Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the last-week-tonight dept

Sun, Nov 1st 2015 12:00pm — Leigh Beadon

Once in a while, when a thread stays heavily active, our top comments of the week actually come from the previous week's post — and this is one of those occasions. Two of our winners (one on each side) come in response to our post about Nina Paley's talk on copyright as a form of brain damage. Naturally this drew come kickback and vitriol, and Karl won first place for insightful by responding at length to one of the detractors:

I think that Nina Paley sort of is on par with Larry Leesig [sic], two people who have convinced themselves of a truly extreme viewpoint on copyright.

First of all: the viewpoints of Nina Paley and Larry Lessig are not the same at all. Lessig is not a copyright abolitionist (no matter what copyright maximalists would have you believe).

Second of all: Paley, at least, is convinced of her view, because copyright has directly interfered with her creation of artistic works. She didn't "convince herself," she was convinced because working within the copyright system convinced her that it was wrong. It was the copyright system itself that convinced her.

Does copyright stop the flow of information? Generally no, because we still discuss what is copyright anyway (did you see the blahblach movie or did you real the new so-and-so book?).

Copyright law absolutely interferes with people who are trying to utilize copyrighted works for their own creation, and/or people who are trying to utilize copyrighted works for the purpose of general dissemination to the public. And since this sort of "collective conversation" is much of which drives culture, yes, it does stop the flow of information (or at the very least, the flow of expression).

It doesn't stop ordinary humans from talking about the works, that is true; it does stop ordinary humans from using the actual expressive works (by e.g. sharing a sample on YouTube). Or it would, if anyone cared whether they were infringing or not.

Except in exceptional cases, nobody wants to use copyright to stop distribution, they want to use it as a legal basis under which distribution can occur.

Plenty of people want to use copyright to stop distribution. There are plenty of copyright holders who outright state, often by writing Congress, that they should have the right to stop distribution for content-based reasons. Here's just one example:

Artists can, and should continue to be able to, deny a use that they do not agree with. For one, an artist should be able to turn down uses in connection with messages that the artist finds objectionable. [...]

For example, Melissa Etheridge is a known lesbian and animal rights activist. A compulsory license would allow someone to remix or sample her music into a new work filled with homophobic epithets, and she could not say "no". In the same way, a compulsory license would allow someone to remix or sample music by Ted Nugent, noted gun ownership advocate, for a song promoting stricter gun control without Nugent's pelmission.
- LaPolt Law, P.C. and Steven Tyler comment to the USPTO

Were this done directly by the government, this would be called "content-based censorship."

Also, the mere fact that copyright can only be licensed by those who can afford the license (however much it may be) means that copyright stops distribution. It doesn't stop all distribution, of course - but it does limit distribution to those with enough money to enter into deals with corporate rights holders.

It would be incredibly difficult (if not impossible) for artists to be able to get compensation for their works if they had no legal standing.

"Legal standing" does not mean "copyright." There are plenty of ways for artists to get compensated without holding the copyright to their works. Obviously, crowdfunding is one example, but even historically, the vast majority of artists did not hold the copyright to their works - think people who are work-for-hire, like graphic designers, actors, studio artists, etc. In fact, most artists have always been paid more if they were work-for-hire than if they signed away their copyrights for a commission (a.k.a. royalties).

The idea that copyright gives creators a legal right to leverage against publishers is a good one, in theory, but in practice it's not as significant as people think. For one thing, even without copyright, artists would always have "first publication" rights, and those can be (and usually are) more important than their post-publication monopoly rights.

For another thing, the fact that publishers (including labels, studios, etc.) are assigned the copyrights to thousands or millions of works, mean that they tend to have collective monopolies over entire markets. Aside from being destructive to artistic markets in general, this significantly reduces the bargaining power of creators within those markets.

So, while copyright may give creators rights, in order to bargain with copyright assignees, it eventually makes those barganing rights nearly inconsequential.

The result is what you see in the modern piracy economy, the only artists thriving are those who are willing to forego the creation process and instead work on the cult of celebrity, which pays far more. It's a stupid system where people pay more for a "personal appearance" of celebutards like a Kardashian than they do for a musician or writer.

This is exactly what has been happening since celberety existed. It has zero to do with a "modern piracy economy," whatever that is supposed to be.

Nina's problem I think is that she has never been on the other side with a product people widely pirate

Nina has, and does, encourage people to pirate her product. And they do - widely.

If there's anyone who has "been on the other side," it's her.

If all that effort went instead into artistic creation... opportunity costs, right?

Ironically, you're making her point for her. She - like many, many artists (especially professional creators) - spent far too much time considering if her use of a work is allowed under copyright law. The self-censorship, plus the multi-year legal wrangling with copyright holders, the hundreds of thousands of dollars required to license songs from the 20's and 30's, etc... all of these created "opportunity costs" that she didn't choose.

It was only by completely ignoring copyright law that she was able to put that effort into artistic creation.

She went over this later in the video, especially the part before she showed "This Land Is Mine." I suppose you didn't make it that far.

For second place, we head to our post about the DOJ's latest tactics for forcing Apple to decrypt iPhones, which included the "how could one iPhone be such a big deal?" argument. That One Guy took second place by addressing that argument:

One phone on it's own may not do much, but the ripple effects could be enormous, as the damage to Apple's reputation in protecting their customers' privacy would be significant. If people know that the encryption set up by a company can be compromised any time the government comes asking the company, then anyone interested in security that actually works is liable to start looking elsewhere.

And it's not like the government doesn't know what one action, or one person can do to the reputation of a large company, or government. Just see their mad scramble for damage control when a whistleblower leaks some of their actions, and the resulting blow to their reputation and credibility.
Even if Feng knew the passcode, attempting to compel him to unlock the Target Phone would not provide an adequate alternative to an order directed to Apple. Compelled decryption raises significant Fifth Amendment issues and creates risk that the fruits of the compelled decryption could be suppressed. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subp. Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011, 670 F.3d 1335, 1349 (11th Cir. 2012) (holding that the Fifth Amendment protects a defendant’s refusal to decrypt electronic storage media). The government should not be required to pursue a path for obtaining evidence that might lead to suppression.
This? This is all sorts of nasty, in large part because of what it reveals about the ones making the argument. They know that if they were actually doing what they should be doing, that is serving the warrant to the owner of the device, there would be a good chance that any resulting evidence from compelling the owner to decrypt the device would be tossed out as having violated the person's Fifth Amendment rights.

They flat out admit this.

And yet, despite admitting that forced decryption would likely be treated as a fifth amendment violation, they instead choose to completely ignore the fifth amendment, and force someone else to do the decryption, so that they can use the resulting evidence, hands squeaky clean.

They're not even pretending to respect the constitutional rights of the public, they're flat out admitting that they see those 'rights' as obstacles to be worked around when they can't be ignored outright.

For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out on our post about James Comey's endorsement of the so-called Ferguson Effect and the "War on Cops" narrative. One anonymous commenter neatly explained that this supposed war doesn't exist, and they know that:

We don't have a War on Cops. We have War on Police Corruption. That's what really scares them.

Next, after a problematic Australian right-to-be-forgotten ruling that deemed Google to be a publisher, several commenters tried applying the ruling's logic to other situations, with DB supplying one of the most salient comparisons:

I would hate to be delivering newspapers in the modern age. Under this theory, I could be sued over any story. I was an essential part in delivering it, even if I couldn't possibly evaluate the legal standing of what countless other people wrote.

But over on the funny side, we kick things with an even more amusing example of that contradiction, from Torrey Hoffman who takes first place for funny:

Now the Australian Court is guilty too...

Oops! They just published a judgement which contained all the defamatory information!

Now they're guilty too!

For second place, we return to last week's post about Nina Paley, where one detractor put forth the "very simple basis" of copyright as "I MADE IT, IT'S MINE" — prompting one anonymous commenter to relent and agree:

You nailed it: the very simple basis of copyright is childishness.

For editor's choice on the funny side, we start out on our post about UK Prime Minister David Cameron, where another anonymous commenter noted a detail with potentially wide-ranging implications:

You missed the newsworthy bit: David Cameron read the Daily Mail, this explains so much...

And finally we've got an editor's choice from one of our Daily Dirt posts, discussing the likely future of genetically modified dogs. Yet another anonymous commenter had an idea about where to set our sights on that front:

Genetically engineered, customized dogs? I say we give 'em all thumbs so they can finally play poker for real.

That's all for this week, folks!

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

55 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, 1 Nov 2015 @ 5:30pm

How's your rap career goin, bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2015 @ 6:24pm
  
  Re:
  Have a DMCA vote.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2015 @ 6:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So that's how the rap career is going, gotta silence any reference to it, that's bad.
    
    Hope all those samples are cleared bro.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2015 @ 9:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Thanks for acknowledging that the DMCA is used for silencing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2015 @ 10:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fool.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2015 @ 10:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And there we go, the most insightful thing you're capable of saying.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Whatever (profile), 1 Nov 2015 @ 6:24pm

"First of all: the viewpoints of Nina Paley and Larry Lessig are not the same at all. Lessig is not a copyright abolitionist (no matter what copyright maximalists would have you believe). "

Interestingly, the poster missed the point entirely. I didn't say they have the same opinion, only that they both hold extreme opinions, ones that leave little space for anyone or anything else. They both fail very dramatically when push comes to shove, Lessig getting his dick slapped in the dirt for his nonsensical 1st amendment arguments, and Nina sounding whiny because she was unable to raise enough money to license the music she wanted to use - or for being unable to create (or have someone create) new music for her "work". It would have been so much more creative and original to have new music that sounded appropriate to the period and to the cultural references. A missed chance!

So when the poster misses the initial and most basic of points, it's hard to take the rest seriously!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2015 @ 8:00pm
  
  Re:
  Why do you hate artists so much?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2015 @ 9:19pm
  
  Re:
  it's hard to take the rest seriously
  
  That's rich coming from the guy who claims that if we don't overlook the police flashbanging babies, law enforcement will grind to a complete standstill.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2015 @ 9:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    *yawn* Not going to fall for your trolling. Let's just say you are lying. Thanks for playing "bad troll of the day", you are the champion.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2015 @ 9:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And he logs out just to whine. He actually thinks that by claiming it's not him when he logs back in no one can tell he's trolling.
      
      Why don't you and antidirt go get a beer? And a room?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Whatever (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 5:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, just forgot to log back in, browser logs me out each time. try again bad troll!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 7:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Said Mr. "I'm going to make 50 TOR addresses and downvote everybody, so there!"
        
        Don't you get tired of spouting the same bullshit everyone can easily see and call you out on?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Whatever (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 5:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, I said that to make a point - which is this is exactly what some people appear to do here. The downvote / DMCA feature on Techdirt is abused by people who are not reporting spam, but rather are saying "I don't want to hear your opinion, you have less rights". If we want to play that game, I can register 50 accounts, and use TOR to blast anyone into oblivion in here.
        
        Free speech? Well, some people around here think that free speech is shutting other people up. Even the site operators seem to be okay with it. Free speech generally seems to mean free speech for them, not for everyone.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 6:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You think repeatedly making chicken noises and disparaging remarks against anyone who criticizes copyright enforcement oversight and recklessness is insightful? I know you readily agree and defend these positions, but to do so for the quality of criticism that your fellow trolls regularly demonstrate is pathetic.
        
        Look, you don't need to make a point; you trolls have no qualms about using TOR multiple times to change your IP address, spam the site with your usual drivel, then brag about how many attempts it took to get through the spam filter. Hell, we already know you're already playing that game; only the blind would fail to see the ax you have to grind.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Whatever, 2 Nov 2015 @ 10:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All right, PaulT. Since you continue to bear such a grudge against me and insist on hounding me at every possible opportunity, no one could possibly disagree with me when I say that you asked for it. I will downvote everything you say into oblivion, because that's what you wanted, and when you try to tie these anonymous posts to me I will continue to ridicule you and deny all involvement, since that's what you use your anonymity for. (Go ahead! I'll just log back in and call you a liar. I dare you to find a single post that says otherwise.)
        
        The next time a child is shot by the police, it will be on your head. Pirates and thugs like you and those who continue to shield you will be forced to take responsibility for your criminal actions. Enjoy the free speech while it lasts. It's all you have, and the clock is ticking on you.
        
        Go screw yourself, PaulT.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 4:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, I didn't expect you to be this obsessed! Thanks for playing, but I'm not PaulT. I'm not even the regular AC you're so fond of accusing is PaulT, but you copyright fanboys were always a sad, fucked up bunch.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 4 Nov 2015 @ 1:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Go screw yourself, PaulT."
        
        That wasn't me, dickless. I only post under my login.
        
        "The next time a child is shot by the police, it will be on your head."
        
        You're the one who thinks that dead babies are great as long as people don't film it happening, right?
        
        https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151029/10171832667/court-tosses-bogus-wiretapping-charge-a gainst-man-who-recorded-cops-who-raided-his-house.shtml#c49
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Whatever (profile), 4 Nov 2015 @ 7:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Gotta love how Techdirt tolerates this. It's a true shame that they allow people to post under a registered name without logging in.
        
        Paul, you have been trolled. Or did you troll yourself? We will never know, because Techdirt doesn't seem able to handle a simple technical detail like blocking people from impersonating registered users.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 5 Nov 2015 @ 12:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, the old "it wasn't me" defence. I wonder what the IP logs would show? It's the old ootb tactic, plausible deniability.
        
        Either way, let's say that wasn't you. Do you ever wonder why people find it so easy to believe that someone obviously "trolling" like that is indeed you? Does it ever make you reconsider the crap you actually post under your login?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2015 @ 8:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        IP logs wouldn't show shit; that's why he's using TOR. Hell, at this point all it would take is for the jackass to include a count of how many times it took for his drivel to bypass the spam filter and you'd have out_of_the_blue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Whomever, 13 May 2016 @ 9:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The downvote / DMCA feature on Techdirt is abused by people who are not reporting spam, but rather are saying "I don't want to hear your opinion, you have less rights". If we want to play that game, I can register 50 accounts, and use TOR to blast anyone into oblivion in here."
        
        You mindless twit; if you are down voted here all it takes to see your screed is clicking your mouse. Get a grip.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws (profile), 1 Nov 2015 @ 10:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Let's just say you are lying
      
      Let's just say you're completely wrong.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Whatever (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 5:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Lies. I never said I agree with police flashbanging babies. I have said that it's unfortunate but there is potential that there are children in a house being raided. Do we really want to encourage criminals to start using children as human shields against police executing a warrant?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 6:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh. So you don't agree with it, you just excuse it.
        
        Well, that's so much better.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 8:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He overlooks it ...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Whatever (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 5:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't excuse it either. I just think you are blaming the wrong people here - blame the people who are willing to sell drugs or hide out in a house with kids.
        
        What's the other choice? Let every criminal knock out a few kids so they always have one around so the police cannot take action against them? Don't arrest them in front of the kids, those kids might get a complex!
        
        I know the local deal is "blame the cops for everything" but damn, people need to accept their own responsibility as well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 6:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He says the exact same things logged out or in, insists that he's not trolling, and thinks we're all dumb enough to fall for it. You seriously can't make this shit up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Whatever (profile), 4 Nov 2015 @ 7:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Says the anonymous troll. Shoo troll, shoo... and stop posting under my name!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 5 Nov 2015 @ 12:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "stop posting under my name!
        
        I'm going to guess that the evidence you have that the AC you just addressed is doing this is exactly the same evidence you have for most of your bare assertions here. Zero.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2016 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Aw, the poor troll doesn't like getting made fun of!
        
        DO IT MORE.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 5 Nov 2015 @ 12:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "blame the people who are willing to sell drugs or hide out in a house with kids. "
        
        What about the people who do neither, but still get attacked by police (no knock raids at the wrong address, the guy in the other story whose roommate was doing something without his knowledge)?
        
        "What's the other choice? Let every criminal knock out a few kids so they always have one around so the police cannot take action against them?"
        
        It's telling that you think these are the only 2 choices, and your mind has no room for any other option or any nuance.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 7:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And again you've not made it any better by explaining more position "better". Go figure.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 7:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        more = your
        
        @Mike
        So, do we get an edit function with the next update?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 7:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So out of the two scenarios, between where children get hurt and children don't get hurt, you prefer the scenario where children get hurt.
        
        And you wonder why most rational people think you're a douchebag?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Whatever (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 5:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I prefer the scenario where bad guys go to jail, and that they don't use kids as human shields to stop law enforcement from doing their job. The criminals are the one causing the problems, or are you too busy ignoring their actions to just slam the police (again)?
        
        Stop projecting your personal issues onto me, nozzle.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 6:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're hardly qualified to accuse anyone else of projecting. Anyone who disagrees with police escalation is a criminal to you. If a criminal lifts up a baby as a shield the solution is to look for an alternative that doesn't harm the baby, not machine gun the both of them. Rational people are saying that police should exercise just in case children are around, not that the police should be doing fuck all. You seem to think that problem can only be solved by permitting the police to nuke the shit out of everybody.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 6:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        *exercise care, not "should exercise".
        
        I swear, I did not mean that as a police joke.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 1 Nov 2015 @ 10:09pm
  
  Re:
  "only that they both hold extreme opinions"
  
  So do you. So what?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 2:54am
  
  Re:
  I didn't say they have the same opinion, only that they both hold extreme opinions,
  
  Viewed across the history of the human race their opinions are not extreme. Actually it is YOUR opinions that are extreme. Just about every ordinary person (ie who is not a beneficiary of the copyright system) that I have met who has thought about the issue thinks like either Nina or Larry. Before 1500 there was no copyright and most people of that era would have thought the concept to be bizarre.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 3:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    Before 1500 there was no copyright and most people of that era would have thought the concept to be bizarre.
    
    Bah, that's just because nothing was ever created back then. Of course they would have found the idea of locking up ideas for (effectively) eternal duration to be strange, there were no ideas to lock up, no paintings, no books, no music... the arts only really took off when copyright was introduced, and people finally had a reason to create stuff.
    
    /poe
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 6:23am
  
  Re:
  Interestingly, the poster missed the point entirely. I didn't say they have the same opinion, only that they both hold extreme opinions, ones that leave little space for anyone or anything else.
  
  First, "the poster" has a name: it's Karl.
  
  Second, you did literally say that they have the same opinion: "two people who have convinced themselves of a truly extreme viewpoint on copyright." Two people, one viewpoint.
  
  That may have been a simple grammar mistake, but you also lumped them in together, without differentiating between their viewpoints, their methods, or how they were convinced that their viewpoints are valid. All of these things are different, but you lumped them together as if they were completely the same.
  
  There was clearly no misunderstanding here, and you're obviously trying to dredge up reasons to ignore the actual arguments I made.
  
  When you do this, it's hard to take the rest seriously. Nonetheless, I will.
  
  Third, their viewpoints are not "extreme." Lessig's views come from his years as a copyright scholar, represented the legal mainstream as it was before the 1990's, and are not far from the legal mainstream today. Paley's view on re-using others' material when creating art, is pretty much the view of the general public (despite the "educational" campaigns from copyright maximalists).
  
  If you want to look at someone with "extreme" viewpoints, relative to the historical legal view or the current popular view, then you need to look in a mirror.
  
  Third, it's simply a lie that they "leave little space for anyone or anything else." Lessig, for example, is one of the founders of Creative Commons, which offers a huge variety of licenses (commercial and noncommercial). It is the very epitome of "leaving space" for everyone.
  
  Paley, on the other hand, is simply advocating personal "civil disobedience," and mainly talks about it as a private mental choice. Everyone else is completely free to think differently.
  
  In fact, it would be more accurate to say that copyright laws "leave little space for anyone or anything else." Copyright laws are forced upon artists and the public through the power of state-sponsored force; Paley's and Lessig's views are not.
  
  As for the "why doesn't she use other songs" argument, I'll let Nina herself answer that:
  http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/why.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 10:07pm
  
  Re:
  "only that they both hold extreme opinions"
  
  The only extreme view here is the view that anyone that disagrees with you holds an extreme view. The only one with an extreme view here is you.
  
  Typical extremist. Extremists are known to be intolerant of anyone that disagrees with them insisting that any views that disagree with them are extreme. The IP extremists around here and the ones that subvert the democratic process to impose their opinions on everyone because they have no tolerance for anyone that disagrees with them are a good example of people that hold an extreme opinion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2015 @ 10:08pm
    
    Re: Re:
    (well, not literally, there are a few IP extremists here).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2016 @ 9:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    So your definition of extremist covers every single named troll on techdirt, gotcha.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 3:41am

On Copyright/Nina Paley: "I made it, it's MINE"
Yes you did. But you had to learn how to make this from someone. What if they all decided long ago that that was "Made by ME, it's MINE" too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 6:57am

If "I made it, it's mine" isn't valid, then why do minions put names on the by-line?
The article is clearly not its. They get no credit for the writing.

You're so far gone you don't notice obvious contradictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 Nov 2015 @ 8:44am
  
  Re: If "I made it, it's mine" isn't valid, then why do minions put names on the by-line?
  If "I made it, it's mine" isn't valid, then why do minions put names on the by-line?
  
  Um, because nobody's arguing with the "I made it" part - just the "it's mine" part.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 6:57am

If "I made it, it's mine" isn't valid, then why are you kids spouting venom at the makers of comments?
Any comments are clearly not theirs. They bear no responsibility at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 6:59am

If "I made it, it's mine" isn't valid, then why do people call works like "Beethoven's Fifth"?
The music is clearly not Beethoven's. He just strung some publicly available notes together.

And why credit Nina Paley for doing anything? Just because she made it? Pffft!

And so on. You lurbles have left reason and sense far behind because you can't actually answer the simple statement: "I made it, it's mine."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 7:09am
  
  Re:
  Because copyright infringement and attribution are two different aspects of IP law. You'd think such an advocate for copyright would understand that - until you realize that fudging the two sets of definitions is part and parcel of your pathetic attempt to garner sympathy for suing children.
  
  Go gnash your teeth somewhere else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 7:37am
  
  Re: If "I made it, it's mine" isn't valid, then why do people call works like "Beethoven's Fifth"?
  That's ok, they'll just censor you.
  
  Welcome to the Techdirt zoo.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 4:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You two seriously need to get a room.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 8:23am
  
  Re: If "I made it, it's mine" isn't valid, then why do people call works like "Beethoven's Fifth"?
  Wow, the "childishness" thing really made you mad, huh?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2015 @ 8:28am

"the only artists thriving are those who are willing to forego the creation process and instead work on the cult of celebrity"

It's amazing how the shills continue to tell this lie over and over when it has been repeatedly pointed out to them that artists have hardly ever made their money through things like royalties and copy protections. They have almost always made the overwhelming majority of their money from other means like touring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]