Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the grapevine dept
This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is an anonymous commenter responding to the idea that if you support creators and innovators, you can't criticize copyrights or patents:
I'm pro-copyright and pro-patent. Artists and inventors should absolutely be able to profit from their creations. However, the creation belongs to the world as soon as it's released to the world. That's something that many current rightsholders seem to forget. Copyrights and patents are just a deal the Constitution and the People are striking with those creators so that they get to try (and TRY is an important point - they aren't entitled to money just because they create something) to make money off of the creation for a while before everyone gets to use it freely.
I think copyright and patent have worked well for a long time. However, I think current corporate interests are trying to lock up the creations for longer and longer periods of time, which wasn't the intent of the Framers. I think that slapping "on a computer" on a previous invention is not innovation. I think that making an insignificant change to a drug to get a new patent is not innovation. I think that making billions from other people's creations once they've gone public domain and then doing everything possible to prevent your creations from entering public domain so that others cannot do the same is cheating the Constitutional deal. I think that negligently, erroneously forcing the removal of other people's creations from the Internet in an effort to prevent infringement of your own creation is greedy and elitist (why should protection of your creation be so favored over the creations of others?).
It's not dishonest or disingenuous to support creator's rights while opposing the current legal implementation of said rights. The corporations that support that implementation and wish to intensify it do not promote the advancement of society, the "Progress of Science and useful Arts" - they are only interested in promoting the flow of money into their bank accounts.
In second place, we've got a double winner with an anonymous comment that also took first place over on the funny side. It comes in response to an AT&T executive comparing the forthcoming plans for HBO to childbirth:
The reason Stankey likes to compare childbirth to innovation is because he has zero experience with either.
For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with a response from JarHead to the idea that copyright infringement has ruined modern music:
Nope. As an amateur musician myself, I had an in depth talks about this with my musician friends, and even a label rep at one time.
The reason is, wait for it, sunken cost.
I've read somewhere that the cost to the label to introduce new musician to the market is up to $3 million. With this kind of money, the label want those investment to return. So how to ensure that? Make use the tried and true formulas and not deviate from it.
That formula includes every aspect of of music, from songwriting, composition, to mixing/mastering techniques to maximize profit. Dunno about the newer generations, but for those of you in your 30s or above, ever felt that bass is becoming much more prominent in current day music, as opposed to, say, the 90's? There's a reason for that, and it is economic.
So claims about how music degenerated because copyright infringement is bunk. It is because music nowadays are economically driven instead of creatively driven.
The return of patronage system and the internet are actually the cure of of that disease. Sadly, copyright which originally intended to spur innovation and creativity, now is the bane.
Next, we've got a simple suggestion from Carlie Coats for adding some fairness to takedown systems such as Europe's Article 13:
Just to be fair...
False takedown notices should be subject to the same penalties as copyright infringement.
IMNHO.
Over on the funny side, we've already had our first place anonymous winner above, so it's straight to second place. In our post about Denuvo's DRM failures, one commenter made the bizarre assertion that computers are "not useful", to which another commenter replied with a concise story of all the many ways computers have been useful in their life. DB chimed in with a classic rejoinder:
But... what have they done for you lately?
For editor's choice on the funny side, we remain on the Denuvo post for a moment where one anonymous commenter looked at their marketing history and future:
Denuvo slogans through the years
2014: Denuvo, we can't be cracked!
2015: Denuvo, we can't easily be cracked!
2016: Denuvo, you can still at least get a good sales window at product launch.
2017: Well, at least we don't make it less convenient for your paying customers.
2018: Ok, so we make it less convenient for your paying customers.
2019: If you are calling for a late payment, please contact our bankruptcy lawyers at 1-800-223-4332
And, finally, we've got one more anonymous comment, this time in response to a heartfelt complaint about the creeping expansion of copyright:
This complaint is too similar to some one else's complaint. Please cease and desist or face $500,000 in fines.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
There might be a cycle to user perception of funny and/or insightfullness. Then again, the cycle might belong to us, the commentors.
I do believe there are more advantages to having an account than not, the most significant being distinguishing oneself from other Anonymous Cowards (one becomes pseudo-anonymous unless you use your real name), and the second, a record under your username of what you said. I didn't have an account for the first 5+ or so years (I have been around for nigh on 15 or so years (could be a bit more) but don't remember when I actually took the plunge) and those posts are gone. Well not easily retrievable. Even when I called myself Anonymous Anonymous Coward, but didn't have an account.
I also contribute to Techdirt, with two different accounts. One to their Insider Shop and again to their Patreon (formerly Beacon) account. I find it to be similar to subscribing to a magazine, and about the same cost. The difference between Techdirt and a magazine is the articles I don't want to read that come with any magazine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Damn, didn’t even make it to editor’s choice this week.
I knew I shoulda bribed Masnick! /s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Art and the Corp..
And they Generally dont make COPIES..
A corp would Charge you to see it..then prove they made no money and get a Credit on taxes..
A corp would Make TONS of copies and sell them to everyone, Declare they didnt SELL enough and had a loss, and get another tax break.
A corp would insure it against fire, Burn it to the ground, Claim it as a Corp own property and file for all the Household appliances inside it.. Then file for water damage from the fire dept..
The Corp would make all its money back, then get paid 100-1000 times its value, Then sell you pictures of it, to make Another 10-100 times.. Then get a tax credit as a Business expense..showing it was required for business..
AND the drug companies?? make this even MORE ridiculous.. AS the creator of the Drug MIGHT BE A HIGH SCHOOL OR COLLEGE..get paid for it, and the corp makes money for the next 10 years, Changes or adds to it, gets another 10 years, ALL the while giving you a CHEAP drug 3 times per day, that costs PENNIES..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Art and the Corp..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1-800-223-4332 comes back as: "Corbin (the saddle maker)". Just so you know. http://650ccnd.com/studs.htm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
There might be a cycle to user perception of funny and/or insightfullness. Then again, the cycle might belong to us, the commentors.
My LOL-vote humor was rooted in absurdity and caricature... I can't figure out why, but that sorta thing seems to have died out in late 2016.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Art and the Corp.. -- It's useless commenting at ECA!
That "account" has been doing EXACT same schtick for nearly ELEVEN years. -- Really. Just skim through it. -- Learn the "accounts" here, and it's difficult to not see most as failing experiments in AI: we few "natural" persons provide them with input, yet they don't ever even change, let alone improve!
You are NOT going to affect it with a bit of snark. Just skip over. (For me, it's astonishing that no one ever complains about THAT account's truly random upper-casing, but do about my emphasis!)
Anyhoo, my prediction that you're too rations for the stie and will soon give up stands, even though you're stubborn. But you're now down to complaining (at least twice) at obvious... uh... well, you look over the ELEVEN years of that "account" and try to find apt word! Just astonishing.
Typical for Techdirt, though. Commenters unlike any other site, entirely uniform view except for the few whom they drive off. The real marvel is that the few who drift in ALL fall for the surface schtick of piracy and "free speech", and for the latter particularly, don't seem to mind the betrayal with constant Google-worship and rabid corporatism. But stay here long enough and you'll see that the warnings ARE true.
[ BTW: I try not to nag. Takes a while for how ODD this site is to sink in because Masnick seems SO earnest and to share your views. He doesn't even hide the corporatism: you've several times by now seen him STATE that corporations have a "First Amendment Right" to arbitrarily control "platforms", instead of those being for The Public's free speech. His key assertion, yet you shove it aside as if no consequence. ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is not corporatism, that is common sense. Any individual or group of individuals that run a privately-owned platform can run it however they wish—even if that group of people is a corporation. Twitter, Facebook, etc. are under no legal, moral, or ethical obligations to let anyone onto the platform or to let anyone say whatever they want while on the platform. You have never once cited any law or statute that says otherwise. You have never proven how or explained why a platform of any size, let alone a platform with the size and reach of Twitter, must be “neutral” in regards to speech.
If you can explain to me why the admins of a White supremacist forum have more rights to kick people off that forum for expressing anti-racist views than the admins of Twitter have in re: kicking White supremacists off the service, maybe you might convince me that your position has merit. Until you do that, stop trotting out that “corporatist” line when it comes to platforms and free speech. Nobody buys it—not even you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Corporatism? You mean like the constant, consistent cheerleading you've been doing for AT&T?
I try not to nag
There we have another thing you're a fucking failure at.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I dont care if a site becomes, WILD WEST, WIDE OPEN. With topics from every evil/good concept there is..
There is only 1 MAIN rule. NO personal attacks.
A second rule would be to Stick to topic.
After that, it gets very hard for many to Bitch and complain, with out saying much. they have to say something that has an affect on the conversation. True/false/strange/weird/what ever..
But somewhere in all of it, you get abit of truth..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since then, we've all been living in a caricature where you can't tell the trolls from the shitposters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]