Join Us Thursday For A Conversation With Rob Reid, Author Of Year Zero; Plus August's Book Of The Month
from the no-safe-harbors dept
As you hopefully remember, the Techdirt "book of the month" for July was Rob Reid's Year Zero, the sci-fi novel about aliens realizing they owe the earth all the money in the universe because they've been infringing US copyright law while listening to all of our music (which they love). We published an excerpt here. For the last few books, we've held text chats via CoverItLive, but with Rob, we're going to try something different. On Thursday, at 12:30pm PT/3:30pm ET, we'll be broadcasting a live video chat (via Google's "Hangouts on Air" and YouTube) between myself and Rob (he'll be live at Techdirt's offices). I'll have a bunch of questions for him, but we'll also be taking questions online, which you can submit via Twitter during the chat, using the hashtag #yearzero, which we'll be monitoring. You'll also be able to submit questions via Google Plus. As with the text chat, this will be an experiment, so we'll see how it goes.We also wanted to announce the August book of the month, which is No Safe Harbor, a collection of essays, on a variety of topics that we cover here on Techdirt, put together by the US Pirate Party. You can buy the book at Amazon or (of course) download it from the link above in pretty much every format imaginable. We'll be talking to Andrew "K'Tetch" Norton, who put the book together late in August or early in September.
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: books, rob reid, techdirt book club, year zero
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's K`Tetch, Mike.
Two T's :-)
And I'll probably scare up my co-editor Brad Hall as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Safe Harbor 2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
July 2012
Year Zero: http://www.randomhouse.com/book/217834/year-zero-by-rob-reid
Hardback $25
Paperback $15
eBook $12.99
Audiobook $20
Copyrighted? Of yeah.
Copyright-as-business model? Yep.
Can we thank copyright for this book? Of course.
Would Mike approve if the copyright holder enforced its copyright against an infringer? Nope. He'd blame the rightholder and not the pirate for the pirate's decision to violate the rightholder's rights. Every time.
Is Pirate Mike a duplicitous asshole? You bet. There's none slimier.
How do you know this? Simple. Ask him a simple and direct question about his fundamental beliefs. Sit back and enjoy the silence or the sliminess. You won't get a simple and direct answer. Ever.
*****
August 2012
No Safe Harbor http://www.nosafeharbor.com/
Paperback $9.99
Download FREE!
Copyrighted? Yep. Proudly noticed on Page 2: http://pp-international.net/no_safe_harbor/No%20Safe%20Harbor%20-%20United%20States%20Pirate%20Party .pdf
Is it funny that pirates are copyrighting their works? Yes. Absolutely.
Is it funny that Pirate Mike's pirate buddies are relying on copyright? More than words can adequately capture.
Do TDers even read books? I have serious, serious doubts. Probably too busy watching all the videos and listening to all the music they pirated. TD isn't populated by bookworms, that's for sure.
Is Mike desperately trying to seem legitimate with this silly book club? Absolutely. Obviously so.
Is it working? Not one iota.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only if you don't understand reality. That is that ALL WORKS ARE COPYRIGHT BY DEFAULT.
That's the law.
You'll also notice it's under a Creative Commons license.
And the Pirate Parties don't have a problem with copyright, and don't want it abolished. They just want the excesses rolled back.
Sorry if the facts of reality intrude on your nice little 'theory'. Perhaps you can scrub it out, and try again, I'm sure no-one else will hold your ignorance against you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The CC license works via copyright; if a work is not copyrighted, the license is not enforceable. And anyone who exceeds the scope of the license is an infringer of the copyright. So yeah, it's hilarious that the pirate work is copyrighted, with a huge copyright notice on the second page to boot. And it's hilarious that Pirate Mike keeps featuring books that use copyright in his anti-copyright, pro-piracy book club.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is no "abandoning" copyright. It is with you for life plus 70 years (barring any future extensions) The best you can do is choose not to enforce any aspect of copyright till you are dead, at which point your estate can then do a 180 from your position and enforce the crap out of it.
The CC license works via copyright;
It works in spite of copyright. Big difference.
So yeah, it's hilarious that the pirate work is copyrighted, with a huge copyright notice on the second page to boot.
"Ha ha. Look at that water. It is so wet. Isn't that hilarious."
And it's hilarious that Pirate Mike keeps featuring books that use copyright
Please provide a current book that is not covered by copyright. All the books from prior to 1923 don't have a lot to do with current copyright, patent, trademark and technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're just embarrassing yourself at this point. Google "copyright abandonment," read up for a few hours, and then get back to me. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. No wonder Pirate Mike hired you to write for TD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
www.lawcatalog.com/samples/ljp_694PublicDomain.pdf
A couple of things to note:
Section 6.02
Neither the current copyright law (Copyright Act of 1976)1 nor prior law (Copyright Act of 1909)2 contain any provision explicitly allowing copyright owners to dedicate their works to the public domain, or explaining how it can be done.3
Section 6.02[4]
If a copyright owner abandons his copyright, does the abandonment last forever, or can he later change his mind and re-claim his copyright rights? There are no cases directly addressing this issue.
Seems to support what I have been describing all along. Imagine that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, only if the alleged infringement happened prior to the reclaiming of the copyright. After the copyright is reclaimed, that defense is no longer valid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh?
The Supreme Court said different in the Golan case.
[ 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:
Until we have a legal precedent that states that a work that has been "abandoned" cannot be reclaimed by the would be inheritor of the copyright, then my worries are justified.
[ 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:
You on the other hand, are completely ignoring that.
So to reiterate:
Yes, you can abandon your copyright to the public domain, but that is only enforceable as long as you are alive. Once you are dead, your estate, that has a valid legal claim to the copyright can reclaim it for the remaining 70 years.
[ 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: 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: Re: Re:
LMAO! Yesterday, you insisted that there was no way to dedicate anything to the public domain, and that people were stuck with their copyrights. You insisted, completely unaware of the actual law on point. And today you're an expert, fully cognizant of the doctrine's metes and bounds. Sorry, Zach, but you're a complete fucking moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am claiming that the law does not specifically allow for permanent abandonment. Which means that it is still possible, but not legally tested, for a work to be reclaimed under copyright.
And I am the moron. Well, at least I am nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is not easy to do. For one thing, that "dedication" may work in the U.S., but in other countries (the EU especially), authors have certain rights ("droit d'auteur," or "moral rights") that cannot be waived, even voluntarily. (In the U.S., this right is also granted to visual artists in 17 USC 106a.)
Plus, "copyright abandonment" is a common-law affirmative defense, and occurs nowhere in the federal statutes. This presents its own set of problems. There is no generalized process to go through to "abandon" your copyright; the legal definition differs slightly in each region; and common-law "abandonment" statutes would be trumped by Federal copyright law, if there was any kind of conflict.
One such conflict might be between "copyright abandonment" and the termination rights in 17 USC 203. This would occur if, for example, a programmer assigned the copyright on her code to the FSF, who release it under the GPL. Under 203's termination rights, she could eventually nullify the assignment, and place that same code under a "full" copyright. That probably wouldn't apply to Techdirt articles by Mike, but it might with some of the other Techdirt authors (though it's unlikely).
In reality, the only way to affect a federally-enforcable copyright "abandonment" is to grant an unrestricted license. This is the idea behind a CC0 license. Of course, in order to grant that license, you need to hold the copyright in the first place. So, even CC0 material would still be under copyright, technically speaking.
(this is what Pirate Mike claims to do with his articles, even though he doesn't bother to actually abandon the copyright in each article--which he could do rather easily with a simple notice).
Since Mike actually holds the copyright on the articles he writes, if he "claims" to abandon the copyright, then he does (to the extent that abandonment is possible).
I can't answer why he doesn't simply put a CC0 notice on his articles, but I suspect it has to do with the issues above.
And calling him "Pirate Mike" is just an ad hominem - and a baseless one at that, since Mike has never once advocated piracy, nor has he ever said that copyright is always bad. I wouldn't blame him if he never replied to anyone who used this insult: it shows that you're here for name-calling, not debate.
p.s. What's with all the Techdirt server errors? Time to move to a new webhost?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Errors? The homepage was loading already-scrolled-down a ways earlier, but not any more. Other than that, no problems on my end. Maybe what you're seeing is the same or related?
If I were Mike, and I really wanted to abandon my copyright on each article, and I would simply have a bit of text at the end of each one saying simply "no rights reserved" (or something similar). I'm not sure he can abandon the rights to articles he hasn't even written yet, which is what he appears to think he can do/is doing (I don't see how you can affirmatively abandon your rights to property that doesn't even exist yet; it HAS to be ex post). Seems like a simple notice with each article would be the better practice.
P.S. What the fuck with the Rojadirecta case? 2d Circuit sitting on it since oral arguments in December, and the district court sitting on a motion to dismiss for two months? C'mon already! I'm dying here!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hello, Anonymous Coward. (By the way, are you the person who used to post under the username Average Joe? It would explain a lot.)
Errors? The homepage was loading already-scrolled-down a ways earlier, but not any more. Other than that, no problems on my end.
No, different situation. If I try to submit a reply, I often get a Server Error (I think it's 503 Service Unavailable). It's the kind of error you usually get when there are problems reading from/writing to the database.
If you're not getting that, it's probably something to do with my account. I do have a lot of comments, maybe that has something to do with it.
I guess Techdirt's servers are telling me to get a life...?
If I were Mike, and I really wanted to abandon my copyright on each article, and I would simply have a bit of text at the end of each one saying simply "no rights reserved" (or something similar).
Like I said, I can't speak for Mike, but I also think a notice would be a good idea. If nothing else, it would reveal the misconceptions of all those critics who claim Mike would sue if someone else used his content. Still, it's not my website.
I'm not sure he can abandon the rights to articles he hasn't even written yet, which is what he appears to think he can do/is doing (I don't see how you can affirmatively abandon your rights to property that doesn't even exist yet; it HAS to be ex post)
I don't see why not. That sort of thing happens all the time: recording artists assign the copyright to future recordings, graphic artists sign "work for hire" contracts, etc; all before the work is even begun. (Yet another reason to view copyright as distinct from other forms of legal property.)
P.S. What the fuck with the Rojadirecta case? 2d Circuit sitting on it since oral arguments in December, and the district court sitting on a motion to dismiss for two months? C'mon already! I'm dying here!!
If you're getting impatient, imagine how Puerto 80 feels. They were supposed to get their domain name returned in January. (Not to mention the fact that if December's ruling stands, the DOJ never had the right to seize it in the first place.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, I've never quite found the opportunity to ask this, but what the hell is the NC clause doing in the NSH's license? Really? Do we seriously expect we'd be losing out on licensing fees without that? Or that somebody's going to release knock-off copies? Or that we'd actually have the resources to take somebody to court for doing anything we disapproved of? Nina, if you're reading this, back me up here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And last time I checked, the last international evaluation of Pirate Party positions on copyright (which was during my tenure as PPI head), had NO-ONE wanting abolition of copyright; not a single party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you missed a word there. But in response, the book is copyrighted by default. There is no opting out of copyright. So highlighting that the book is covered by copyright is like saying water is wet.
Copyright-as-business model? Yep.
Um...No. Copyright itself is not a business model and never will be. It is a fact of doing business. That's like say "driving on roads is the business model of transport."
Would Mike approve if the copyright holder enforced its copyright against an infringer? Nope. He'd blame the rightholder and not the pirate for the pirate's decision to violate the rightholder's rights. Every time.
No. Mike would have issue withe the idea of suing someone based on IP only evidence, then seeking maximum fines and forcing someone into lifetime debt. Mike would also take issue with efforts to limit the ability to use something covered by copyright in ways the reader wishes.
Copyrighted? Yep. Proudly noticed on Page 2
See my first response. Plus you completely ignore that they are opting out of enforcing the majority of what copyright law allows.
Is it funny that pirates are copyrighting their works? Yes. Absolutely.
Ummm....They want people to share the book for free. Says so right there on page 2 of the book. Why is that funny? Because you can't comprehend that someone would be willing to allow free sharing of their work?
Is it funny that Pirate Mike's pirate buddies are relying on copyright? More than words can adequately capture.
Relying on copyright? Are you insane? If they could, I am sure they would be willing to opt out of copyright completely. But as I have already stated, copyright is forced on them. It is not a choice they made.
Do TDers even read books? I have serious, serious doubts.
Do you comprehend what you read? I have serious, serious doubts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
See above. The copyright can be abandoned. And it's rather easy to do. Don't ask Pirate Mike about it though, since he clearly doesn't actually understand what it takes to truly place his own works into the public domain. That would require understanding actual copyright law, not some twisted version of it that he read in a work of "legal fiction" like that "No Law" book he's always foaming at the mouth about.
Um...No. Copyright itself is not a business model and never will be. It is a fact of doing business. That's like say "driving on roads is the business model of transport."
I love how you guys always deny that copyright has anything to do with works. Obviously the Year Zero book is the product of copyright. Are they giving it away? No. Are they selling it at cost? No. That author puts food on his plate because he's exploiting his copyright in the work he created. Copyright allowed him to cut a deal with his publisher. You think Random House doesn't worry about the rights?
No. Mike would have issue withe the idea of suing someone based on IP only evidence, then seeking maximum fines and forcing someone into lifetime debt. Mike would also take issue with efforts to limit the ability to use something covered by copyright in ways the reader wishes.
Pirate Mike would not approve of the rightholder of the book suing any infringer. Can you point me to all the articles Mike has written where he cheers on the rightholder sticking it to the pirate? Of course you can't, because that's obviously not what Pirate Mike is all about. He claims that he's not against anyone having copyright rights, but his dirty little secret (don't ask him for a direct answer, 'cause you won't get one) is that he just doesn't think they should actually ever enforce that right against one who infringes it. He doesn't mind them having the rights, he only minds then actually enforcing the rights against others. It's a tricky, slimy way that he can pretend to be not anti-copyright.
See my first response. Plus you completely ignore that they are opting out of enforcing the majority of what copyright law allows.
The first book is reserving all rights, I should think. The second is reserving less than all, but nonetheless some copyright rights are being reserved. Says so right on Page 2. What they didn't do was dedicate the work to the public domain. I wonder why. Oh yeah, 'cause copyright is awesome and they want those rights just like so many others. Guess they don't drink the TD-flavored Kool-Aid.
Ummm....They want people to share the book for free. Says so right there on page 2 of the book. Why is that funny? Because you can't comprehend that someone would be willing to allow free sharing of their work?
And yet the book is copyrighted and they indicate the desire to retain certain rights rather than dedicate them to the public domain. Weird.
Relying on copyright? Are you insane? If they could, I am sure they would be willing to opt out of copyright completely. But as I have already stated, copyright is forced on them. It is not a choice they made.
You might want to read up on copyright abandonment. They could dedicate the work to the public domain. Instead, they've both made the choice to rely on their copyright rights. It worries me that you don't understand this. How is it that you're qualified to write about IP law for TD? I've yet to see you have even a passing understanding of the substantive law.
Do you comprehend what you read? I have serious, serious doubts.
I'm sure you do, Zach. If I thought you had clue one, I might think it meant something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can't abandon copyright. Not one lick. You can only choose not to enforce your copyright. Once you are dead though, all bets are off as the copyright is out of your hands.
That would require understanding actual copyright law
Please show me in copyright law where it says that a copyright can be abandoned. I am not asking for you to point at a CC license or a "public domain" license. I am asking for actual law that says that you can opt out of actually having a copyright on a work for life + 70 years.
Obviously the Year Zero book is the product of copyright.
You have such a twisted view of the creative process. I seriously wonder what color the sky is in your fantasy land. Year Zero was written because Rob Reid wanted to write a funny science fiction story.
But I guess you could say it is the product of copyright, because if copyright did not exist or was not insane, he probably would have had to choose a different muse if he wanted to still tell a story. But I doubt that is what you meant.
Copyright allowed him to cut a deal with his publisher.
Do you honestly think that nothing would be created if copyright didn't exist? I guess fashion and textile is just a worldwide figment of the imagination. Without copyright, he would still be able to publish and make money. People do it all the time.
Mike would not approve of the rightholder of the book suing any infringer.
Suing fans for often grossly inflated and imaginary "damages" is not something anyone should encourage. Please show a case where someone was sued for real damages.
What they didn't do was dedicate the work to the public domain. I wonder why. Oh yeah, 'cause copyright is awesome and they want those rights just like so many others.
Well, some authors maybe (as was pointed out above). But think about it for a moment. Why are there people who choose to opt out of some parts of copyright? IS it perhaps because the public perception of fairness under copyright is shifting? You wouldn't be willing to accept that though.
And yet the book is copyrighted and they indicate the desire to retain certain rights rather than dedicate them to the public domain. Weird.
Again, they can't opt out of copyright altogether. But since the work is the compilation of various people with various ideas on what they feel is appropriate level of enforcement they had to appease everyone. Imagine that. Multiple people having multiple opinions on what is fair.
You might want to read up on copyright abandonment. They could dedicate the work to the public domain.
Dedicating the work to the public domain does not abandon the copyright.
It worries me that you don't understand this.
I do have problems understanding the underlying thought process of someone with mental deficiencies. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know you Googled it and read up for about five minutes, but you're not quite there yet. A quick search in Westlaw shows hundreds of cases discussing copyright abandonment. There's a significant amount of case law on the subject that you could actually read. Try Google Scholar, perhaps.
From the first case that popped up:Melchizedek v. Holt, 792 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 1051 (D. Ariz. 2011).
It's a common law doctrine, and it, naturally, operates as a defense.
Dedicating the work to the public domain does not abandon the copyright.
Of course it does. If the copyright has been abandoned, the work is in the public domain. If a work is in the public domain, there is no copyright.
I'd address the rest of your points, but debating you always turns into me teaching you remedial copyright law. If you're really interested in this stuff, research it like I do. But please stop speaking like an expert about things you haven't even taken the time to learn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since you brought it up, your citing still does not settle the issue of what happens after someone (say my kids or grandkids) who decide to take the work I "abandoned" and then decide to take back the copyright. Under current copyright, they can do just that. Which means that any infringement that took place after they reclaimed the copyright would not allow for the abandoned defense.
So again, copyright cannot be fully abandoned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But again, you are incorrect. But since such case law has not been made in the US, we can't really say. But in Europe where retroactive copyright extensions have pulled works out of the public domain, we can see that it is possible. Once the work is pulled out of the public domain either through retroactive copyright extensions or reclaiming an abandoned copyright, no future infringement can use the abandoned defense.
It must be mentally draining to be so intentionally misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or, more succinctly, I am undermining the stance that I refuse to take, which you have made up wholly in your head, by not doing what this strawman in your head would do if he were me.
Very convincing.
Contrary to your repeated assertions about who I am, what I say and what I believe, I have no issues with authors using copyright if that is, in fact, what is best for them. I (quite clearly) am worried about the excessive nature of copyright enforcement and the collateral damage it causes (as well as the lack of evidence of effectiveness). This is not a secret, contrary to your assertion that I refuse to answer such questions.
You will, of course, insist that's me not giving a straight answer, but that's as straight as they come because it's the truth. You seem to not understand that one can hold a nuanced position on a topic, where something is neither black nor white. I don't have a problem with anyone who has a copyright on their works. That is their decision.
And the purpose of the book club is to interest people in good books, not to focus on the business models of the authors who write them. When we find interesting business models by authors, we discuss those separately. Besides, selling books is still a perfectly reasonable business model for some, and we've never argued otherwise, so you again appear to have built up a strange strawman in your head.
Somewhere in your mind, however, this has all turned into a grand conspiracy, in which I am apparently hypocritical for failing to live up to the false caricature you've created of me in your mind.
Perhaps if you started dealing with reality, instead of some fantasyland, people might take you seriously in the comments here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you're ready to have a grown up conversation about substantive things that actually matter, you let me know. I'll debate you on this point too, if you really like, but if I've got your ear and you're willing to actually engage me, let's talk about the topics you don't really want to discuss. You know, the hard stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wanna watch Mike squirm? Ask him simple and direct questions about his fundamental beliefs.
[ 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: Re: Re:
As I said, when a two year old child throws a tantrum, you calmly explain to them why that is not the proper response, but you most certainly do not give in to whatever the tantrum is about.
In the meantime, you really ought to stop lying saying that I would not debate you. I did so in the comments many times in the past and you know it. The end result? After I completely destroyed you, you threw the most obnoxious hissy fit ever and started commenting ON EVERY SINGLE post completely off topic ad hom attacks on me.
I think most people here can understand all of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And now you're saying that *I'm* unwilling to debate? Sigh. Is there not one honest cell in your body?
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you post this sort of puerile crap, repeatedly, and still wonder why Mike won't bother with you, you're a moron. Seriously, if you called someone stuff like that to their face, would you also wonder why they punched you? Is this actually how you want to be talked to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So please, either post your direct questions, or stop harping on about it. Add something to the debate, don't just whinge that someone isn't engaging with your name-calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The comment you are responding to answers that question, in detail. Which only reinforces why debating you is not a productive past time, when you make it clear that you will not actually engage in any thing resembling reasonable conversation.
I have and will debate people who act older than a 2 year old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop making excuses. Let me ask you simple, direct questions, and you give simple, direct answers.
Stop saying you've already done this. You haven't.
Stop saying other people have answered. I want your answers.
Stop making excuses. Stop refusing to answer the questions.
Over and over and over again. Excuse, excuse, excuse.
What you never have done, and what you apparently will never do, is just answer my simple, direct questions with a simple, direct answer.
Prove me wrong.
Stop talking about talking about it (which is ALL you ever do), and just answer the questions.
The fact that you refuse to address my questions says it all about the type of person you are, Mike. And it's not good.
Only a dishonest person would, for years, refuse to answer simple, direct questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But apparently he doesn't support piracy - hmm!
Then there are movies. He hates the studios, hates all that they do... and has a Netflix account and pays those same studios for content using a windowing system that he despises. So he is against the studios and one of their good customers.
While I don't have the information, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that for all the pro-cord cutting articles, and all the support for cord cutters, that Mike also has a nice, solid, and probably pretty large cable / sat TV bill every month that he pays.
Mike is certainly wishy-washy on these things. It's hard to pin him down, he doesn't want to be held to anything. His usual answer is "I didn't write the original story".
Oh, if something does turn out in one of the ways he allowed other "original stories" to point out, he's pretty quick to claim the old "we have already shown that...". He always gets a victory because he never claims something that fails (how are those first amendment anti-copyright arguments going Mike?).
SO let's see if he can manage to directly address some issues without getting all wishy washy and evasive.
Probably we will just see his usual protectors posting to knock this down before he gets back!
[ 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:
1. I don't hate studios. Don't hate all that they do. I like the studios and wish they did a better job.
2. I have never had a Netflix account (you used to accuse me of this and I've told you multiple times that I do not have and have never had one).
While I don't have the information, I wouldn't be shocked to find out that for all the pro-cord cutting articles, and all the support for cord cutters, that Mike also has a nice, solid, and probably pretty large cable / sat TV bill every month that he pays.
Nope. We have no pay TV account. I used to, but these days we just don't watch enough TV to make it worthwhile.
But that's really meaningless. You keep assuming that me criticizing them means I hate them. Quite the opposite. I want them to do better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. Only a dishonest person would lie, claim I did not engage you, did not answer your questions... and then ignore my direct responses to your temper tantrums and explanations for why you're not worth engaging in substantive debate.
Anyone else is free to read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about this. We can settle it right here in this thread. Let's have the actual discussion, not a discussion about having the discussion, right here, right now.
I'll ask you simple, direct questions. You give simple, direct answers. And, of course, I'll do the same.
You in?
(I know you're not. You will *never* answer my simple, direct questions because you're as slimy as they come.)
Prove me wrong, Mike. Make this the thread you point to in the future to say, "See, I answered his questions."
(I know you will not.)
Everyone who thinks you're a stand-up guy should think long and hard about why you won't even answer simple, direct questions about your beliefs. The reason, I assume they can see, is because you're a manipulative liar. You don't want to be pinned down on your own lies. You know that once I get you to admit certain things, I'll use that admission relentlessly.
I can make you look incredibly dumb and dishonest, and nothing scares you more than that. Just look at how you run away EVERY TIME.
Here's a classic from a year ago, where Mike absolutely refused to explain why "piracy is not OK." He kept hemming and hawing, but never would he just answer the question.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/21453616141/another-ninjavideo-admin-pleads-g uilty-expect-rest-to-do-so-too.shtml#c1878
Too, too funny.
Years, Mike. I've been trying to get you to answer simple, direct questions for years.
Why so ascarit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm wondering what debate you're having in your head.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't pirate stuff, i don't condone it, i recognise that it exists and I try and work around it. I also don't try and restrict what other people can do because of what a small subset of people are doing.
I can't speak for him, but that's what I read in Mike's articles. You're obviously reading something very different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simple, direct question. Every time I've asked him, he'll hem and haw and say I'm a baby and all kinds of nonsense. But he will *never* just give a simple, direct answer.
That says it all. Doesn't want to be pinned down on what he *really* believes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No matter. He won't discuss anything that actually matters. Keep defending the snake who refuses to answer even one simple, direct question, drew. If that's what floats your boat, I can't fix that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't need Mike's response to do that, you can post your views for all to read and respond to. There are plenty of intelligent people here who can figure out if you've proved Mike's lied about anything. I can see how upset you are at so far failing spectacularly to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you kidding me?
I gave you a whole slew of quotes where Mike said, explicitly, that piracy is not OK:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/21453616141/another-ninjavideo-admin-pleads-guilty-ex pect-rest-to-do-so-too.shtml#c1629
Not only did Mike not "refuse to explain" his position, he directly engaged with you, numerous times:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/21453616141/another-ninjavideo-admin-pleads-guilty -expect-rest-to-do-so-too.shtml#c478
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/21453616141/another- ninjavideo-admin-pleads-guilty-expect-rest-to-do-so-too.shtml#c1735
http://www.techdirt.com/article s/20110929/21453616141/another-ninjavideo-admin-pleads-guilty-expect-rest-to-do-so-too.shtml#c1793
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/21453616141/another-ninjavideo-admin-pleads-guilty-expect- rest-to-do-so-too.shtml#c1861
He stopped responding to you only after he had explained himself. And you did nothing but call him "Pirate Mike," and post ridiculous insults like "Dishonest as the day is long" or "Your lies are truly revolting." And here's the kicker: the only reason you believe Mike is "pro-piracy" is because he's not "anti-piracy" enough to agree with YOU.
It's a classic case of binary thinking. "You're not against my enemies as much as I think you should be, so therefore you're against me." It's the type of limited thinking that's found in dictators and lynch mobs. It says nothing about Mike, but an awful lot about you.
And that's just in that one thread. If this is your version of Mike being "as slimy as they come," then you've just proven that you're someone who is not here for any kind of substantive discussion on anything. A delusional child throwing a temper tantrum.
Mike is absolutely, 100% right to not engage with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's Mike reporting on a case that he clearly hadn't even done 5 seconds of research on: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120305/13130517993/supreme-court-wont-hear-perfect-10s-silly-laws uit-against-google-good-ruling-stands.shtml#c214
Crickets.
LMAO! I guess it's time to start embarrassing you with the classics. I'm going to enjoy this!
Cheers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interesting, but inaccurate. First of all, it took me much longer than 5 seconds to actually find the Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari (PDF).
Since it was linked in none of the news stories reporting on the case. In fact, here's how Dow Jones Newswires (apparently the syndicated source) described it:
Mike's confusion was understandable, to say the least.
Now, about that Writ. The issue was, indeed, whether the eBay case did away with the "presumption of harm" if there was a likelihood of success on the merits for claims of copyright infringement. But to see why this is important, read footnote 3 to the 9th Circuit decision (reprinted as Appendix A in the writ):
In other words, Perfect 10 was effectively hoping to overturn eBay, expressly so that it could appeal the fair use and DMCA defences that went in Google's favor.
The Supreme Court did not touch these issues - but by denying review, it effectively blocked Perfect 10 from revisiting the fair use issue (among others).
In the final analysis, Mike's characterization (like the Dow Jones Newswires') was accurate. He didn't go into the (rather esoteric) legal reasons why, but you'll notice that me explaining this took up more space than Mike's entire post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm, will you be declaring the advertising value of this future shill posting to the elections people? Or will you expense it to your PAC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike clearly states that he thinks copyright is a waste of time (even while shooting himself in the foot using data that are against his thesis).
And now he says, "I have no issues with authors using copyright if that is, in fact, what is best for them."
That would be like 99.99% of all authors in the world.
"I (quite clearly) am worried about the excessive nature of copyright enforcement and the collateral damage it causes (as well as the lack of evidence of effectiveness)."
Lack of evidence of effectiveness? Why then is it so difficult to find an author who willingly places freshly created content in the public domain? Not even Rob Reid is convinced.
If Mike, the greatest champion there is of breaking free of copyright and other similar shackles, is unable to convince an author like Reid, then what hope is there for the free world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]