01am

Re: Re: Re:
In a world with Khan Academy and Open Text Book, it's just silly to claim that nobody would find a way to fund the creation and distribution of educational materials.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 11:01am

Re: Re: Re:
If you're writing text books to make money...well you got another thing coming.

You'd be better off developing a can't lose real estate method and selling it via infomercials and seminars.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 11:02am

"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."

The constitution specifically states these rights are being secured for authors and inventors. Thus, once the author or inventor is dead, to continue copyright on their works is unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kenichi tanaka, 24 Feb 2012 @ 11:04am

Someone actually said it might have something to do with "source" or "logos"? Don't bet your last dollar on that. This is all about money. Since the copyright lobby is so busy squeezing everybody for every bit of knowledge that is out there, they are only doing this for the money.

I'm shocked that the copyright industry and their lobbyists haven't been charged with Fraud and Racketeering because this sounds like a violation of the RICO statute.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 11:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Marcus, you git. In a commercial world, almost everything is about payment. However, in the educational world, it is likely much more about perception, how much of a copyright work is used, and things like that - rather than any monetary issue.

As always I could say the sky is blue, and you would contradict me just to make a point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 11:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
If there is a financial transaction, it would be silly for a copyright holder to be locked out of that transaction. Many schools are "for profit" or are raking in money:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2007/12/31/daily10.html

It's a bit out of date, but it seems Standford is making some money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 11:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see that "git" is the new one. Interesting choice. I didn't realize I was being trolled by a grizzled cockney chimneysweep.

As always I could say the sky is blue, and you would contradict me just to make a point.

Seeing as how I made my point first, and you showed up to contradict me, that's a really weird accusation. Anyway, do you actually have anything to say other than what you believe to be "likely"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 11:16am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If there is a financial transaction, it would be silly for a copyright holder to be locked out of that transaction.

Well, yes, in your world where the sole purpose of copyright is to ensure that content creators are constantly collecting money for everything, that would be silly. But that's not the sole, or even primary, purpose of copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 11:19am

Re: Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
and i'm proud to be an american, where i have no liberty

and i won't forget the men who died, who took this right from me

and i'd proudly stand up next to them to defend my s-afe-ty

cause there aint no doubt i love this land

god bless the *aa
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 11:26am

Re: Re: Re:
Well, considering it cost me �150 for three paper to hire for quoting in a 3000-word essay for my Psych program, the peer-reviewed journals seemed to require LOTS of payment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 11:28am

Re:
You'd think that, wouldn't you?

However, US law begs to differ, through the Sonny-Bono Extension Act and DMCA, as well as TRiPS and ACTA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 11:29am

Re: Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
He's no occupier.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prisoner 201, 24 Feb 2012 @ 11:38am

Re: Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
+1 internets to you sir!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDR, 24 Feb 2012 @ 11:41am

The AC Troll Theme Song
*AC trolls all sing along*

Reality! Reality! We just can't stand reality!

Greed is good, greed is great!
We just love to voice the hate!
We can't stand what we can't slam!
We just shill 'cause it pays the bill!

Reality! Reality! We just can't stand reality!

Twisting words is such a feat,
We just can't help but shoot our feet!
We won't see the good of free!
We just go blame instead of change!

Reality! Reality! We just can't stand reality!

Building strawmen is so fun!
We just love to cut and run!
We can't fool, we're just a tool!
We just hate to be proved a fake!

Reality! Reality! We just can't stand reality!
Reality! Reality! We just can't stand reality!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 11:50am

Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
Once again, this site takes the side of the billionaire and the 1%ers, creating astroturfing to encourage the 99% to give up their rights
Exactly so. Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm and Carl Lundstr�m are just filthy rich one 1%ers. I don't know why anyone stands up for the rights of Jammie Thomas-Rasset or Joel Tenenbaum. Those 1%ers just walked all over the beggarly 99%ers Sony and Capitol Records. And by jove, the worst was the god-awful Samantha Tumpach. Of all the 1%ers, she makes even Bill Gates feel poor. The way she just trampled on the penniless Summit Entertainment's rights by camming 4 minutes of their Twilight masterpiece, and having the audacity to smudge those precious minutes with her sister's birthday party, singing "Happy Birthday" which I'm sure they didn't even have a license to sing, simply walking over the destitute Warner Music Group's rights...OH man, it just makes me shudder to think.

Well no longer! It's high time we step up and put a stop to this shamefulness. Who's with me in starting an Occupy Richard O'Dwyer's House?! That despicable rich man, just stomping on the rights of impoverished broadcasters. I will not take it any more. Please bob, lead us on in this glorious revolution against the evil 1%er pirates flouting the rights of the poor 99%er movie and music studios. Lead us on oh glorious leader, bob!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Berenerd (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 11:55am

So this one time...at band camp...
We got sued for our rendition of "Never Gonna Give You Up". DAMN YOU RICK ASTLEY!!! YOU RICKROLLED US IN THE FACE!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Suja (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 12:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: $
breathe? pfft

i don't even THINK wtihout being handed a dollar

all these letters i'm typing, i was being paid 1 penny a letter to write them

gotta get paid for my efforts
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jjmsan (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 12:34pm

Re: Re:
No, newer diplomas will have an expiration date similar to drivers licenses. Every 5 years you will have to come and take refresher courses for around $5000. Unless, of course, you are a member of the silver level alumnis($1500/yr)then you will be auto renewed. Plus your son or daughter will get a special admissions review.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prashanth (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 12:35pm

Copyright Act versus Constitution
The 1790 Copyright Act may say "encourage learning", but the Constitution doesn't use that exact phrasing. I agree with the overall message, but let us try not to conflate the 1790 Copyright Act with the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 12:39pm

Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
True, but it's that 1790 text in combination with what the common meaning of "science" was at the time of the constitution that makes it clear that learning has always been a priority. The basic and original definition of science is simply "knowledge"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 12:47pm

Re: Re: Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
Actually 53 years before the country went crazy. Gotta love retroactive copyright stealing our public domain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 1:00pm

Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
The 1790 Copyright Act may say "encourage learning", but the Constitution doesn't use that exact phrasing. I agree with the overall message, but let us try not to conflate the 1790 Copyright Act with the Constitution.

Moreover, the very way the 1790 Act sought to "encourage learning" was by granting copyright to works. The way Mike tries to spin that to mean that copyright is antithetical to encouraging learning is hilarious.

You're not even gonna try and explain that one, are you Mike?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 1:08pm

Re: Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
So your position is that copyrights is more important than education.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 1:18pm

Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
If the purpose of granting copyright was to encourage learning, and granting copyright is no longer achieving that goal, doesn't it suggest that there may be problems with what copyright has become?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 1:20pm

Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
How do you apply copyright to mathematics?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 1:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
Copyright doesn't discourage learning anymore today than it did then--and they didn't even have fair use back then. The fact that they thought copyright was the best way to encourage learning should tell you that they aren't framing things in the same silly way as you guys are. Copyright doesn't encourage learning by making all materials available for learning free of copyright. That's the Mike-makes-up-copyright-law version of things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 1:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
WTF are you even talking about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ltlw0lf (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 1:37pm

Re: Re: Re: It was postponed by refusing to share the revenues with the workers
He's no occupier.

Oh come on, be nice. He is at the very minimum occupying his mother's basement while he waits for the billions the Big Content organizations he thinks will pay him to show up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 1:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
Copyright doesn't discourage learning anymore today than it did then

Well, this story is a good example of how maybe it does. That's all anyone is saying. We know you assume that copyright is peachy and benefits everyone but, in case you haven't noticed, most of us disagree - largely because there are so many stories like this one.

The fact that they thought copyright was the best way to encourage learning should tell you that they aren't framing things in the same silly way as you guys are.

No, it tells you that once-upon-a-time copyright was about achieving positive societal goals. Now it is about collecting monopoly rents based on a misguided notion of content ownership. We're not the ones framing it in a silly way - the government is, having bastardized the law over the years and divorced it almost entirely from its orginal purposes.

Copyright doesn't encourage learning by making all materials available for learning free of copyright.

Duh. But copyright is supposed to encourage learning. So if it doesn't work, maybe it's time to make all learning materials free of copyright. I'm sure that won't suit your disturbing system of values, but a lot of people support the idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 24 Feb 2012 @ 1:56pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, either you're disingenuous or ignorant. If it were a matter of citing sources, it wouldn't be an issue. What university professor thinks that they shouldn't have to cite sources?!?

If you think education is not a big business, you are sorely mistaken. Between university employment and administration, tuition rates, financial aid, sports programs, textbook publishers, facilities construction, etc, it's a very big business.

And it's irrelevant if it's an educational institution where this is happening because the companies that want to get paid are what is causing the issue, not the educational institution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 1:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
Well, this story is a good example of how maybe it does. That's all anyone is saying. We know you assume that copyright is peachy and benefits everyone but, in case you haven't noticed, most of us disagree - largely because there are so many stories like this one.

LMAO! What story? Mike doesn't know what works were intended to be used, or how they were going to be used, but that didn't stop him from jumping in and shitting on copyright law. Fair use is a fact-intensive analysis. Without knowing ANY of the facts here, we can't really say anything intelligent about this situation.

Not knowing the facts never stops Mike from crying and whining about IP, though. You guys don't know shit about exactly what is happening here, yet you're all too ready to burn copyright at the stake.

Techdirt just looks silly for stuff like this. Sorry, Mike, but that's how I see it. It's too bad you don't actually try and dig up some facts and report an actual story--you know, actual journalism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 2:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
Ask the creators of CSS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 2:40pm

CA is Socialist
When the truth finally comes out, I'll bet you it was the CA Teacher's Union that shut him down.

Previously on �Unions Suck�: Teachers Union Thinks It Blocked Online Classes...But It Didn't
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/03461116360/cal-teachers-union-thinks-they-blocked -online-classesbut-they-didnt.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 2:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
You had it right the first time by suggesting that there is insufficient data regarding this matter. Seems you have strayed in a different direction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 3:04pm

The only travesty here is using the word to craft a screed having no basis in fact. There is a website for a course, it says the course is being delayed because of copyright issues, and there is nothing that elaborates upon what these issues comprise.

Would it not be prudent to simply call the professor for clarification before writing yet another ideology-based article? Ideology is fine, but facts are a bit more persuasive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 3:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
Moreover, the very way the 1790 Act sought to "encourage learning" was by granting copyright to works.

How do you copyright mathematics? A collection of mathematics is a work, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 3:13pm

Re:
I guess that explains why the content "creators" are losing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 3:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
Uh-huh. I was actually the first person in this thread to point out that we have no idea what the copyright issue is here, while you and bob were ready to shit all over the university without knowing a damn thing about what's going on.

There is only one fact we know for certain about this situation: a free course from a top school that a bunch of students were really excited about taking has been delayed due to copyright issues. That's it.

And that fact, on its surface, says this is a situation where copyright is not achieving its purpose.

Maybe there are good reasons for that; maybe this is part of some amount of "acceptable" fallout from copyright - to determine that, we'll need to know more. For now, all we know is that copyright is somehow getting in the way of actual productivity - yet again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
darryl, 24 Feb 2012 @ 5:23pm

in this context, progress and learning are NOT the same !!!!
Many people get confused and don't realize that the "Science" part was really about copyright (not the "useful arts.") And, by "science" they really meant "learning." In fact, the very first US Copyright law, in 1790, was entitled:

Ahhh, Masnick now the Constitutional Law expert.

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.

PROMOTE THE PROGRESS... it's PROGRESS not learning that they are seeking to promote.

Masnick, do you understand that progress and learning are not the same things ?

Lets take technology for example, you can learn what is allready known, but progress is the gaining of knowledge of the UNKNOWN.

I know it is a subtle difference, and you clearly cannot differentiate between the two terms.

If you read a science book, that contains information that is the result of progress you are learning from that progress, but you are NOT contributing to that progress by learning about it.

It is true that if you learn about it, you may be able to 'progress' that science by your own creativity or invention.

Progress in science is working out, discovering, inventing.. that certain chemicals arrainged in a certain way form a Transistor, learning is being provided that information or acquiring that information.

Because you have just read (LEARNED) that silicon can be used in a transistor, does not advance the progress of the arts or technology.

I know it confusing, especially when the basic meaning of basic words need to be redefined to support a weak argument..

I dont expect any logical or reasoned response or for many of you to even understand such a simple concept, but I DO expect the usual trolls, who will try to make some stupid personal attack, but as usual not address the actual points raised... so go for it.. show your ignorance...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 5:28pm

Re: in this context, progress and learning are NOT the same !!!!
PROMOTE THE PROGRESS... it's PROGRESS not learning that they are seeking to promote.

You need to read one word further buddy. It's "promote the progress OF..." - as in, the stuff that follows.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 5:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
we'll said !!!!

But asking that Masnick actually try to dig up FACTS, and use actual journalism !!!!!..

Dont hold your breath.. that would require masnick to actually DO WORK, and be honest !!!! and possibly even have some talent.. these are not masnicks 'strong points'.

Usually, as you probably know, people progress their skills and career's over time, they get better over time, of course at some point you are the best you can be, after that peak your progress slows, and you are at a certain level.

I guess this is Masnick's "life" peak, it's the best he can do, we know it, he knows it... if the best you can expect from life is to spend your days running "Techdirt", you can understand why he is the way he is.

Were reading Masnick at the peak of his career/life, dont expect much more... or any more...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 6:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
There is only one fact we know for certain about this situation: a free course from a top school that a bunch of students were really excited about taking has been delayed due to copyright issues. That's it. And that fact, on its surface, says this is a situation where copyright is not achieving its purpose.

What an insanely over-simplistic view you and Mike have: If a class was unable to proceed because of some copyright issue, then that's unconstitutional and copyright is not serving its constitutional purpose.

That's just idiotic, and completely unsupportable in the actual law. Mike claims I'm a revisionist. At least I don't make up completely laughable arguments like this one. Sheesh, Mike. Really?!?!?!? No wonder why you won't even debate me on this one. And frankly, Mike's views are so far gone and so silly at time, that it's clear he's not even worth debating. Sorry, Mike, but that's the way I see it. You just aren't grounded in reality at times. It's sad, really.

You both seem to be completely missing the way that copyright promotes the progress. Here's a hint: It's not by constitutionally mandating that all copyrighted works are available for free and without any restrictions at some online technology class.

Go ahead and get the last word, Marcus.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 6:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
You just aren't grounded in reality at times. It's sad, really.

I guess that's why SOPA/PIPA/ACTA died.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2012 @ 9:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
The three documents are not dead, and one is naive to believe otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 11:27pm

Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
Moreover, the very way the 1790 Act sought to "encourage learning" was by granting copyright to works. The way Mike tries to spin that to mean that copyright is antithetical to encouraging learning is hilarious.

Let me get this straight: you prefer to listen to the letter of the law even if it violates the spirit and purpose of the law?

That, my friends, is someone with a troubled soul. Look deep.

I prefer to look at the purpose and intent of the law under the constitution, and recognize if that's not working there's a problem. So, yes, I stand by what I said (and, for what it's worth, many lawyers who actually have graduated law school and are some of the most respected copyright experts in their fields seem to agree with me -- so mocking me over this only makes you look more foolish and out of touch, but we know that's your "style.")
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Feb 2012 @ 11:29pm

Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
The 1790 Copyright Act may say "encourage learning", but the Constitution doesn't use that exact phrasing. I agree with the overall message, but let us try not to conflate the 1790 Copyright Act with the Constitution.

At the time they were the equivalent. I was just pointing that out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2012 @ 8:13am

Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
See, we do agree on many things. In the vernacular of the 1700's "progress" was used in the context of encouraging the dissemination of information to others, and dissemination of information is necessary for learning to take place on a larger scale than would be the case with one-on-one exchanges.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2012 @ 11:47am

Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
Let me get this straight: you prefer to listen to the letter of the law even if it violates the spirit and purpose of the law? That, my friends, is someone with a troubled soul. Look deep.

LOL! Huh? The purpose of the Copyright Act was to grant copyright to works because this incentivized their creation and thus promoted the progress. The purpose was not, as you seem to think without any basis whatsoever, to provide any and every work ever created to learning institutions for free and without any restrictions.

I prefer to look at the purpose and intent of the law under the constitution, and recognize if that's not working there's a problem. So, yes, I stand by what I said (and, for what it's worth, many lawyers who actually have graduated law school and are some of the most respected copyright experts in their fields seem to agree with me -- so mocking me over this only makes you look more foolish and out of touch, but we know that's your "style.")

LMAO! All you can do is obsess about what grade I'm in and what school I go to. Of course, you can't actually just debate me on the merits. It's silly and sad. Unfortunately, it's all you seem to know.

You have, of course, completely not addressed my point: The Act of 1790 that you pointed to set out to promote learning by granting copyright, not by making everything free and without restriction for any sort of classroom use. How in the world do you get from that the idea that unless everything is free and without restriction, then the spirit or letter of the Constitution has been violated? You realize that you're saying the Act of 1790 itself was unconstitutional, right?

What you're arguing has no basis in the Constitution, spirit, letter, or otherwise. You have this ridiculous, biased, and baseless notion that if anything can be said to hinder any educational opportunity, then the Constitution has been violated. This is just your make-believe notion of what copyright is and should be about. You absolutely cannot back that up with any sort of authority whatsoever. Not the Constitution, not the case law, not treatises, nothing. You made it up in your own fantasy version of what copyright is about.

Notice how the Act of 1790 didn't have any exceptions for classroom use. Why is that, Mike? Obviously the Founders don't share your made up point of view. You need to be looking at the bigger picture. You can't just point to one slice and say that the progress is not being promoted. Anyone can play that trick by framing things in such a narrow way. Obviously, promoting the progress is about the bigger picture. The Constitution doesn't require the progress to be promoted when things are looked at on the subatomic level.

So point me to these "many lawyers who actually have graduated law school and are some of the most respected copyright experts in their fields seem to agree with me." What are there names? Where are these writings? WTF are you talking about? I guarantee that upon review, none of them will be making the, frankly, idiotic argument that you are making here. None of them.

Put up or shut up, Mike. It's so typical, and sad, that you pretend all these geniuses back you up, but you, of course, can't point out who they are or exactly what they said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2012 @ 11:54am

Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
At the time they were the equivalent. I was just pointing that out.

And you make no sense whatsoever. Congress thought that learning could be encouraged by granting copyright to works that would be used for teaching. There was no exception for teaching materials, which is not the case today (Section 107).

If it was not unconstitutional for teaching materials to be copyrighted then, why would it be unconstitutional today, especially when you consider the explicit fair use exception for teaching materials?

You haven't explained this, nor do I think you can. I bet you can pretend like people way smarter than me agree with you though, right?

All you're doing in this article is what you appear to always do: You hate copyright so very much that if there's anyway you can spin some story to say something bad about copyright, you'll take it. It matters not that you have no facts about what's actually going on here other than that some class was delayed for some copyright reason.

Good God, Mike. Send some emails, make some calls. Find out what's actually happening before you jump to conclusions. Is that all you're good for, jumping to conclusions? Seems like it. I'm sorry that I sound rude, but for fuck's sake put some effort in. You seem to be about one thing only: Bashing IP, no matter how mindlessly or reaching it may be.

It's a real shame, 'cause you're a smart and cool dude.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 25 Feb 2012 @ 12:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
Go ahead and get the last word, Marcus.

Okay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2012 @ 12:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
LMAO! ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Feb 2012 @ 9:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
Kinda sad that you wasted all that time to argue the letter of the law and totally ignored the PURPOSE and SPIRIT of the law, which was to ENCOURAGE LEARNING.

The fact that the 1790 Act doesn't make exceptions for classroom use is meaningless. Yes, at the time they chose not to do that in how they enacted the law, but that doesn't change the INTENTION of the law which was to encourage learning. My point here was that IF it's NOT encouraging learning (which clearly it is not) then it's a problem.

It amazes me that you can't understand such simple concepts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2012 @ 10:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
Kinda sad that you wasted all that time to argue the letter of the law and totally ignored the PURPOSE and SPIRIT of the law, which was to ENCOURAGE LEARNING.

What is really sad, is you believe your "purpose and spirit" is the same as everyone elses idea of what that means.

It is your interpretation of the law, whereas the LETTER OF THE LAW, is JUST THAT.. it requires no interpretation.

It's also not a law, it is your constitution, from which your laws are (sometimes) derived from.

It says DISCOVERIES, NOT (NOT) learning..

Are you under the belief that all knowledge allready exists, you just have to find the right text book to learn it ??

Are you insane ?????????

Do you think einstein came up with E=MC2 because he found that right text book with that equationin it ?

The intension and spirit of a law is the LETTER of that law, not in the way you or me or anyone else wants to interpret that law.

BTW: copyright does encourage learning, it encourages people who allready have that knowledge to write text books with the understanding that their work is protected by laws.

In area's of knowledge and human progress that are not protected by copyright or by patents (such as military, and commercial) do not have that freedom to publish their knowledge, because they know they do not have that level of protection.

So it's either patented, copyrighted, or SECRET !!!..

Thats just how it is, if you cannot work that out, you are talking out of your ass... !!!!! are you ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2012 @ 10:23pm

Re: Re: in this context, progress and learning are NOT the same !!!!
nice try, but no prize, what do you want to redefine next marcus ?? the definition of the word THE ???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2012 @ 10:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
You sir are a complete moron.

Using phrases like "shitting on copyright law" and "over-simplistic", just help the rest of us understand that copyright law is too complicated, outdated, and no longer progresses learning and art.

Argue all you want, but the writings already on the wall. You are obsolete, the internet will route around your pea-brain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2012 @ 10:29pm

Progress of Science
lets go one word further, of SCIENCE do you note it does not say "people, or scientists" and "USEFUL ARTS" not "useful artists".

so it is about the progres of SCIENCE, not 'students', it does this by protecting those discoveries for a period of time, to allow the person who did progress the science to be rewarded for that progress.

No prize for second, .. chew on that Marcus !! feel free to redefine the meaning of any words you choose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2012 @ 10:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
I want your job.

Where can I apply?

Do you put "Stupid ass paid bitch shill" on your resume when you're out pounding bricks for the next job? That's what I would do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2012 @ 10:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
Wow, tldr.

But I understand you completely. You are a lawyer pleb doing your masters bidding. When you grow up someday (and I hope you do), I hope you realize that truth and freedom are far more important than your opinions right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2012 @ 10:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
"All you're doing in this post is what you appear to always do: You love copyright so very much that if there's anyway you can spin some story to say something good about copyright, you'll take it.

for fuck's sake put some effort in"

fify

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2012 @ 11:01pm

Re: Progress of Science
Holy crap!

A new shill!

Where can I apply for your job? I could be so much better than you at it.

I have more punctuation !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????$$$$#$%$%%^^&$##@

I have better insults. "Mike and Marcus eat cheese out of dead Olympians shorts because they think it will make them Jedi."

And, the topper, I will do ANYTHING, that's right ANYTHING for money.

I just need your recruiter's phone number. Then PROFIT!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2012 @ 8:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
"Uh-huh. I was actually the first person in this thread to point out that we have no idea what the copyright issue is here, while you and bob were ready to shit all over the university without knowing a damn thing about what's going on."

So why don't you say something a little more direct, like "Mike, how come you are running a story seriously lacking in information and detail, yet you still are slamming copyright with it"?

This is a perfect example of a rush to attack mentality that makes Techdirt harder to take as seriously as Mike wishes we all would. It shows how He is way too much in a hurry to point out that blocking education with copyright is a "travesty" without knowing what is blocked, or more importantly, WHY it is blocked.

Based on his usual logic, let me put it this way: if he is in a rush to draw a conclusion here, where else is he doing the same thing? He has done it before, and will do it again. How many times has it happened, but nobody really noticed, because they were all busy slapping each other on the back for the latest zing against copyright or patents or Chris Dodd?

It makes you wonder - and if I was Mike, I could draw a conclusion here about his reliablity. But I won't do that, I will leave it open to discussion instead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2012 @ 8:38am

Re: Progress of Science
Marcus hates to be wrong, even when he is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2012 @ 5:15pm

Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
what time was that ??? 1790 !!!! do you think the definition of "learning" has changed?

if so, how ?

oh, yea,, it's 2012 now !!!! get with the times !!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2012 @ 9:13pm

Re: Re: Progress of Science
It's not a new shill; darryl simply thinks that not signing him somehow makes him completely unrecognisable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 5:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's a little confused by this 'timey-wimey' stuff.

So, new game: Fun meanings for G.I.T. (since you know he loves you really)

Great Intellectual Titan?
Gloriously Interring Trolls?
Gadfly-Imperator Tranquillus?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:52am

Re: Re: Progress of Science
Marcus hates to be wrong, even when he is.

Actually, I only hate being wrong when I am. So far, I've never hated being wrong when I'm not - that would be quite the philosophical pickle. Luckily in this case, I'm not wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:54am

Re: Re: Re: in this context, progress and learning are NOT the same !!!!
At this point, I am not entirely convinced you speak English... I am just waiting for one your rebuttals to read "translate server error"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:57am

Re: Progress of Science
feel free to redefine the meaning of any words you choose

I don't think any redefinitions are required, but adding the note "See: darryl" under a few strong words that I won't mention might not be a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nathanael, 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:12pm

Re:
Yes, they are. Educational and teaching purposes are generally fair use.

Of course, since they aren't *always*, there are "chilling effects" -- basically, the professors get threatened with long expensive lawsuits, so even if it is fair use, the professors are afraid to do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nathanael, 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:13pm

Re: Re:
The Supreme Court has made an *awful lot* of unconstitutional rulings over the decades. Usually due to corporate control over its membership.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nathanael, 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:16pm

Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
The Constitution is even stronger. It says the power granted to Congress is:
"To promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts, *by* securing (etc)..."

This means that any copyright restriction which does not promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts is beyond the Constitutional power of Congress.

Unfortunately the Courts have simply ignored this clause, just like they usually ignore the Ninth Amendment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nathanael, 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
In 1790 copyright did not prevent anyone from using books in a class. Ever. Copyright didn't even cover *copying*, it only covered publication.

In 1790 you could legally make as many copies of a book as you needed for your class. ANY BOOK, copyrighted or not. It was only publishing mass-produced copies which was restricted. Copyright has been expanded absurdly since then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Feb 2012 @ 12:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright Act versus Constitution
Kinda sad that you wasted all that time to argue the letter of the law and totally ignored the PURPOSE and SPIRIT of the law, which was to ENCOURAGE LEARNING.

The fact that the 1790 Act doesn't make exceptions for classroom use is meaningless. Yes, at the time they chose not to do that in how they enacted the law, but that doesn't change the INTENTION of the law which was to encourage learning. My point here was that IF it's NOT encouraging learning (which clearly it is not) then it's a problem.

It amazes me that you can't understand such simple concepts.

[Sorry, I forgot about this thread. And it is me, just with a different IP address...]

Sigh. Of course I understand simple concepts, Mike. Give me a fucking break. The problem with debating you is that you're all over the place. All you do is move the goalposts, make ridiculous claims that you won't back up, and keep weaseling in general. It sucks.

At first you were saying that copyright law, as applied to this class at Stanford, was unconstitutional. This is hilarious because you don't even have the facts here. Is it the Stanford's own policies, or the actual law, that is the problem here? You don't know because you, as usual, didn't do any actual journalism.

Now you're saying that copyright law in general is unconstitutional because it doesn't encourage learning, or at least, that's what I think you're arguing. This is a pretty silly argument, and one that I doubt you could really flesh out or defend. I will tell you this: You need to look at the federal copyright scheme as a whole, not at some small slice of it.

To be constitutional, copyright as a whole must promote the progress. Sure, you might be able to look at one, small slice and say, "See, copyright is not promoting the progress as well as it could be." But so what? That's not constitutionally relevant. Even if some small slice in some regard retards the progress, that doesn't mean that on the whole--in the net--that progress isn't promoted.

See what I mean? It's like if we have a business contract where you promise to make me a profit every year. I can't point to one electric bill and say, "See, you lost money there. Contract breached." That would obviously be absurd because maybe you made a million dollars profit when the whole picture is taken into consideration.

That's what you're doing. You're looking at one small thing, framing it very narrowly, and declaring that copyright isn't promoting the progress. It just doesn't work like that. And if you actually were to cite these mystical geniuses that purportedly back you up, I bet I could find where they indicate a similar idea.

But, of course, you didn't actually produce any of these mystical geniuses. You never do, Mike. Sad that you keep claiming they exist when you never produce them when called out. But I digress...

The fact that the 1790 Act thought that the progress and education were promoted via copyright is very much relevant, since that is the very way that progress and education is promoted today. You seemed to miss the point entirely that today, as it was then, progress is promoted via copyrighting works, not by giving works no copyright protection if they are to be used for education and learning.

You, of course, cannot explain how it is that progress was promoted by copyrighting works under the 1790 Act, but it isn't promoted under the 1976 Act. You, of course, and as always, are just pulling nonsense out of your ass.

As to your claim that copyright "clearly" does not encourage learning, I can only answer with a, "Huh?" I don't even begin to know what you mean. Copyright promotes the progress and education and learning and does all sorts of great and wonderful things. It's all around you. I think it's really weird that you don't see it. You truly are incredibly blinded by your own biases. It's why I will never be able to take you seriously. It's why no one should ever take you seriously.

One last thing, if you're going to write an article about how dumb copyright is and how it's being abused and learning is being ruined, etc., i.e., your typical Techdirt parade of horribles, then why not do even the most basic of journalism and actually find out what's going on at Stanford? Seriously, Mike, how can anyone take you seriously when you don't even put forth the minimum amount of effort to get some basic facts about the stories you write.

You really just come across as an uninformed lunatic. Sorry, dude, but that's all I see.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tech4Technology, 28 Mar 2012 @ 11:26pm

Thanks a lot for sharing a very nice information, please keep it up!
[ link to this | view in thread ]