Filmmaker Compares Copyleft Supporters To Anti-Gay-Marriage Advocates
from the then-i-get-to-compare-film-makers-to-blue-cheese dept
Oh, where to begin with this one. Once upon a time, in an internet far, far away, there was a Facebook page and a blog (that barely anyone paid attention to) masquerading as some kind of grass roots upheaval in favor of the copyright cartels. It was called Creative America, and man was it terrible. But, as does occasionally happen, this silly land of false statistics and incomprehensible logic bred some interesting discussions between folks on either side of the copyright argument. One of the participants in favor of copyright was filmmaker David Newhoff, someone who I generally thought represented his ideas and opinions with sincerity and class.Well, to hell with sincerity and class. Apparently you damned pirates and copyleft people are just like homophobic anti-gay-marriage zealots...or something.
It all starts off innocently enough on Newhoff's guest post for The Copyright Alliance (Does that make us the Pirate Empire? But wasn't Han Solo a pirate? I'm so confused). We've got everything you'd expect from someone supporting current copyright, from the wilfully ignorant claim that "Copyright and Free Speech coexisted peacefully for the entire history of the Republic", to the invocation of names like Lewis Black as champions of free speech and free enterprise because Black is "entitled to make a pile of cash" because he's a master at speaking out against the government. Nowhere do we see any actual statistics to back up these claims, of course. There's no long-form history of copyright with big blinking letters saying "No problems here, people". Nor do we have any actual financial data on where Lewis Black has made his money. Was it from the real copyright product, royalties from album sales? Or was it his live performances, tours, and appearances? I certainly don't know, because I don't have that data. And if Newhoff does have that data, he isn't sharing it.
But no matter, because these opinions-as-facts are merely the foundation for one hell of a whopper of a claim: anyone who thinks copyright can threaten free speech is exactly the same as a homophobic bigot. Don't believe anyone could conflate two completely separate issues so badly? Read on, my sweet, naive little zealots:
"Their position reminds me of another First Amendment stumper: that same-sex marriage threatens the Freedom of Religion. As alluded to in one of my recent posts the Kantian principle that your rights end where they infringe on the rights of another is logically implicit, if not explicit, in the broad, human rights established in our laws. In a nutshell, society functions because most of us agree that your pursuit of happiness does not extend to a right to, say, drive an ATV across my yard and tear up the garden."Here's the setup for the false analogy. You have a foundation of law driven by the Constitution, the "pursuit of happiness", mixed in with a little literal "get off my lawn" attitude, and a cool ATV thrown in to keep the kids happy. Just keep this setup in mind, because we'll get to the problem in a moment.
"The craftiest of gay-marriage opponents will argue that legalizing these unions infringes on their rights to be Christian in America, which is tantamount to undermining religious freedom. Yes, anyone with two working brain cells can recognize that this isn’t sound reasoning so much as thinly veiled bigotry...Similarly, the copyright-threatens-speech proposal uses the illusion of reverse discrimination to suggest that when the producer exercises his copyright, this somehow infringes on the consumer’s desire to reuse or “share” the work as he sees fit, which amounts to a “chilling effect” on speech. Like the same-sex marriage thing, this argument glosses over personal bias to foster a logical leap to a shaky conclusion. Copyright only threatens speech if we agree that the consumer’s right to reuse is more important than the producer’s right to treat his work as property."And here's where this argument shows itself to be flawed. First, note the attempt to conflate copyleft and bigotry. This is all about setting up good guys and bad guys in the equation, and if you have a problem with copyright, it's "thinly veiled bigotry" and "reverse descrimination". Creators, apparently, are to be lumped into the same boat as other victims of bigotry, and if we can draw a direct line to homosexuals who have been descriminated against, it's an extremely short jump to slavery, interned Japanese Americans, or Jews in Nazi Germany. To borrow (INFRINGE!) a line from Newhoff's own piece, "this sounds dumb because it is". This is a discussion about economics, not bigotry.
Which is where we can point to the clear flaw in Newhoff's argument: yes, there's an argument that the "pursuit of happiness" should apply to all peoples, including the allowance of marriage. And it's also true that the "pursuit of happiness" can prevent me from driving an ATV onto David's well-manicured lawn. But unlike intellectual property, the "pursuit of happiness" was not specifically constructed and even denoted in the Constitution as having its key purpose be the benefit of society at large. The "pursuit of happiness" is personal. Conversely, copyright is supposed to chiefly benefit the public. Mixing these two aspects of our law is disingenous and the attempt to simply label the folks who don't agree with you as bigots is downright distasteful.
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: copyleft, copyright america, david newhoff, gay marriage, lewis black
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
United Corporations of America
United Corporations of America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that is, of course, after it has benefited the pockets of God knows how many of God knows who for God knows how long in order to prevent God knows what from happening that may 'chiefly benefit the public'!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Copyright only threatens speech if we agree that the consumer’s right to reuse is more important than the producer’s right to treat his work as property."
So, I don't know what the hub-bub is about. Newhoff clearly understands the issue. We do agree, as a nation under the constitution that:
Copyright threatens speech because the consumer’s right to reuse is more important than the producer’s right to treat his work as property.
The above is a paraphrasing of what the Constitution says about copyright. Anyone who doesn't want to go by what the constitution says is pretty much a bigoted Constitutiophobe.
COMBB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Newhoff's fundamental error lies in him inverting the roles of copyright and sharing in his loose 'Kantian principle' argument. Copyright fundamentally goes against the liberty of the individual and the good of society at large by curtailing a most fundamental of human behaviors: the exchange of ideas and opinions. To reuse the metaphor, copyright is the ATV used by content producers to drive in the yard of my knowledge and run of the flowers of my creativity, not the other way around.
Curtailing other people's behavior in order to make money may be acceptable (if the result is a greater global output of a beneficial product) but it is not a fundamental right, unlike the plights from all discriminated minorities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It needs to be said until it's understood by everyone. When granting a copyright to one, a new right is not being granted to the one, but instead an existing right is being taken away from everyone else.
To make the analogy work with gay marriage, you'd have to have a situation where gay marriage was already legal but where some are trying to make it illegal. Then it becomes a right already held by all, with attempts to make that right exclusive to a few.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a reason blogs like that don't allow comments...
And did he really say "Kantian principle?" There's a reason I quit the humanities and became an engineer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Newhoff, on behalf of "My People"... GO FUCK YOURSELF.
I'd say something eloquent, but GO FUCK YOURSELF says so much more.
How DARE you try to equate copyright with the discrimination "My People" face on a daily fucking basis.
How dare you try to frame your pathetic argument that the bad people are stealing from you when my people are regularly discriminated against, beaten, and murdered.
Fuck you, Fuck your shilling, Fuck the lobbyist asswipes you shill for.
As soon as I can get married and not have to keep looking over my shoulder wondering if this might be the next bigoted asshole to beat the shit out of me we can discuss copyright. Until then... GO FUCK YOURSELF.
*drops microphone and walks off stage*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well done, my friend....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I sure hope I haven't offended "My People" by appointing myself to speak for them again, but I hope most of them would agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Luckily they aren't sticklers for diction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
+1 internets to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Our are you from somewhere outside of the UK/EU/US?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My native language is LolCat with a cynical sarcastic dialect.
I do not understand your comment about it belonging in the 90's. Please elaborate.
I have never understood this fascination with trying to place where I am from and if English is my second language.
Are the sentences I construct that bizarre? I know my grammar is horrible, but I do seem to have a knack for making my point clear, even in my non-native tongue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Try google, it should be able to help you get started.
P.S: Sorry for breaking the "don't feed the troll" rule
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not the first time people have wondered if English is not my primary language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean you're American???? *runs fast whilst laughing hysterically*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't understand why people care. It is not like you are talking to us with your voice anyway. It puzzles me as well when people say that as text doesn't usually contain dialect, at least not specific dialect (except if someone asks for a pop or a soda or a Coke.)
You could speak Martian as your primary language, That Anonymous Coward. It doesn't matter to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
pop - midwest.
Coke - southern.
I just wonder if it is something about how I structure my thoughts that might make them harder for people to parse.
But I think in this case everyone understood exactly what I was saying.
I'll take an orange coke, in a silver tumbler just like grammy had. Or is that just something I picked up in my travels...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It all depends on where you are...
...if you are someplace where they have Fox News on in beauty parlors, gyms, and doctors offices than you actually still do stand a very good chance of being beaten up for being "different".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It all depends on where you are...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It all depends on where you are...
People are left with the impression we made some videos on YouTube talking about how much better it gets and the problem is solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A view from the inside.
Evangelicals have been spouting that bogus martyr nonsense since at least the 80s, probably longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sex marriage threatens the Freedom of Religion.
Actually he is right! - but not in a good way...
If same sex marriage was pursued with the vigour that his kind pursues copyright, i.e. if it was enforced on everyone whether they wanted it or not, then it surely would threaten freedom of religion!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sex marriage threatens the Freedom of Religion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wtf?
Don't agree with me? You're such a gay basher!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wtf?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get the right people talking to each other...
Why not get all of the authors and musicians and directors together via the internet, lets discuss what we can do without restricting fair use and without infringing on peoples right to share. Lets start talking about how copyright needs to be reigned in, to become more acceptable to customers/consumers.The MPAA and RIAA and all of there lackey need to be banned from the discussion, they are not interested in the creators they are only interested in there bottom line, how much they can make.
Until the actually people on both sides remove the middleman from the equation we are both going to get nowhere, with pirates not paying and creators not getting the compensation they could be getting, if they were not being seen as evil monopolists controlled by the Copyright cartel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get the right people talking to each other...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any granted monopoly that is not born from market forces and is institutionalized by laws is immoral, but that is not the bad part the harmful part is that it undermines the foundations of democracy itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That copyleft people will see the error of their ways in fighting against silly things like SOPA, et al because they are behaving like the loonies from Westboro.
Of course when people infringe on copyright its horribly wrong, and when people speak against the gays it sometimes ends with a bodycount... its just the same isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
only in american is liberal given a political value and then hated by everyone of another political persuasion.
Plus only in America is liberal assigned to the pseudo left, apparently due to the lack of any kind of major left wing politics so that the proponents of one version of the right wing politics they do have get tagged as being of the left.
Most other places, liberal is a good thing, indicates an open mind and an ability to adapt to changing circumstances, a generosity of spirit and most on the left and the right as well as those of other shades of political opinion would be pleased to be called liberal.
But in a bipolar country that seems to struggle to imagine any other paradigm than goodies vs baddies I guess it makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justice, not Economics
As for: " This is a discussion about economics, not bigotry. " --well it should be about property rights and justice, not economics. IMHO. People should have secure property rights in their bodies and in other scarce resources that they either homestead or acquire contractually from a previous owner, as a matter of justice and ethics, not economics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see where copyright factors into the equation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sounds absurd now, but it worked.
For the longest time you could not get anyone in Congress to make much noise about military spending or anti-terrorism because the argument was framed your with us or your a fucking terrorist lover.
Either your for copyright or your a fucking bigot.
No one wants to be called a bigot, well maybe Limbaugh, so people will run with this idea. It worked on Congress, and there are still people in Amercia who are unaware of the phone hacking done by Murdoch's people. They believe what the talking heads tell them to believe.
I expect the next round of arguments to be that we are cyberbulling them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In Iran, marriage is the joining of a man and woman by God.
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In Iran, marriage is the joining of a man and woman by God.
FTFY"
Seems like you're trying to redefine the definition of marriage to suit a personal agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our founding principles.
Unless you are in Iran, government acknowledgment of your marriage should have absolutely nothing to do with religion. One minority viewpoint from one particular religion of many should not limit the rest of us.
This includes mixing races, mixing denominations, mixing religions, limiting the number of members in the union, or what their gender is.
It's simply not appropriate here and it's gone on for far too long.
Don't like it? Too bad. This isn't the Papal states.
You can be a bigot all day long if you like in your own church. Anywhere else, secular principles of equality under the law apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Our founding principles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
you have just stated that *ANYONE* that does not agree with gay marriage no matter what their reasoning, is now not only the same as being in iran, but also supporting everything about iran, its religion, its government, its anti-western stance.
in your rush to be loved, you have just done the exact same thing that nearly everyone in this thread has been lambasting newhoff for.
congrats to outing yourself as a narrowminded moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't kid yourself.
It's as bad.
They're like a house cat. They're only harmless because they are relatively tiny here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a fine definition. Now define man, woman, and God.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Morals are based on community mores and change very much with the passage of time, ethics on the other hand do not change.
Morals are NOT ethics!
Trying to actually force your mores (morals) onto others especially on a multitude of others who feel your morals are actually to them immoral is highly unethical
If on the other hand you were correct about morals not changing then under the Abrahamic set of morals that come from the Old Testament we would be allowing 12yr olds to marry, give birth, allow retribution murders, allow women to be killed for adultery... should I go on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
*sigh*
"If on the other hand you were correct about morals not changing then under the Abrahamic set of morals that come from the Old Testament we would be allowing 12yr olds to marry, give birth, allow retribution murders, allow women to be killed for adultery... should I go on?"
*double sigh* If you desire a explanation, go talk to a theologian or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Morals are plainset, structured as very specific way. Otherwise, if they are subject to change/variation with the passing of time, that renders them useless."
Your position is that morals can not change, otherwise they are useless.
Your unstated position is that morals are universal. They are not.
"Sigh" and "Double Sigh" as responses to arguments are not at all responses, and clearly show that you are not able to argue your position.
Based on what I have read of your postings here, you seem like a reasonable person. It also now seems like you have a hangup on "marriage".
When posting on a tech blog, I suggest you drop the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Instead we now murder unborn children. I guess that is an improvement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which God(s)? or for that matter What God(s)
I don't see where copyright factors into the equation.
Easy, copyright is a human based law and license that restricts an absolute natural/human RIGHT
The same way as the belief that somehow some deity can join in bond of 'spirit" (or some nonsense) only a man or woman is a law (set of moral orders) made by a religious institution that restricts the natural logical mind to think this idea is not only unethical but flawed.
Therefore they both restrict natural human rights so they are both similar to each other.
Personally I think anyone who actually believes in the full and absoluteness of copyright laws with no reasonable ending nor personal/community fairness of usage is the same as any bigoted person who believes the so called moralistic caveats that religions place upon anyone whether that be trying to stop same sex marriage or any other natural right that the religion thinks is wrongful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Beer Volcano and Strippers!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
All things his noodlyness approves off!
Though anyone who likes FSM is also able to join my cult of damnation I have called the ACCCA
"Amalgamated Cults of Capitalistic Communistic Atheists" we are like the anarchists but a bit more united ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is only one God: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
"Easy, copyright is a human based law and license that restricts an absolute natural/human RIGHT"
So are you alleging that marriage in and of itself was somehow restricting?
"The same way as the belief that somehow some deity can join in bond of 'spirit" (or some nonsense) only a man or woman is a law (set of moral orders) made by a religious institution that restricts the natural logical mind to think this idea is not only unethical but flawed."
That is your belief and you have a right to it.
"Therefore they both restrict natural human rights so they are both similar to each other."
If you're implying that marriage 'leaves out' homosexuals, that's impossible because it does the same thing today that it did thousands of years ago: join a man and a woman into one. It is not 'man's law' but rather God's. So, in effect, what you're doing is imposing/forcing your beliefs on society as a whole under the guise of "equal rights" and "progress".
"Personally I think anyone who actually believes in the full and absoluteness of copyright laws with no reasonable ending nor personal/community fairness of usage is the same as any bigoted person who believes the so called moralistic caveats that religions place upon anyone whether that be trying to stop same sex marriage or any other natural right that the religion thinks is wrongful."
That's a fallacious argument -- nobody was forcing their religion on anybody else. Marriage was always the joining of a man and woman. 'Gay marriage' is a relatively new phenomenon and not one in agreement with many religions, mine included (Catholic) and no government nor group is going to make us change. We have a right to believe as we do, just as you have a right not to, but don't attempt to redefine something and then call everyone who doesn't agree with your line of reasoning a bigot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry you forgot to phrase your answer in the form a question.
This is also me desperately trying to head all of this off.
Shall we not go down this deep dark hole when there is a perfectly good copyright shill we could be calling names right over there? *points at Newhoff*
[ 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:
People can and will treat me how they want, I do not expect a law to make their minds change. What would be lovely would be them getting to know me instead of the boogeyman images preached from pulpits and tv screens. It would be lovely that in a country where all men are created equal that I actually have a shot at being equal.
Immaturity is one of my failings, and honestly I told him more than once to go fuck himself... I doubt me calling him a name would sting right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as how others treat you, nobody has the right to discriminate and treat you as somehow different or lesser on account of your race, creed, sexual orientation, or for any other reason. It's one thing to disagree from time to time and another to manifest hatred in some form or another, e.g. calling you derogatory names or treating you with disrespect. Granted I haven't walked in your shoes but I do know something about being picked on and made to feel left out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sadly I will repeat myself as I did on the last comment to you there since your type of illogical bigoted narcissistic & solipsistic pandering to your "Big Daddy, Junior, and Spook" Trinity is not worth my time:
"Basically this is not the forum for this sort of debate/analysis/whatever and to tell the truth I have better things to do than spend my time constantly defending ethics and laws from those who don't seem to grasp the basic concept of human freedom and the concept that societal mores change over time."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Besides, we've derailed this thread for long enough, wouldn't you agree?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To begin with, that was always the original definition of marriage, so anything apart from that is a devaition of its original intention. Newhoff conflates any sort of disagreement with 'gay marriage' with bigotry and then goes on to compare that with any disagreement regarding his pro-copyright stance. Therefore, it was a two-fold attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And it's still bible thumping, despite the pedantry you choose to sheath it in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The above statement is true only for values of marriage that equal to your narrow definiton of marriage.
Pardon my french, but who the fuck are you to say what the original definition of marriage is?
Also, the Mormons would like to have a word with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Also, the Mormons would like to have a word with you."
Why should I care?
I refer you here: http://archive.catholic.com/library/Distinctive_Beliefs_of_Mormon.asp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ 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:
second, kabbalah does not strictly equate to judaism
lrn2lrn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"SEPIROTH! (DUN DUN DUN DUN)
SEPIROTH! (DUN DUN DUN DUN)"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
For introduction see Saint Sergius and Bacchus as well as first millennial Papal communal marriage where same sex unions were celebrated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doesn't matter how man has defined it, it only matters how God has defined it and He has always defined it as a union between man and woman. Read Genesis. Look at what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But to answer your attempted misdirection, no there isn't. I don't picket or protest, I don't do letter writing campaigns or petitions (though I did sign the anti-SOPA petition) and I don't write my congressman. Like most Americans, I vote on whatever issues happen to be on the ballot come election time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What is a natural, human right? Who gets to define those rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The rights of man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The rights of man.
I see nobody has bothered to take a stab at answering this question. If there is no God, there are no "human rights". We are just animals and it is eat or be eaten, strong will survive, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
God told me that It was OK.
God said it,I believe it,that settles it!
Copyright,Homosexuality and Religion all tied up in one neat little sentence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ummm. Same sex marriages have existed for a very long time. Definitely from before the Christian bible was codified. Possibly even before the story of Adam happened (1046–256 BC in the Chinese Zhou Dynasty).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient
Just sayin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny, Merriam-Webster makes no mention of god.
Even funnier, they specifically define SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.
You sir, are an ignorant bigot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"You sir, are an ignorant bigot."
It's clear that you (as well as a few others) will label anyone a bigot who doesn't forsaken their religious belief in order to conform to your distorted view of marriage. But your attempt to discriminate against me for being true to my God will be to no avail, for even if the whole world stood against me for holding fast to my beliefs, it wouldn't mean a thing, for nobody has power over my eternal soul except God.
You cannot scare me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hmmm, which one carries more weight with the world?
I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Law creates marriages in this century.
Sorry to see you fundies fail.
Wait, sorry? What...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh and it's spelt not spelled you American ingrates *runs*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The whole "I'm telling you what to do and it is my freedom of whatever to do so" is so fundamentally flawed that I am amazed that anyone actually agrees with it.
In a similar fashion, there is an effort to paint various "liberal" opinions and activities as being a war on free enterprise. "Free Enterprise" does not mean that companies/corporations are free to do whatever they please.
I'm sure this exercise in contorted logic will proceed to get get much worse as we approach Nov.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, there are no comments on the Copyright Alliance website but Mr. Newhoff's site is http://davidnewhoff.com/.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
here is a real winner of a line...
"I am the father of three and would probably be defined by most people as a liberal"
*blink blink blink*
ZOMFFSM....
"Imagine your diet will henceforth be determined by the tastes of a majority of American ten-year-olds. This may sound as unlikely as it does unappetizing, but the prospect is not really all that different from the basis for at least one of the arguments of the copyleft crowd with regard to distributing creative content via the Web. "
1 word... BEIBER. I didn't think I could hate him more, but I think I found a new well of hate.
Here is the title of an openminded blog post...
"If you hate Citizens United, think twice about that anti-SOPA campaign."
I'd post on his site, but I don't have a script that posts douchenozzle over and over...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It should be in the "anti-social networking" category.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whoa whoa whoa
For the religious ones" Just think "what Jesus would do?". For the non-religious ones: Just think "what Brian Boitano do?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creative America "Support"
Hey, everyone should try it... just make sure you can write something under 800 characters and claim that you're a "supporter."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The children
Claiming copyright on "public performances" because a teacher is reading out-loud to children is trying to f*ck the children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So how long have you had these feelings that everyone around you tells you are wrong?
Does it make you hurt having to make sure you never slipup and say something that might make you look 'gay' around them?
Does a little part of your soul die as you have to fight against what you feel?
The flaw in your "logic" (using the term loosely) is that on the one hand you want to pretend we are few in number and don't matter, but somehow at the same time we control a vast conspiracy taking over the world.
These 2 things can not be true at the same time.
Oh and that's not thunder you hear, its god facepalming over and over.
Nice troll, you captured the argument perfectly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright as Religion
Proponents of Copyright are often citing dubious sources as evidence for their religion. Theirs is the Only True God. Without Copyright, society will collapse. Without Copyright, we're all just beasts, raping and killing at will. They refuse to listen to rational arguments, of course. They all get very offended when you question the validity of their claims, or suggest that the world would be better without their religion. Etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright as Religion
FTFY
And you know in medieval times what's been done to heretics, don't you? It's done to the Copyrightism heretics too in current times, but maybe less bloody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright as Religion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright as Religion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright as Religion
Go figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright as Religion
Atheism says there is not god, it does not justify redistribution of welth or even refer to anything other than the "no god" part.
I say this as a free market capitalist atheist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright as Religion
Atheist don't have any holidays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright as Religion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol
i wonder what would happen if these two had dna mingled what the child would grow up and retardedly say...
WELL we need license fees on all hammers for each use OR you stand with the hammer murderers?
let really the fact is we have as many laws as we need and all that's happening now is they have to appear like they are dong something so they just keep tacking on laws....the prob is every person that gets buggered takes a fine or prison removes tax revenue from the govt and spending in local economies on small businesses that drive the economy....
KEEP GOING and keep adding to copyright and ip law please i hope the usa goes and puts a pool que up its arse economically as it appears its doing. THEN you wont have any cash to spend ....game over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ewwww
lololol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyrestrictions
Think about it... When you are granted "Copyright," you aren't actually granted any substantial rights you didn't have to begin with. What is happening, though, is that other people's rights are restricted.
Here are some "rights" that you have with a work you have created:
* Copy
* Share
* Timeshift
* Formatshift
* Placeshift
* Remix
* Distribute
* Broadcast
* Perform
If Copyright did not exist, you would still have these "rights," simply by having access to the work.
Now poof, you are granted "Copyright" for the work. What new rights do you get? I can only think of one: The "right" to sue other people for "infringement."
Now name some rights other people had for that same work before you were granted the Copyright, but that are now restricted. That's right, pretty much all of them. All of them and more if you ask the Copyright Extremists.
So, "Copyright" should really be "Copyrestriction."
[ 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 ]
Re:
I stand by my comment on TechDirt.
As soon as the copyright fight has a real bodycount or I have my rights then you can try to make your argument.
Until then I suggest you refrain from trying to equate people who disagree with how copyright is being used to bigots.
Maybe if you had ever been chased IRL with a bat for who you are you might have a partial clue about how offensive your example is.
We get beaten and die, copyright zealots complain about imaginary dollars they might be missing out on.
Totally the same thing, right? *boggle*
When was the last time someone got on a news show and equated copyright holders with pedophiles and bestiality? Huh, seems to happen to me much more than them.
Your entitled to your opinion, but I suggest you find a less offensive way to try and cast yourself as the “victim” on par with “My People”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And so he actually disproves his own argument, because the right of the consumer to reuse (read: communicate concepts through the words and works of others) is actually more important than the [large corporation's] right to treat the work of an artist as property.
Media is a part of culture. It's a part of language and communication. How many people have expressed sentiments by playing a song for someone else. That's their culture. That's what culture is supposed to be.
Uttering something only for money degrades the value of what is said. Politicians and salespeople do that. It insults art to imply that the primary value of art is as property, is as a way to make money. Yes, artists deserve the right to make money from their art (if they have a practical business model that acknowledges the nature of reality). Money may be in some cases the necessary evil that gets the art created, but the art is the important part, not the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyleft=Sharing=Good
developed in 1985 in the General Public License for GNU Emacs.
(See http://gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html.)
The absurdity of Newhoff's attack shows that the enemies of sharing and cooperation are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I suggest, however, that use of the term "intellectual property" to describe copyright is a serious mistake. It is propaganda for the enemy, since if we criticize some kind of "property" it is easy to label us as "Communists" (even though that isn't true). Even worse, that term confuses a dozen or so totally unrelated laws, which is an obstacle to thinking clearly about copyright. It's best to resolve never to use that term. (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html.)
I don't think the issue of freedom to share, or the use of copyleft, is mainly about economics. If it were, it would not be so important. Sharing is good, so society must encourage it, not attack it. Copyleft protects users' freedoms which, for works used for practical jobs, all users deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyleft=Sharing=Good
https://xkcd.com/225/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyleft=Sharing=Good
To find your life partner as per your own preference you can follow online matrimony site.http://www.bivaah.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]