They objected to the original licensing terms. Taylor & Francis offered a change in those licensing terms. The new terms were still objectionable. The original terms were already objectionable, the new terms didn't change that. They were already objectionable because of the "Swartz Effect", the new terms didn't mitigate the problem. They didn't "object FAR MORE to laying out THREE THOUSAND BUCKS", they objected the original licensing terms, and found that Taylor & Francis' offer to to change those terms was also not tenable.
I'm all for having a debate, but when we can't get past the basics of what even went on, you bring nothing of value to anyone. Maybe Mike likes you because you bring page views, but then you'd be helping out the ivy-leaguer, and you're against that, so you say. Thus proving that you are a hypocrite and a liar.
Now blue, please ignore my first paragraph above, and focus on the word "liar". Not that I need to make this request; you'll do it anyway.
Kudos to them. I hope they get something lined up for themselves soon, or even decide to start their own open access journal. It takes guts to stand up like that.
My company has been on a huge push for patents recently. I was worried at first, but I also told my boss in no uncertain terms that if he turns this push into a requirement for continued employment then I'll quit. I'm happy to brainstorm for new ideas, I'm happy to think of new ways to do things or even new things entirely, but I vehemently disagree with patents. It turns out, I think he's fairly close to feeling the same as me. The difference is, even though he doesn't like the game, he's still going to play it.
So kudos to these people. They didn't like the game, and they're refusing to play. It's the only way change is actually made.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Senator Fido": REAL Politic and Professional, Mike
I take it back. You didn't say Hitler was a good guy. You said "Hitler did a lot of good". I've again linked directly to what you said.
Now, let's get past that, and get you to admit that you are a hypocrite, which is a form of lying, making you a liar also.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Senator Fido": REAL Politic and Professional, Mike
I see you went with changing the topic rather than addressing the points in this thread about your use of ad homs when you say you don't want ad homs. You're still a hypocrite.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Senator Fido": REAL Politic and Professional, Mike
Again, you misquote and don't provide a link to prove what you are saying. I never said you supported him, I said you thought he was a good guy, and provided a link to where you said that. I've provided the link to the conversation referred to since you are unable or unwilling to do so (perhaps because it paints things in a different light than you would like it painted?).
As to the conversation at hand, which you so deftly tried to avoid. You accused the AC of being "totally dishonest" and "badgering commenters" simply because he didn't choose a screen name. That's an ad hom. Why do you try to cut off ad hom attacks from others (in this very thread started by you), and yet feel no remorse in using it yourself? That is hypocrisy, and I'm calling you out on it.
I may be a liar or I may have just quoted you in a way you didn't like. I've provided the link so others can judge for themselves. But whether I'm a liar or not, you are a hypocrite. Now, if you had any decency, you'd retract your ad homs and apologize. What you'll probably do is run away, change the topic back to when I quoted you, or use some more ad homs. Prove me wrong, blue. Be the wonderful person you claim to be.
Re: I may not be for Hatch's scheme, but let's protect movies and music.
Movies are just as easy to steal as t-shirts, and yet I don't see...Oh, you meant copy. You know what else is easy to copy, er, I mean "steal"? Jokes, fashion designs, and recipes, none of which have any copyright protection and yet are constantly evolving, changing, innovating, etc. Why should movies be any different?
Why should a creator be the sole recipient of income? Does that mean the theater should not get any income? How much is Lucas's cut of Space Balls (which would not have been possible without Star Wars)? If you state categorically that it is the creator that should be the sole recipient of income then surely you must feel that copyright should last forever because someone else might profit off the creators works, and yet when the creator dies his descendants should also not get the copyright otherwise someone other than the creator is profiting. By your logic, there is no public domain.
So you're telling me we don't need copyright laws to enforce contract law? I suppose next you'll tell me the Food and Drug Administration has no business enforcing Security and Exchange Comission regulations.
As an American, it makes me feel good to know we don't have a monopoly on stupid politicians. Perhaps Messieurs Galloway and Gohmert should get together for some Fireside Chats. Rather than informing the public a la FDR, they could become entertainment, or warnings on what to watch for when voting.
Appealing to emotions may be a great way to drum up signatures for online petitions, but has no place in policy discussions
I think Mike read the above slightly wrong, even though I do believe the way Mike read it is the way the copymites feel. However, what they really said isn't any better. They are saying that appeals to emotion shouldn't have no place in this discussion. I'd agree. So it'd be nice then if they'd stop telling us to worry about corn farmers, the little guys, the jobs of grocers, etc, when they have no evidence (much less proof) that copyright law is needed to help those groups.
Appeal to emotion is wrong in policy discussions. It'd sure be nice if they stopped using it. Psychological projection indeed.
I said, "there was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving, by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid. To this society all the rest of the people are slaves.
...
"It is likewise to be observed, that this society has a peculiar cant and jargon of their own, that no other mortal can understand, and wherein all their laws are written, which they take special care to multiply; whereby they have wholly confounded the very essence of truth and falsehood, of right and wrong; so that it will take thirty years to decide, whether the field left me by my ancestors for six generations belongs to me, or to a stranger three hundred miles off.
...
Here my master interposing, said, "it was a pity, that creatures endowed with such prodigious abilities of mind, as these lawyers, by the description I gave of them, must certainly be, were not rather encouraged to be instructors of others in wisdom and knowledge." In answer to which I assured his honour, "that in all points out of their own trade, they were usually the most ignorant and stupid generation among us, the most despicable in common conversation, avowed enemies to all knowledge and learning, and equally disposed to pervert the general reason of mankind in every other subject of discourse as in that of their own profession."
I doubt he would squirm. I'm fairly certain he's the kind of person that doesn't get squirmy if it's his word against nobody else. Now, if you could get the logs from the VPN (if they keep that kind of thing) then you could probably get him to squirm a bit.
No copying is the right. Copyright is the privilege to be the exclusive owner of that right. In order to grant that privilege, everyone else's rights must be removed. Copying is the right, copyright is the privilege. Being a copyright holder is the privilege of enforcing the exclusivity to the right of copying. In other words, it's the privilege of enforcing the removal of my rights.
Once you acknowledge that, then we can start to discuss whether that's a good thing. That would be an interesting debate to have. It's one I've been in many a time, and always leads to an interesting discussion. But this harping that copying is the privilege and copyright is the right, is so backwards we'll never get to have that interesting conversation.
Are you seriously arguing that it is a privilege to copy others? You realize that's what humans do right? It's how you learn to talk, it's how you learn to walk, what to eat, how to behave, it's how you learn. That's how humans work. We copy. And now you're going to try to argue that the ability to copy is merely a privilege? What next, you're going to outlaw evolution? Is reproduction now merely a privilege as well?
I can copy you. Everyone can and has the right to do so. Copyright takes away that right. That you have been given the exclusivity in copying/distributing/performing some given work is a privilege granted to you by laws whose entire foundation is as an incentive to create more works that will eventually get to the public domain so that more works are copyable. That you refuse to admit this means we can't even begin the debate on whether or not that incentive is necessary, or how long it should be or the details on any other aspect of copyright law or the incentives for creation.
Get it through your head. Copyright is the privilege. Copying is the right taken away from the public, ostensibly willingly given up for an exchange of more works entering the public domain. The public domain is the default state. Everyone has the right to copy and distribute anything in the public domain. Copyright creates a fenced off area to put things somewhere other than the public domain. The mere act of putting something in that fenced off area is a removal of the public domain, which means it is removing the rights of all in order to grant a privilege to one.
Fair use is a restoration of the rights copyright takes away in order to grant the privilege of exclusivity to the copyright holder. Copyrights remove rights from all but the holder, fair use is giving a portion of those rights back. I have the right to copy whatever I want. Your copyright privilege takes that away from me. Fair use gives a portion of it back.
On the post: Arrested Development Documentary Has To Hit Up Kickstarter Because Fox Claims Copyright On Set Photos
Example #umpteenth billion for why the Berne Convention's automatic copyright clause is stupid.
On the post: Awesome: Entire Editorial Board Of Journal Of Library Administration Resigns In Support Of Open Access
Re: Re: Re: Woohoo! Rid of those malcontents!
I'm all for having a debate, but when we can't get past the basics of what even went on, you bring nothing of value to anyone. Maybe Mike likes you because you bring page views, but then you'd be helping out the ivy-leaguer, and you're against that, so you say. Thus proving that you are a hypocrite and a liar.
Now blue, please ignore my first paragraph above, and focus on the word "liar". Not that I need to make this request; you'll do it anyway.
On the post: Awesome: Entire Editorial Board Of Journal Of Library Administration Resigns In Support Of Open Access
My company has been on a huge push for patents recently. I was worried at first, but I also told my boss in no uncertain terms that if he turns this push into a requirement for continued employment then I'll quit. I'm happy to brainstorm for new ideas, I'm happy to think of new ways to do things or even new things entirely, but I vehemently disagree with patents. It turns out, I think he's fairly close to feeling the same as me. The difference is, even though he doesn't like the game, he's still going to play it.
So kudos to these people. They didn't like the game, and they're refusing to play. It's the only way change is actually made.
On the post: Senator Fido Wants To Create Official Ambassador For Hollywood's Interests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Senator Fido": REAL Politic and Professional, Mike
Is it hard never making deals with yourself?
On the post: Senator Fido Wants To Create Official Ambassador For Hollywood's Interests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Senator Fido": REAL Politic and Professional, Mike
Now, let's get past that, and get you to admit that you are a hypocrite, which is a form of lying, making you a liar also.
On the post: Senator Fido Wants To Create Official Ambassador For Hollywood's Interests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Senator Fido": REAL Politic and Professional, Mike
On the post: Senator Fido Wants To Create Official Ambassador For Hollywood's Interests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Senator Fido": REAL Politic and Professional, Mike
BTW, hypocrisy is a form of lying. And here you led me to believe that you hate liars.
On the post: Senator Fido Wants To Create Official Ambassador For Hollywood's Interests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Senator Fido": REAL Politic and Professional, Mike
As to the conversation at hand, which you so deftly tried to avoid. You accused the AC of being "totally dishonest" and "badgering commenters" simply because he didn't choose a screen name. That's an ad hom. Why do you try to cut off ad hom attacks from others (in this very thread started by you), and yet feel no remorse in using it yourself? That is hypocrisy, and I'm calling you out on it.
I may be a liar or I may have just quoted you in a way you didn't like. I've provided the link so others can judge for themselves. But whether I'm a liar or not, you are a hypocrite. Now, if you had any decency, you'd retract your ad homs and apologize. What you'll probably do is run away, change the topic back to when I quoted you, or use some more ad homs. Prove me wrong, blue. Be the wonderful person you claim to be.
On the post: Senator Fido Wants To Create Official Ambassador For Hollywood's Interests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Senator Fido": REAL Politic and Professional, Mike
On the post: Senator Fido Wants To Create Official Ambassador For Hollywood's Interests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Senator Fido": REAL Politic and Professional, Mike
On the post: Senator Fido Wants To Create Official Ambassador For Hollywood's Interests
Re: Re: I may not be for Hatch's scheme, but let's protect movies and music.
On the post: Senator Fido Wants To Create Official Ambassador For Hollywood's Interests
Re: I may not be for Hatch's scheme, but let's protect movies and music.
Why should a creator be the sole recipient of income? Does that mean the theater should not get any income? How much is Lucas's cut of Space Balls (which would not have been possible without Star Wars)? If you state categorically that it is the creator that should be the sole recipient of income then surely you must feel that copyright should last forever because someone else might profit off the creators works, and yet when the creator dies his descendants should also not get the copyright otherwise someone other than the creator is profiting. By your logic, there is no public domain.
On the post: Even USA Today Is Wondering Why Copyright Law Is So Broken That It Locks Up Mobile Phones
On the post: Blowhard UK MP Says Ban Twitter Because Grandstanding Is Fun
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
Re: Projection
Appeal to emotion is wrong in policy discussions. It'd sure be nice if they stopped using it. Psychological projection indeed.
On the post: Wizards Of The Coast Kills Popular Kickstarter Project Based On Questionable Trademark Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Monsters
...
"It is likewise to be observed, that this society has a peculiar cant and jargon of their own, that no other mortal can understand, and wherein all their laws are written, which they take special care to multiply; whereby they have wholly confounded the very essence of truth and falsehood, of right and wrong; so that it will take thirty years to decide, whether the field left me by my ancestors for six generations belongs to me, or to a stranger three hundred miles off.
...
Here my master interposing, said, "it was a pity, that creatures endowed with such prodigious abilities of mind, as these lawyers, by the description I gave of them, must certainly be, were not rather encouraged to be instructors of others in wisdom and knowledge." In answer to which I assured his honour, "that in all points out of their own trade, they were usually the most ignorant and stupid generation among us, the most despicable in common conversation, avowed enemies to all knowledge and learning, and equally disposed to pervert the general reason of mankind in every other subject of discourse as in that of their own profession."
--Gulliver's Travels
On the post: Lawyer Suggests That Prenda Law May Have Only 'Released' Movies It Sued Over As A Honeypot For Lawsuits
Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Wants More Copyright Defendants To Stand Up For Their Fair Use Rights
Re: Re: Re:
Once you acknowledge that, then we can start to discuss whether that's a good thing. That would be an interesting debate to have. It's one I've been in many a time, and always leads to an interesting discussion. But this harping that copying is the privilege and copyright is the right, is so backwards we'll never get to have that interesting conversation.
On the post: Appeals Court Wants More Copyright Defendants To Stand Up For Their Fair Use Rights
Re: Re: Re:
I can copy you. Everyone can and has the right to do so. Copyright takes away that right. That you have been given the exclusivity in copying/distributing/performing some given work is a privilege granted to you by laws whose entire foundation is as an incentive to create more works that will eventually get to the public domain so that more works are copyable. That you refuse to admit this means we can't even begin the debate on whether or not that incentive is necessary, or how long it should be or the details on any other aspect of copyright law or the incentives for creation.
Get it through your head. Copyright is the privilege. Copying is the right taken away from the public, ostensibly willingly given up for an exchange of more works entering the public domain. The public domain is the default state. Everyone has the right to copy and distribute anything in the public domain. Copyright creates a fenced off area to put things somewhere other than the public domain. The mere act of putting something in that fenced off area is a removal of the public domain, which means it is removing the rights of all in order to grant a privilege to one.
On the post: Appeals Court Wants More Copyright Defendants To Stand Up For Their Fair Use Rights
Re:
Next >>