This Week In Techdirt History: April 12th - 18th
from the copying-is-not-theft-or-strangulation dept
Five Years Ago
This week in 2010, the move to a new type of mass media was accelerating across the board: more people were giving up TV across the board and smart artists were trying smart business models like the classical orchestras using CwF+RtB. The old guard, as usual, was having trouble catching up: Fox and Universal both wrangled release delay deals out of Netflix; copyright threatened the best thing to come out of the second Star Wars trilogy; broadcasters were still futilely trying to push mobile TV; a book publisher was threatening US fans for ordering from overseas instead of waiting for a local copy; and the RIAA was insisting that musicians can't make money without it (while an Australian recording industry group was trying to claim copyright on a photo of a piece of paper). All the while, we were noting that protection of content has to come from the business model, not the law or technology.
Also in 2010: the Library of Congress announced that it would begin archiving tweets; we noted that the real problem with internet comments isn't anonymity; we wondered whether intellectual property is a violation of real property; and, even if it's not, we certainly agreed with Nina Paley's video underlining the fact that copying is not theft:
Ten Years Ago
This week in 2005, we proposed a code of conduct for the recording industry (which they immediately took to heart, obviously). Perhaps we should have suggested one for Comcast too, since it was sued for handing subscriber info over to the RIAA. And ones for Microsoft and AOL, who were trying (and failing) to make the internet work more like television. Meanwhile, in these pre-YouTube-acquisition days, Google quietly launched its own video upload feature (remember Google Video?)
Video games entered a new phase of maturity in 2005 as people began to realize they could have bigger aspirations: the UN made one to educate people about world hunger, others were building games geared at teaching kids, and still others were building games to teach literacy and cultural sensitivity. Amidst all this, some were discovering the zen of button mashing.
Fifteen Years Ago
Well, this is when it happened — this week in 2000, Metallica sued Napster. At the time we considered it "silly" and "ridiculous" — little did we know just how historic a case it would become. At the same time, people were realizing that MP3s were good for a lot more than just music.
Broadcasters were much more optimistic back then, claiming they weren't scared by the internet. The big device showdown at the time was between BlackBerry and Palm. Ireland was turning itself into a tech hub, while some people were worrying that earthquakes could knock out Silicon Valley. We discussed the future of RealNetworks (it still appeared to have one, as did OS/2) and of the wireless world (realizing it might not be based on WAP). Of course, some people were still just convinced that the internet is evil.
Thirty-Three Years Ago
You've all heard the quote, here on Techdirt and likely elsewhere as well. It was this week in 1982 at a congressional hearing about the home recording of copyrighted works that Jack Valenti, then-head of the MPAA, served up his infamously absurd analogy:
I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.
This statement might have held true if over the next few years the Boston Strangler became the number one source of revenue for the entire woman-home-alone industry. Alas, this was not the case.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
But the statement is true: without copyright upheld and the moral imperative that creators own their products, Hollywood would get little. Inarguable.
You should instead argue that Hollywood gets too much money. But that'd be Populism and 1-percenter Masnick won't get near it.
Meanwhile, The Masnick has been wrong on every significant court case. It's simply illegal to gain money off other people's content. He should be hooted roundly; I do my best.
Techdirt has claimed for over a decade that the "dinosaurs" were doomed, yet they go on doing well. Therefore, by same logic as Techdirt is using against that quote, Techdirt has zero credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
Techdirt comes down like a ton of bricks on faulty logic, particularly when ad hominem attacks and appeals to emotion are used to bolster arguments.
But the statement is true: without copyright upheld and the moral imperative that creators own their products, Hollywood would get little. Inarguable.
Creators emphatically DON'T own their products. First of all it's not a product, secondly it's not property. Property can be stolen, copyrighted items can't. Infringement is not theft.
You should instead argue that Hollywood gets too much money. But that'd be Populism and 1-percenter Masnick won't get near it.
If you spent more time here you'd realize Mike does argue this from time to time. As for the 1-percenter tag, citation needed.
Meanwhile, The Masnick has been wrong on every significant court case. It's simply illegal to gain money off other people's content. He should be hooted roundly; I do my best.
Citation? Wanting a thing to be true doesn't make it true. You're entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. Infringement is indeed illegal. No one has ever said it's not but infringement is not theft. Mike should be supported fully. I do my best.
Techdirt has claimed for over a decade that the "dinosaurs" were doomed, yet they go on doing well. Therefore, by same logic as Techdirt is using against that quote, Techdirt has zero credibility.
Techdirt has claimed that the business models were dinosaurs and needed to be adapted to the modern age. That they go on doing well is due to legislative support of anti-competitive monopoly rights over distribution. Let's make a deal: I'll go along with your "copyright is property" cant if you agree that "Own it now on DVD" should be replaced with "Licence it now on DVD. Copyright restrictions apply."
As for Techdirt's credibility, I've not seen any reason yet to doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
But the statement is true: without copyright upheld and the moral imperative that creators own their products, Hollywood would get little. Inarguable.
You should instead argue that Hollywood gets too much money. But that'd be Populism and 1-percenter Masnick won't get near it.
Meanwhile, The Masnick has been wrong on every significant court case. It's simply illegal to gain money off other people's content. He should be hooted roundly; I do my best.
Techdirt has claimed for over a decade that the "dinosaurs" were doomed, yet they go on doing well. Therefore, by same logic as Techdirt is using against that quote, Techdirt has zero credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
Arguable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
Some authors, even best sellers, believe that they do not own their works after they release them, but that they are gifts to the world. I believe that a well written gift is a princely gift, and one worthy of paying the authors for. Have you never seen a street musician paid for their work? The principals are the same, the public is gifted by someone, and some members who have the means and inclination compensate the performer.
In the same way that profiting from a random street performer is wrong, commercial copyright infringement is wrong, but just enjoying their art? Creating something for others to enjoy is one of the points.
I create designs for game terrain, I run games, and I do it because others enjoy it. I am one of those people who believes that personal copyright infringement nonsense, despite creating copyright able works.
Let fans do as they always will with the works, and focus on the companies which aim to profit unfairly on the works of others, something which the RIAA and their ilk are more guilty of than almost any other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
My inarguable statement is: without copyright upheld and the moral imperative that creators own their products, Hollywood would get little.
You didn't state anything relevant to that in rambling about your own products. You are free to give away your own work as you choose, BUT consumers and pirates are NOT free to give away the products of others.
The present is messy and used to leverage money power, sure. Concentrate on those. Taking what others create is wrong and illegal and against the US Constitution besides all case law worked out last century when entertainments became valuable because of mechanical reproduction. -- No, easy to copy doesn't give you any rights over the content. That's the short version of case law.
And before someone again asserts "it's (entirely) for the public". -- Copyright is exactly the practical compromise that's been worked out to reward creators while benefitting the public and preventing mere copiers from getting the rewards.
Copyright gives you a deal to get entertainments for tiny fraction of the production cost, let alone the wear and tear of struggling to create. You should embrace it for the good done rather than harp on anomalies and greedy lawyers. -- Besides, there's NO other system in sight than the present mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
My inarguable statement is: without copyright upheld and the moral imperative that creators own their products, Hollywood would get little.
You didn't state anything relevant to that in rambling about your own products. You are free to give away your own work as you choose, BUT consumers and pirates are NOT free to give away the products of others.
The present is messy and used to leverage money power, sure. Concentrate on those. Taking what others create is wrong and illegal and against the US Constitution besides all case law worked out last century when entertainments became valuable because of mechanical reproduction. -- No, easy to copy doesn't give you any rights over the content. That's the short version of case law.
And before someone again asserts "it's (entirely) for the public". -- Copyright is exactly the practical compromise that's been worked out to reward creators while benefitting the public and preventing mere copiers from getting the rewards.
Copyright gives you a deal to get entertainments for tiny fraction of the production cost, let alone the wear and tear of struggling to create. You should embrace it for the good done rather than harp on anomalies and greedy lawyers. -- Besides, there's NO other system in sight than the present mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
...you don't just state something as 'inarguable' and presume that the rest of us here will accept it as such. We don't. Why is it you think the rest of us would? You have to present your case, not just pretend it's a statement of fact. It's like arguing religion with fundamentalists.
Besides, even granting your argument for the sake of argument...why should we care about Hollywood? Given the actions of Hollywood (specifically Disney), arguments can be made that Hollywood shouldn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
I think you are being unfair to the fundamentalists here. They usually have a book that provides a basis for their arguments. You know where you are with them. These copyright people just keep shifting their ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
If you presume that the only "entertainments" people want are Hollywood movies, maybe. Thing is, they're not the only "entertainments" in existence. The vast overwhelming majority of "entertainments" (I'm going to continue using that term just to show you how idiotic you are) that I watch are made by their creators for free, and often in spite of copyright. Youtubers basically. Copyright doesn't help them, and in fact, often hinders them. Look up the troubles Angry Joe and Total Biscuit go through with copyright from time to time (Joe getting his videos claimed by Nintendo, TB not being able to have in-game music in his videos)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
Hollywood is a monopolistic cartel. As such it is the creation of copyright - which encourages monopolistic behaviour by middlemen. So you are right in a sense. Without copyright the Hollywood cartel would not exist. However many believe that the world would be a better place for consumers AND the original creators without the cartel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
I disagree. It's the economics of scale that does this. Copyright doesn't enter into this point.
"You should embrace it for the good done"
I have a very hard time embracing a set of laws that cause harm to innocent people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Take your time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
Two points:
1) the studios, and not the creators end up owning the works under the Hollywood system, indeed the main use of copyright has been as a means to transfer the ownership of works from the creator to the publisher/label/studio.
2) The question to be addressed is not will Hollywood continue to make films, using their excessively expensive approach to production; but rather will films continue to be made. It is almost certain that with a weakening or abolishment of copyright many more films will be made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where exactly are the copyright moderates?
Spare me all diversionary complaint as for "loaded" terms used below: it's axiomatic that "copyright minimalists" will object to ANY balanced view. You'll only be stating that are no moderates here. -- And skip history "lessons": just deal with TODAY.
In my view, to be regarded as a "copyright moderate", one must stake out a position. If won't state a position, then you are RIGHTLY characterized as a moral-less pirate.
I've long stated is much bad to evil in practices of corporations and individuals using statute for monetary gain and censorship. I'm actually way out in front of most for wishing to hang lawyers and tax the hell out of the rich. Stop saying I'm a "maximalist" for corporations, you "moderates". It's a lie.
Now YOU go positive. Yes, it's a trap. Not stating is too...
Anyway, just explicitly state in bullet points what you believe is good to middling about copyright, what you support in this area, including its basis in common law and morality. I think it necessary you include admission that case law as shown by Napster through Aereo decisions is that it IS simply illegal to gain income by "sharing" copyrighted works of others.
Surely a mix of pro and con defines a moderate. But except for two commenters here who stand out for this very reason, I doubt you'll see any pro-copyright.
In practice, attacks are immediately made here on any degree of support for:
1) copyright being justified in either common law or statute
2) "file-sharing" hosts to be brought to trial for obvious contributory infringement by supplying petabytes of infringed files
3) suppressing "torrents" or other sites that supply links to infringed content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where exactly are the copyright moderates?
Infringement is illegal. No one ever said it wasn't. Until you let go of your "copyright is property" idea, which is a maximalist default position, it will be difficult to discuss this reasonably because you're not being reasonable. Property is not owned "for a limited time" in order to promote anything.
Surely a mix of pro and con defines a moderate. But except for two commenters here who stand out for this very reason, I doubt you'll see any pro-copyright.
The balkanisation of viewpoints due to an emotion-driven agenda at either end of the argument doesn't help. No one should feel obliged to join Team Yea or Team Nay. One one side is "It's property and should not be limited" while on the other "Get rid of it. Look at all the harm it's doing." Do you not realise that by getting rid of the notion that it's property we would be able to have a reasonable debate on how long its duration ought to be? But you can't set a duration limit on property ownership, can you? There's your problem.
In practice, attacks are immediately made here on any degree of support for:
1) copyright being justified in either common law or statute
Because there's no such law or statute. The Constitution says it's for the public good, for advancement of science and the arts, which is why copyright terms are limited.
2) "file-sharing" hosts to be brought to trial for obvious contributory infringement by supplying petabytes of infringed files
Because you're being unreasonable again. Not all files are infringing. I've got tons of them myself. It's like wanting to send all hardware shop owners to jail for obvious contribution to crimes by selling axes, knives, etc.
3) suppressing "torrents" or other sites that supply links to infringed content
This is overkill. Don't be surprised that you're a laughing stock for suggesting it. That you don't use them at all doesn't mean that others don't use them for perfectly legitimate purposes. Other sites don't supply links, they link. That is what all websites do. That some of them link to infringing content isn't always the site owners' fault. In any case, I'm not sure how well you realise just how much infringing you do every day. http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/ulr/article/viewFile/7/11-Copyrights
Your whole premise is wrong. Start from the Constitution, and work your way forward from there. If you start from your own opinion, you'll be going round in circles for the rest of your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where exactly are the copyright moderates?
Spare me all diversionary complaint as for "loaded" terms used below: it's axiomatic that "copyright minimalists" will object to ANY balanced view. You'll only be stating that are no moderates here. -- And skip history "lessons": just deal with TODAY.
In my view, to be regarded as a "copyright moderate", one must stake out a position. If won't state a position, then you are RIGHTLY characterized as a moral-less pirate.
I've long stated is much bad to evil in practices of corporations and individuals using statute for monetary gain and censorship. I'm actually way out in front of most for wishing to hang lawyers and tax the hell out of the rich. Stop saying I'm a "maximalist" for corporations, you "moderates". It's a lie.
Now YOU go positive. Yes, it's a trap. Not stating is too...
Anyway, just explicitly state in bullet points what you believe is good to middling about copyright, what you support in this area, including its basis in common law and morality. I think it necessary you include admission that case law as shown by Napster through Aereo decisions is that it IS simply illegal to gain income by "sharing" copyrighted works of others.
Surely a mix of pro and con defines a moderate. But except for two commenters here who stand out for this very reason, I doubt you'll see any pro-copyright.
In practice, attacks are immediately made here on any degree of support for:
1) copyright being justified in either common law or statute
2) "file-sharing" hosts to be brought to trial for obvious contributory infringement by supplying petabytes of infringed files
3) suppressing "torrents" or other sites that supply links to infringed content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where exactly are the copyright moderates?
This is what baffles me. You insist you have a strong populist, anti-corporate leaning -- and yet you vehemently, angrily defend one of the most blatantly pro-corporate, anti-public laws in our entire modern economy. I strongly suspect that your supposedly radical political views are actually just residue from some boisterous high-school phase you went through, while the simple truth is that the idea of the world changing at all actually terrifies you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where exactly are the copyright moderates?
Unlike Techdirt I do have specific goals, on Populist grounds:
- Support copyright for individuals and deny it entirely to corporations. This is a self-evident good. Where investment is from several individuals, it'd be simply proportioned. -- I'd also like to see technicians and workers get a decent cut of the continuing income based on hours of actual labor, rather than all going to fat cats and "stars" as in the present system.
- To prevent an excess of success from mere cheap entertainments, a means test for standing in court cases. Millionaires and up don't need government help to defend their rights. That'd allow initial success but prevent most of the inevitable later greed and abuse: they simply couldn't sue.
- Since this is a wish list: prohibit lawyers entirely. Simplify the process, though keep jury trial -- because at stake are the natural rights of persons to the property they own by the act of creation, not the artificial rights of corporations to gain money. That'd remove most of the trouble without actually hanging any lawyers, though much preferable.
Now, is there ANY middle ground or are all you outright pirates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where exactly are the copyright moderates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where exactly are the copyright moderates?
Thanks for showing Techdirt in true light.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where exactly are the copyright moderates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright: THEIR stuff is not YOUR stuff.
My bet is that specific goes unanswered. It's nearly impossible to justify piracy. The very act of attempting bullet points brings into mind the obvious rebuttals, starting with the concept of "your stuff". -- QED, or whatever.
So what is Techdirt's consensus position on copyright? Where the bullet points of what's supported? -- I'll just leave that to be filled in. I've hunted for it, asked and been directed to vague mush. It's just simply an article of faith that "Techdirt supports copyright".
Meanwhile, Techdirt runs numerous pieces supporting Kim Dotcom and attacking US government for shutting down Megaupload, seizing money, other normal lawful processes -- just NOW being applied to the internet. Techdirt even thinks it relevant that Dotcom was overseas. But if does business in the US (selling access), then he's subject to US law. That's nailed down.
The pattern can't be disputed. So big a contradiction simply isn't possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright: THEIR stuff is not YOUR stuff.
My bet is that specific goes unanswered. It's nearly impossible to justify piracy. The very act of attempting bullet points brings into mind the obvious rebuttals, starting with the concept of "your stuff". -- QED, or whatever.
So what is Techdirt's consensus position on copyright? Where the bullet points of what's supported? -- I'll just leave that to be filled in. I've hunted for it, asked and been directed to vague mush. It's just simply an article of faith that "Techdirt supports copyright".
Meanwhile, Techdirt runs numerous pieces supporting Kim Dotcom and attacking US government for shutting down Megaupload, seizing money, other normal lawful processes -- just NOW being applied to the internet. Techdirt even thinks it relevant that Dotcom was overseas. But if does business in the US (selling access), then he's subject to US law. That's nailed down.
The pattern can't be disputed. So big a contradiction simply isn't possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright: THEIR stuff is not YOUR stuff.
As well they should, because that is the USG trying to make it's laws apply in all countries.
For instance I have posted this comment on a US based website, does that mean it is subject to US law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright: THEIR stuff is not YOUR stuff.
...
What, you can't? Complex subject by their very nature require complex answers, and at times don't have any clear answer other than 'more data is needed'? Nonsense, every subject can be boiled down to bullet points! /s
If the sarcasm hasn't gotten the point across, maybe a more direct comment will, and that is the subject matter is a highly complex one, making the discussion and stances on it also complex. If you want to know Mike's, DH's, or the other writers' of the site's stance on the subject matter, get to reading. It's not the job of others to give you a nice cliff-notes version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oooh, the irony!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oooh, the irony!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oooh, the irony!
The premise of Techdirt is "user created content" in a discussion forum. No guidelines for commenting are given.
No one is obliged to agree with Techdirt's articles or comment so as to make the writer look less than piratey fool.
Nor is anyone obliged to agree with and conform to the alleged "community" (piratey) ideology -- or be censored.
The very LOW standard for civility at Techdirt is easily proven with one link to Dark Helmet.
You're not making Techdirt/Masnick look good with three words of silly gainsaying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oooh, the irony!
You pirates go on to claim that Kim Dotcom of Megaupload should be free to actually gain money from using other people's property! (Don't quibble it's via advertising: that's contributory infringement.)
You pirates jeer when people who put in millions of dollars and years of actual work try to protect their stuff. You laugh at the very concept, claiming, "it's yours so long as don't publish".
But it's not so funny when YOU see yourself has having even a remote claim to this web-site, now is it? HMM?
If you pirates won't see why I find it hilarious to use Masnick's web-site -- it's NOT property, he gives up claim soon as it's published, right? -- and explicitly so because provides a comment box asking for public to input content -- mine being well within common law, unlike some here -- as platform for discussion of the always topical field of copyright -- then... basically, I've won! You are cornered, you pi-RATS.
But of course you see. You just won't admit, because soon as off your minimalist position, you're on the slippery slope to admitting that other people have a right to THEIR STUFF, that taking it for free is wrong, and that greasy blob Kim Dotcom should be jailed for getting undeserved millions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oooh, the irony!
You pirates go on to claim that Kim Dotcom of Megaupload should be free to actually gain money from using other people's property! (Don't quibble it's via advertising: that's contributory infringement.)
You pirates jeer when people who put in millions of dollars and years of actual work try to protect their stuff. You laugh at the very concept, claiming, "it's yours so long as don't publish".
But it's not so funny when YOU see yourself has having even a remote claim to this web-site, now is it? HMM?
If you pirates won't see why I find it hilarious to use Masnick's web-site -- it's NOT property, he gives up claim soon as it's published, right? -- and explicitly so because provides a comment box asking for public to input content -- mine being well within common law, unlike some here -- as platform for discussion of the always topical field of copyright -- then... basically, I've won! You are cornered, you pi-RATS.
But of course you see. You just won't admit, because soon as off your minimalist position, you're on the slippery slope to admitting that other people have a right to THEIR STUFF, that taking it for free is wrong, and that greasy blob Kim Dotcom should be jailed for getting undeserved millions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/04/19/0021228/joseph-goebbels-estate-sues-publisher-over-diary- excerpt-royalties?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed
Goebbel's Estate Sues publisher over diary.
What I find most amusing are the comments. There's seriously some people there trying to make it out as if Goebbels did nothing wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unflagged to foil the childish censorship. If you can't stand a bit of text...
Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
Man, Techdirt loves its faulty logic. -- Even if Valenti were wrong, it doesn't make YOU right.
But the statement is true: without copyright upheld and the moral imperative that creators own their products, Hollywood would get little. Inarguable.
You should instead argue that Hollywood gets too much money. But that'd be Populism and 1-percenter Masnick won't get near it.
Meanwhile, The Masnick has been wrong on every significant court case. It's simply illegal to gain money off other people's content. He should be hooted roundly; I do my best.
Techdirt has claimed for over a decade that the "dinosaurs" were doomed, yet they go on doing well. Therefore, by same logic as Techdirt is using against that quote, Techdirt has zero credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]