Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the step-2 dept

Sun, Jul 29th 2012 12:00pm — Mike Masnick

Robert Weller takes this week's number one spot as the voter's choice for the most insightful comment of the week, with his explanation for why newspaper paywalls don't make sense:

Two other things. One. People now read sometimes half a dozen newspapers daily, not just one. Two. They aren't going to pay six newspapers.

Sometimes it's the short and sweet ones that make the clearest points. Coming in second was Ima Fish's comment concerning the problem of people calling things like fair use a "limitation and exception," when reality is it's the opposite:

It's actually worse than that. Copyright and patents are the exception and limitation. Not fair use.

Property rights are considered inalienable rights in the Constitution. They're also considered natural rights. They can be thought of as inherent rights. They're not given by government. They are given by nature itself. The purpose of government is not to give such rights, but to protect such rights. And the government can only intrude upon such rights through due process.

Unlike property rights, copyrights and patents needed to be explicitly included in the Constitution because they were not natural. The concept of giving out monopoly rights to ideas was contrary to nature. Thus, such monopolies were by their nature an exception and highly limited.

As pointed out here before. Copyrights originally lasted only 15 years. And even more interesting, copyrights did not cover music or literature.

But as money was made on these limited monopolies, those who collected the rents needed more gates from which to collected upon. So music was added. Literature was added. The length of time was increased. The monopoly on publishing was not enough. Soon performances were added. And now we're stuck with a convoluted draconian system where we need to pay a license to combine music with video, separate from the publishing right, and separate from the performance right.

The reason we think of fair use as a limitation and an exception, is because for over two centuries, copyright law has turned on its head.

Over to editor's choice insightful comments, we'll start with Erik J. Heels interpretation of the RIAA chart that showed how much music was obtained in various ways, some by authorized means and others not so much. Heels suggests a re-labeling is in order:

The RIAA should re-label its chart.

Change "unpaid" to "marketing" and "paid" to "sales."

And, finally, we have Duke's excellent response to a bunch of legacy artists demanding that Google & ISPs solve the artists' own inability to change with the times.

Ah, isn't it nice when legacy artists (or the lobby groups behind them) manage to show just how out of touch they are. Why, only a couple of weeks ago the PRS (record label collecting society) published a fascinating report (jointly paid for by Google) into the status of "illegal websites" and found that search engines had a very minor role. So even their own lobby groups are saying they're talking complete nonsense.

Of course, the whole "search engines are promoting illegal stuff" argument is great in itself because it tells us a couple of key things:

Firstly; people want to find mp3s of popular music that they can download. If they didn't, they wouldn't be searching Google for them.

Secondly; Google, as a search engine, is there to give *its users* what they want. They're not there to serve the BPI (or whoever was behind this). It has all those complicated algorithms to work out what is popular and ... surprise surprise, sites allegedly offering free or cheap mp3 downloads of popular music do well.

Thirdly; If the first n pages of a Google search for "Adele mp3" (to use the example given in the programme below) are all to supposedly unlawful sites, what has happened to the lawful ones? Why aren't they right at the top of the list? Because the sites that do that don't exist. And if they do exist, they're hidden behind terrible websites, paywalls and the lot, so you can't find them easily through a search.

So, what do we do about this? Well, if these legacy musicians want to fix their little problem, it seems the solution is quite easy:

1: Have sites that provide legal downloading of mp3s and similar stuff.

2: Recognise that the consumers (including 'pirates') actually want music, but they want it a certain way, and if you're going to try to act as a consumer-facing business, you should try to match their demands.

3: Make sure that the sites in 1 are easily accessible, well-designed, and will actually turn up in search results.

Sadly, signing a letter that says "blame Google" is less effort.

For those interested, they even got the BBC to do a Newsnight segment for them on this rubbish. Interestingly, I did a search for "adele mp3" on Google; the top few results appear to be theoretically legal in the US (only hosting information, or previews, with DMCA-compliant stuffs, and linking to paysites in the Ukraine and Russia which may be legal over there due to collective licensing rules).

The other thing I found particularly illuminating was that the top page has 10 search results (including one for amazon.com) and 8 notices covering 18 entries removed following DMCA notices. Somehow I don't think the takedown requests are doing that much good anyway.

Moving over to the funny side of things, the clear winner this week came from an Anonymous Coward on the story about someone selling waffles at an event complaining about the Swedish Young Pirate organization daring to give away their own waffles for free. This AC wondered how the RIAA equivalent of the waffle-sellers would react:

To stop this from happening, commercial waffle makers should start selling waffles with bits of broken glass in it, insult their customers as wafflethieves and follow them around to spy on them.

Coming in second was our own Dark Helmet explaining how video games drove him to violence:

To be fair, as a child of the 80's, I once rushed into a pet store, removed all the turtles from their cages, and began stomping on them repeatedly while screaming "Where's my damned Princess!?!?!?".

Years of corrective therapy later and I still am not allowed into Chicago pet stores....

This reminds me of the famous Marcus Brigstocke joke: "If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."

Moving on to editor's choice, we've got Josh in CharlotteNC responding to someone trying to play down the US government quietly admitting that it violated the 4th Amendment with its surveillance efforts, by saying that it wasn't a big deal because they "admitted that at least ONCE, upon review, their actions where not in keeping with the 4th amendment." Josh responded with how things would sound on the flip side:

No, officer, I wasn't ignoring the speed limit. Upon review by your radar gun, my speed was not in keeping with the limit. By this logic, you cannot give me a ticket.

Finally, we've got an Anonymous Coward explaining the RIAA's brilliant business strategy concerning its efforts to kick people off the internet:

Step 1. Kick people off of the internet
Step 2.
Step 3. Profit!

2/3rds of the way there, RIAA, keep up the good work!

Hey, perhaps we can help! Either way, we'll be back tomorrow with something else to say about something.

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

105 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 12:11pm

"Hey, perhaps we can help!"

Mike takes another stab at luring people to his famously unpopular Step2. When will you learn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 12:17pm
  
  Re:
  People have succeded with the concepts talked about by Mike and techdirt and you want to harp on that?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 12:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    People have succeded(sic) in all sorts of ways. Step2 is just a failure, not even Mike's usual toadies can be bothered over there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 12:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Failure depands on how you define your goals for your project.
      
      Do you just give up on something or try to do it better/get the word out to more people?
      
      Is being unpopular fine with you as long as you've provided someone something useful?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 12:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Then by all means tell MIke how to improve the service instead of unconstuctive bitching.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 1:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's easy to improve:
        
        Close it and admit failure.
        
        The software is neither great nor horrible, it's sort of a useless redo of chat software. That isn't the problem.
        
        The problem is simple: He didn't connect with fans, because the people who read techdirt generally are NOT the target audience for this sort of thing. Mike doesn't generally connect with artists, he has only really connected with a few (and even Nina Paley has taken the exit from Techdirt land... that should tell you a bunch).
        
        CwF+RtB - he failed. Mike hates to admit it, he will come up with his usual "there is plenty going on in the background you don't see" (he uses that to explain why the Insight Community area is stuck in 2011... and why all the corporate sponsors dried up. He even dismisses that he is failing in his own CwF thing, he doesn't maintain the stuff store, has nothing really to sell now except access, which is a great way of suggesting just how "profitable" the whole thing was, he can't seem to be assed to even try to maintain it.
        
        Oh, Mike's final response generally is to dodge the issues, and come back with the tired old "show me what good you have done", like my successes and failures somehow validate his seemingly failing properties.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 2:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Holy carp are you dense. I'll try to explain, even though I know you won't listen.
        
        1. Mike never intended this site to be profitable--there are many, many posts on that. This is feature of a larger offering. If you have quantitative (not speculative) evidence that Floor64 et al is failing, please post it.
        
        2. You really believe that because the stuff store is stale, that's evidence of failure? Data points without context are useless, but I realize you don't care--you'd rather ignore any relevant context if it doesn't fit your worldview. But, to help you anyway...have you heard anyone here clamoring for stuff in the stuff store? Could it just possibly be that stuff isn't being offered because it isn't key to the offering?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 2:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "holy carp"? Does that have anything to do with the fish jesus multiplied in the bible?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chillienet (profile), 29 Jul 2012 @ 2:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes actually. Mike (Jesus) took some comments (fish) written buy people (dude Jesus got the fish from) on the internet (sea) and then reposted them (multiplied the fish) for thousands of people to read (eat) while adding his own opinion (sermon) and he did it with out expecting any sort of payment from the recipient (ditto.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 3:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He sat through boring economics classes for your sins.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Philly Bob (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 9:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Be careful mentioning Jesus, The Bible or the Constitution without paying royalties. God and / or the Government may just issue a takedown notice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 6:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Mike never intended this site to be profitable--there are many, many posts on that."
        
        Nobody is questioning bottom line financial results. I am talking about the more relevant, more important social standing. That is to say, when you have a site like Techdirt that gets tens of thousands of views a day, and you open a new sub-section, you hope that you will see similar results there.
        
        Step2 doesn't get that, because it fails on a social level, because really, Mike isn't social with the people he claims he built the site for.
        
        Mike is a little too monotone for the music people to want to deal with.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 2:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nina leaving tells us nothing because I can't find anything about the why. Nina, if you're lurking could you shout please?
        
        Hmmm, not work so well in text.
        
        Plus, there are authors, artists and proggrammers(that would be me) in the techdirt readership so that's not a good explaination for failure of step2.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 2:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, and the fact that you completely ducked any attempt to provide constructive improvements? That just proves you are a troll, blinded the bitterness of your own failures. Sad, really.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 5:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Oh, and the fact that you completely ducked any attempt to provide constructive improvements? That just proves you are a troll, blinded the bitterness of your own failures. Sad, really."
        
        What? The site itself isn't good or bad, It's rarely a good idea to reinvent the wheel, which is what they did by making their own chat board, but whatever.
        
        The real constructive criticism is that Mike has shown that he seems to be unable to actually reach to the people he claims to stand up for. The content creators, the next wave of business people, the new model musicians... they are absent with a completeness that is impressive. Even the tie ups with major music project sites couldn't get anyone over to talk.
        
        Why? I personally think it's because Mike doesn't work well except out of spite or anger. I don't think he builds on good stuff going forward, but builds on anger going back. Techdirt is really a blog about Mike slogging "old" business models and to trot out his slightly warped view of the business world. It's not really positive, it's built of crapping on the previous generation.
        
        Anyone trying to move forward can smell that, and they stay away.
        
        In simpler terms, Mike's fans aren't the people he wishes to reach, and those people don't seem to want to be here.
        
        So there isn't any real constructive stuff, because it requires Mike to stop being Mike, and that's just not going to happen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 7:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike does not do spite and anger, you're just so tied up in your own worldview that you can't even imagine that others would think differently and just assume there's an attack agenda somewhere.
        
        See this all the time in politics.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 7:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you kidding me? Why do you think most people come here? It's to read Mike's latest indignant post about how company X did you wrong, or how government agency Y is sneaking around on you again.
        
        I know the others think differently, but I don't build my business on nit picking others and posting "sky is falling" stuff.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I suppose we should just let goverment do whatever it wants with no one talking about it?
        
        Allow corperations to push for terrible laws with no objection?
        
        Fuck that shit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 7:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, you don't get the point. It's not about letting anyone push you around, whatever.
        
        My observation is only that Mike's site is about the negative, rarely about the positive. It's built it's audience on being anti-this and anti-that. Most of the big traffic gains have been around SOPA and the TSA stuff. It's negative action stuff.
        
        When Mike tries to do positive (Step 2) he seems to fail because he doesn't have the right attitude. He's not about reaching out to people to do positive, he's about reaching out the people to tell them how bad they are, and how much he will bang them on his blog in front of a large audience.
        
        It's about slapping people down, not about building up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 7:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike focusing on the negitive is a good thing. What would be the use of stories where the plane lands safely, the 113th story about how perfect the scholl system is, ect?
        
        When there's so much negitive you either face ithe problem or ignore it and let it overwelm you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're joking, right? Every time there's an issue with copyright the usual trolls come and proclaim how Life + 70 benefits everyone and whoever thinks that it might not be entirely appropriate gets called a pirate and an idiot, because life + 70 is written in stone (until it gets extended again) and indisputable. That is completely "letting anyone push you around".
        
        As the above poster put it, "fuck that shit". I suppose if someone told you to reach for your dreams off the edge of a cliff you'd do that, too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        apauld (profile), 29 Jul 2012 @ 3:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        even Nina Paley has taken the exit from Techdirt land... that should tell you a bunch
        
        Yes, it tells us that she is very busy. Didn't happen to notice that she has barely posted on her own blog in the last two months did you?
        
        The only failure here is you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 3:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why bother responding? No matter what you say he's just going to take the facts and fill the gaps in with assumptions that fit what he imagines the world to be.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 5:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What the heck are you on about? Nina Paley WAS very busy, but has been back at doing her daily cartoons again, which suggests some free time.
        
        I'm a busy guy, but I can find time for websites I enjoy. Nina was "staff" for a while - why leave?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 8:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nina was "staff" for a while - why leave?
        
        What the heck are you on about?
        
        Nina has done guest posts in the past and I assume will do so in the future, but she was never "on staff" at Techdirt as far as I know.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nina was a regular contributor to Techdirt, one of Mike's "pets", including posting pretty much daily cartoons on here. If she wasn't "on staff" it is pretty hard to tell her apart from a staff writer.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        gnudist, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "one of Mike's pets"
        
        Sounds hot. You AC trolls really out yourselves as blindly anti-techdirt with comments like these.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        apauld (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 4:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes and in the last few days she has also been commenting and posting on techdirt again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 7:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, and remarkably, as soon as I mention it, her horrid cartoons are back! Nothing like Mike working hard to try to prove me wrong. He's such a transparent weenie at times.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 7:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And again, you're just assuming things with no proof.
        
        Coincedences happen
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 29 Jul 2012 @ 8:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Those who cannot succeed will often belittle the effort and attempts of those that have." -Me, just now
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 8:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Love that guy. A truely great man.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 29 Jul 2012 @ 12:24pm
  
  Re:
  Why is it wrong for Mike to try and advertise his own program, successful or not, popular or not? If you don't like it, then don't use it. If you don't use it, tell us why. Don't just say "it's unpopular" and leave it at that.
  
  Or it could be, that more likely, you don't have anything to say.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 1:25pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It's just funny watching him try to lead people over there, and even the TD toadies can't be bothered to join in.
    
    The music industry people aren't there. The movie people aren't there. The gaming people aren't there. It's not connecting with hardly anyone.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Sneeje (profile), 29 Jul 2012 @ 2:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's even more funny watching you desperately, DESPERATELY try to appear much smarter and superior to everyone else, especially Mike.
      
      I can honestly say I haven't encountered anyone like you since High School, possibly middle school. For your own sake, you might want to consider growing up.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - apauld (profile), 29 Jul 2012 @ 3:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Somewhere an AC is shaking his head violently while screaming I can't hear you at this computer screen...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 6:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, those wedgies really left a last impression. Maybe therapy will help.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sneeje (profile), 29 Jul 2012 @ 7:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, I can only assume that AC must have had hundreds. It's hard not to feel kind of embarrassed for him/her.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 8:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nice try, Poindexter. You better hope the AC doesn't find out who you are and stuff you in a gym locker.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 1:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey, GYm lockers are free to live in, I'll have you know! Cheaper than those god-damned carcboard boxes!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sneeje (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Gods, you're a child. I bet it sounded all awesome when you said it to yourself out loud. Sucks when the reality is quite different eh? Oh well, as you grow up, you'll begin to understand.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 2:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "It's even more funny watching you desperately, DESPERATELY try to appear much smarter and superior to everyone else, especially Mike."
        
        Oh god no. I am not superior in any way. Mike has years of experience, a great education, and so on. He also has blind spots the size of buildings, but that's okay too.
        
        I am not claiming superiority here at all, only pointing out that, considering the huge amounts of people that come to Techdirt, and the huge amount of effort Mike puts into pushing his "CwF" and other stuff, it seems really weird to see what has happened to Step2.
        
        It doesn't connect with the intended users, the software isn't really special, and it's pretty much dead in the water. With so many people coming to Techdirt each day, you would think he could get more action over there. But no, it's not happening.
        
        I just think Mike talks a good game, but has proven that it's nowhere near as easy as he suggests, even with a huge running head start.
        
        "I can honestly say I haven't encountered anyone like you since High School, possibly middle school."
        
        I would say you need to get out more. If all you are getting is yes-men and people with the same opinion, you need to change your circle of friends. They aren't helping you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sneeje (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, believe me, I spend my days interacting with plenty of people that disagree with me, they just do it in a mature manner--by not denigrating me or others and by actively trying to find areas where we might come to agreement.
        
        But you do none of that--it is plain from your tone, choice of words, and lack of specifics. Your arguments, sadly, boil down to, "I know you are but what am I."
        
        The fact that you believe the only way I can write what I did is that I am sheltered and surrounded by similar opinions proves this. You cannot conceive that there is any other way to argue or debate--and that is because you haven't experienced anything else more enlightened.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 5:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I believe you don't fully understand what you just said.
      
      The reason the music people, movie people have so much "piracy" is exactly because they are always absent.
      
      You don't talk to people at your own risk, people will continue to do whatever they are doing and they won't ask for permission to do it, is just that simple, but they could be persuaded to help the music and movie people in some way that doesn't impinge on their own rights.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws (profile), 29 Jul 2012 @ 10:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The music industry people aren't there. The movie people aren't there. The gaming people aren't there.
      
      Probably because staying away is working so well for them, eh?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nigel (profile), 29 Jul 2012 @ 3:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Don't mind the AC. He subscribes to the Homer Simpson school of thought.
    
    "trying is the first step to failure"
    
    Which he incidentally does here on a daily basis. FAIL.
    
    Nigel
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 3:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Maybe I should start a step2 topic on trolling and the troll AC can give me advice.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 5:22pm
  
  Re:
  When he launches his own telco?
  
  http://gigaom.com/2012/07/28/defcons-ninjatel-cell-network-could-solve-real-world-problems /
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 29 Jul 2012 @ 10:11pm
  
  Re:
  Mike takes another stab at luring people
  
  Yeah, I'm sure they all feel totally mislead. Contrary to us who always know exactly what to expect when clicking on a link flagged by the community: clueless anons posting whiny bullshit like you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 29 Jul 2012 @ 10:32pm
  
  Re:
  In most cognitive learning programs Step1 is admitting that you have a problem.
  
  So prey tell us when you will admit that you are a needy little troll with delusions of grandeur that has a secret yearning for Mike's love and adoration?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 12:12pm

Also it's worth noting that in the constitution copyright is an optional regulation that congress may implement but it's illegal to grant a copyright without an expiration date.

The wording also suggests that promoting progress is the only justification for copyright/patents as what congress is actually given the power to do is "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" with the "securing for limited times the exclusive rights" part being the method by which they may do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 12:59pm

Also it's worth noting that in the constitution copyright is an optional regulation that congress may implement but it's illegal to grant a copyright without an expiration date.

The wording also suggests that promoting progress is the only justification for copyright/patents as what congress is actually given the power to do is "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" with the "securing for limited times the exclusive rights" part being the method by which they may do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
caruthers, 29 Jul 2012 @ 1:08pm

Copyright smochyright
Copyright was invented to protect the artists from the big industry giants and there greed, not from the citizens and there inquisitive minds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ken (profile), 29 Jul 2012 @ 2:13pm

Unauthorized Competition
RIAA and others like to call copyright infringement "theft" however the Supreme Court on more than one occasion has said it is not theft. It is no more theft than another company competing against another. You could say two companies selling the same product is stealing from the other but that is the nature of competition. The only difference is what the government considers authorized and unauthorized competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 5:59pm
  
  Re: Unauthorized Competition
  Supreme Court Justice Breyer in his MGM vs. Grokster concurrence:
  "No one disputes that �reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius.� United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S. 131, 158 (1948). And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ken (profile), 29 Jul 2012 @ 8:16pm
    
    Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
    DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)
    473 U.S. 207
    DOWLING v. UNITED STATES
    
    It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "`Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner,' that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, `is an infringer of the copyright.' [17 U.S.C.] 501(a)." Sony Corp., supra, at 433. There is no dispute in this case that Dowling's unauthorized inclusion on his bootleg albums of performances of copyrighted compositions constituted infringement of those copyrights. It is less clear, however, that the taking that occurs when an infringer arrogates the use of another's protected work comfortably fits the terms associated with physical removal employed by 2314. The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful [473 U.S. 207, 218] appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
    
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=473&invol=207
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 2:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
      I'll take the supreme court version, which is also the more recent ruling. Thanks anyway.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 7:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
        Swing and a miss. 473 U.S. 207 was a Supreme Court opinion. Thanks for playing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 7:59am
        
        Re:I'll take the supreme court version ...
        Even so the Supreme Court Ruling statement does not equate "deliberate unlawful copying" to theft. The statement is not a metaphor. It is written with figurative language to make a comparison, the point of which is to say that "deliberate unlawful copying" is no more or less unlawful than "unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft." That is quite different that saying there are the same act.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 8:01am
        
        Re: Re:I'll take the supreme court version ...
        typo: That is quite different than saying ...
        
        Also, apparently this was not a ruling but an opinion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ken (profile), 29 Jul 2012 @ 8:18pm
    
    Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
    If copyright infringement was garden variety theft then it would fall under the criminal code. It does not until it reaches an enterprise level. Even the law does not meet your definition of theft.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 8:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
      Feel free to argue your point with Justice Bryer. Your citation only states that infringement is less cut-and-dried than the definition of of wrongful appropriation in 473 U.S. 207, 218. Hardly contradicts the underlying concept of theft.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ken (profile), 29 Jul 2012 @ 9:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
        Justice Bryer is not the Supreme Court and is on the dissenting side more often than not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 10:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
        Where was he on Grokster?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 2:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
        Being a judge on the US supreme court does not make one an infallible arbiter of the English language.
        
        If it was a sound legal opinion that copyright infringement was equivalent to theft then surely some infringer somewhere would have been prosecuted for theft.
        
        It has never happened.
        
        It follows that any statement made by any judge that appears to equate copyright infringement to theft is:
        "Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."
        WS Gilbert
        
        and should not be taken seriously.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 2:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
        Above comment was mine - didn't notice I wasn't signed in.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 8:45pm
    
    Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
    This comment fundamentally misapprehends the holding by the Supreme Court in Downling v. US. In that case the appellant was convicted of violating a criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. 2314. The court's comment was limited to its analysis of only that specific criminal statute in which "theft" was narrowly defined. This is a far cry from stating without equivocation that copyright infringement can never be "theft".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - drew (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 12:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
      I've just been though about five on-line dictionaries (I don't have a paper one to hand) and in none of them can I find a definition of theft that would equate to copyright infringement. All of them talk about depriving someone of something which, as we've established on a number of occasions, copying does not do.
      Hmmm, wonder if that's why there's a separate offence called copyright infringement to cover that?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 8:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
        Supreme Court opinions are directed solely to the case before it, which in Dowling concerned a specific federal criminal statute. What the court held was that the specific statute did not include copyright infringment within its definition of theft...no more and no less. In this case the majority opinion declared that theft, as defined in the statute, was limited to tangible articles, and because rights under copyright do not meet the tangebility requirement of the statute, the taking of a right accorded by copyright was not viewed to fall within the reach of the statute.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 7:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
      Reading the decision at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/473/207.html and I cannot find anything that supports your theory. Reading it, I see this:
      
      Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use.
      
      Which seems to me to refer to copyright, itself and not just 18 USC 2314 as you seem to indicate. After all, the 'statutorily defined rights of a copyright holder' aren't defined in 18 USC 2314.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 8:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
        Reviewing and analyzing Supreme Court decisions is an art in and of itself. If you review the syllabus preceeding the actual opinion you may better understand what the court actually held, and it is the holding of a case that forms the basis for precedent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 3:28am
    
    Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
    "No one disputes that �reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius.�
    
    Why should we take this judge seriously when he is factually incorrect?
    
    I dispute that �reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius.�
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 6:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
      Sorry, but on matters of legal interpretation, I still have to give more credence to a Supreme Court justice than you. Seriously? You really think you are right and the justice is "factually incorrect"? I get that you don't like the opinion but it's bizarre that you actually think you know better.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 6:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
        The supreme court Justices are not gods and can actually be wrong about things.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Groove Tiger (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 7:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
        Actually, the judge IS factually incorrect. He said that no one (including Richard) disputes it. Richard just said he does dispute it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
        I think he meant no one of judicially authority. Not the entire population of the world, including Justice Richard and his merry band of freeloaders and apologists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        gnudist, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
        Oh, he's an RIAA/MPAA apoligist? News to me
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 6:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
        I think he meant no one of judicially authority.
        
        What is "judicailly authority?
        
        Anyway he diodn't SAY that - he said "no one".
        
        I'll take what the judge actually said above your interpretation.
        
        Beside which - the "appeal to authority" on which you rely is a well known logical fallacy.
        Note that the statement that the judge makes is about economics not about law - and therefore his authority cannot be relied on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 7:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
        How can the judge says nobody contest it when everybody is contesting it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 8:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
        Reading failure, I see. The judge said NO ONE DISPUTES. Since Richard disputes, that is factually incorrect, but you're going to ignore the evidence because a judicial opinion (and that is what these decisions are, opinions) says otherwise. Riiiiight.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 6:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
        I get that you don't like the opinion but it's bizarre that you actually think you know better.
        
        Since this is an opinion about my opinions I'll guess that my opinion of my own opinions is more reliable than the judge's opinion of my opinions!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 7:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
        I am not the only one who disputes the judges statement - and he should have known of the earlier examples - eg this one
        
        http://copy.law.cam.ac.uk/cam/tools/request/showRepresentation.php?id=representation_uk_1762a &pagenumber=1_5&imagesize=small
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 3:41pm

Step 1. Kick people off of the internet
Step 2.
Step 3. Profit!

Was this before or after they bought the government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 29 Jul 2012 @ 8:23pm
  
  Re:
  Step one is before the government buyout, three is after. Here's the missing rule two:
  
  Step 2. Buy out the government and get laws passed that make it illegal to not pay the ones who have purchased laws in their favor.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 3:48pm

Man, you really gotta be fast on 4Chan. You see something you want, get it, 'cause it can get 404ed real quick.
Just sayin'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 5:08pm
  
  Re:
  Damnit now I have to visit 4chan now. It's like saying biggie smalls in a mirror three times, I have to go every fucking time. Next time I see you I'm going to-*4chan'd*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 6:00pm

As pointed out here before. Copyrights originally lasted only 15 years. And even more interesting, copyrights did not cover music or literature.

Just out of curiosity, what did it cover?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 7:24pm
  
  Re:
  Charts, maps & books. Paintings and music did not "promote the progress of science" so they weren't considered
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 7:28pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Derr, first copyright not copyrigth during the us founder's day
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 8:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Don't books qualify as literature? If so, that only leaves maps.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 1:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Books", IIRC, were covered under "Arts" in the Statute of Anne.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
charliebrown (profile), 29 Jul 2012 @ 6:44pm

On the subject of people using Google to find illegal content, I know of nobody who has typed "illegal download" (or any variation thereof) into a search engine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2012 @ 9:06pm

Just a quick observation regarding the comment that came in second in voting.

Property rights are not inalienable rights and never have been considered as such as a matter of constitutional law.

Intellectual works have been viewed by many reaching back to at least as early as English law as natural rights. Others besides Locke have so stated from legal and philosophical perspectives. To say they have never been considered natural rights is incorrect. One example of current scholars who have studied law and philosophy who elaborates on this is Adam Mossoff. Some scholars disagree. Others agree. In many regards it seems to be a matter of perspective.

Interestingly, the history and recognition of copyright and patent law predates the US Constitution. Until it was enacted all but one of the then states had enacted copyright laws, and some had enacted patent laws.

Subsequent to the enactment of the Copyright Law of 1790 states continued to be involved in the granting of copyright because federal law was premised on date of publication. Pre-published works were not within the federal regime, making them fair game for state legislation. It was not until the Copyright Act of 1976, when creation became the federal standard in order to conform US law to international norms reaching back to the Berne Convention, that the federal government began exercising preemption over the field of copyright law to the exclusion of prior state powers.

Thus, to call copyright an exception to the innate rights of the public is not entirely correct, and I can well understand the push-back from rights holders to acquiesce to such a starting point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 3:16am
  
  Re:
  Intellectual works have been viewed by many reaching back to at least as early as English law as natural rights.
  
  I would like to see evidence from before 1550 to support that statement.
  
  The problem is that the opinions of subsequent scholars are tainted by 300 years of copyright propaganda.
  
  It is worth noting that the decision in Donaldson v. Becket (1774) is commonly misinterpreted to support the view that copyright existed in common law before the statute of Anne - however a more careful reading of the evidence suggests otherwise.
  
  "That is, Lord Chancellor Apsley, like Lord Camden, explicitly denied the existence of any common law right, ab initio, and it was this position that the majority of the peers embraced."
  
  The case is often misunderstood because people forget that at the time the opinions of the Law Lords were only advisory - and that one needs to look at the decisions of the House of Lords as a whole.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 3:49am
  
  Re:
  Subsequent to the enactment of the Copyright Law of 1790 states continued to be involved in the granting of copyright because federal law was premised on date of publication. Pre-published works were not within the federal regime, making them fair game for state legislation. It was not until the Copyright Act of 1976, when creation became the federal standard in order to conform US law to international norms reaching back to the Berne Convention, that the federal government began exercising preemption over the field of copyright law to the exclusion of prior state powers.
  
  I find it really funny that, in recent years - especially in reference to sound copyright- the copyright lobby has leveraged these state laws to extend copyright provision , when at the time the constitution was framed they were all lobbying for congressional powers because the state laws were inconsistent and hence inadequate for their purposes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 8:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    At the time of the Constitutional Convention, during which our present Constitution was crafted, there is virtually no historical record concerning the inclusion of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, other than the exchange of some correspondence between two or so participants, as well as some correspondence with Jefferson, who at the time was serving as the US envoy to France and, hence, not a participant in the formal discussions at the convention.
    
    Perhaps the most that can be said on this issue is that the provision was unanimously passed for inclusion in the document without formal debate.
    
    It is the absence of formal debate on the record that has led scholars to look elsewhere in an attempt to divine its history and purpose. Like anything else where one looks to extrinsic evidence limited to only a few individuals, much scholarly work is based upon an attempt to divine why it was included by all of the convention's participants.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 8:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    I agree that the dichotomy between state copyright laws and the federal law is perplexing, but it may be helpful to bear in mind that there really was a time when principles of Federalism were a key consideration in the formulation of various federal laws. Certainly, Federalism came to the fore with the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1976, pointing out the need to address the issue of federal preemption over state law. It was done so explicitly, but even then it could not rendeer null and void the legitimate exercise of state power prior to the time that preemption was declared. Sound recordings preserved under state law is one notable example that was explicitly recognized and accommodated.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 31 Jul 2012 @ 9:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sound recordings preserved under state law is one notable example that was explicitly recognized and accommodated.
      
      Your formal language cannot disguise the fact that the outcome of this process was quite bizarre - in that it extended sound copyright beyond the copyright term of the underlying compositions and has srved to undermine the public domain status of many works in other parts of the world where the rules are more consistent.
      
      You should bear in mind that the shenanigans that occur between the states and the federal government in your country are quite incomprehensible to most of the rest of the world, and I may add very frustrating at times.
      
      Asa for the lobbying in favour of federal copyright to overcome the limitations of state copyright - well it quite clearly did happen
      
      During the 1780s the shortcomings of local protection for writings and technological innovations in the context of an emerging national market and culture were becoming apparent, at least to some. The efforts of Noah Webster (1758-1843) and others to secure state protection for their writings vividly demonstrated these shortcomings in the instance of copyright.[3] The contest before state legislatures between John Fitch (1743-1798) and James Rumsey (1743-1792) over protection for the steamboat invention and the troubles of other inventors did the same in the patent context.[4] In 1787, in preparation for the constitutional convention, James Madison (1751-1836) identified "the want of uniformity in the laws concerning naturalization & literary property," as one of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation's scheme of government.[5] Later, when he defended the Constitution in the Federalist, Madison observed that "[t]he states cannot separately make effectual provision for either" copyright or patent.[6] In 1787 F.W. Geyer observed that "a patent can be of no use unless it is from Congress, and not from them till they are vested with much more authority than they possess at this time."[7] As it happened, when in 1787 a new scheme of government for the nation was created during the constitutional convention in Philadelphia, in the form of the U.S. Constitution, it included a new federal power to legislate in the field of copyright and patent.
      
      (from http://copy.law.cam.ac.uk/cam/tools/request/showRecord?id=commentary_us_1789)
      
      My point was that the advocates of stronger copyright have emphasised state laws when it suited them and lobbied for federal laws whenever that seemed in their interest. They have not displayed any phoilosophical or political consistency in their approach - they have simply lobbied for their own self interest at all times.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nigel, 29 Jul 2012 @ 9:48pm

On a related note
The industry rubes keep losing more cash because stuff just frankly sucks..

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/12/07/30/0143228/study-finds-new-pop-music-does-a ll-sound-the-same

Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JackOfShadows (profile), 29 Jul 2012 @ 10:14pm

This reminds me of ...
"This reminds me of the famous Marcus Brigstocke joke: 'If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.'"

... It's called a Rave.

So it skipped a generation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 29 Jul 2012 @ 11:39pm
  
  Re: This reminds me of ...
  ... It's called a Rave.
  
  So it skipped a generation.
  
  Or the joke skipped over your head.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 8:02am
  
  Re: This reminds me of ...
  I was thinking techno club. Reminded me of The City in Detroit years ago.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 12:20am

FISA
I never expected my comments on FISA Ammendments 2007 and 2008 to end up as an editor's choice, however, I would like to know who gave me the funny vote for it =)

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120720/17450619780/feds-wait-until-late-friday-to-admit-t hat-yeah-they-ignored-4th-amendment.shtml

It is comment 17 in chronobiology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jul 2012 @ 12:35pm

Your formal language cannot disguise the fact that the outcome of this process was quite bizarre - in that it extended sound copyright beyond the copyright term of the underlying compositions and has srved to undermine the public domain status of many works in other parts of the world where the rules are more consistent.

Actually, it did not. While not all states afforded under common or statutory law copyright protection for sound recordings, those states that did provide protection under common law placed no term limits since the "limited times" provision of federal law did not apply to states. In contrast, California provided copyright protection via statute. Unfortunately, I have been unable to locate a copy of the statute as it existed prior to 1972, and, thus, I do not know what the statutory term of protection pertained. As of now, however, California has amended its law for pre-1972 sound recordings such that the terms now mirror the termination date set forth in federal law. This same expiration date also applies to state common law copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 1 Aug 2012 @ 7:35am
  
  Re:
  Actually it did.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]