"I sleep confidently and soundly every night knowing the countless sacrifices they make to ensure the protection of my own liberties and rights."
Wow, spot the fanboi... What "countless sacrifices" are you talking about exactly? All I see are lawyers being paid with taxpayer dollars to do their damn job (badly so far).
So basically the law is the law and you couldn't possibly hold an opinion that is contrary to what the law says.
Why don't you take some of the advice you regularly dole out to Mike and tell us what you think about the government taking peoples' property before there's even been a trial, let alone a guilty verdict. It's not a legal question.
"...all I was trying to say was that I believe both extremes---"everything must be owned" vs "everything must be completely unrestricted"---equally go too far, just not in the same way."
Claiming that "everything must be completely unrestricted" would indeed be going to far, if anyone was making that claim. This is a complete strawman.
The fact is, as Leigh mentioned, humanity's default position for millenia has been that everything created was what we now call public domain, and only very recently in our history did we decide to place restrictions on that. The real argument is about the extent of those restrictions, and there's a very strong feeling that copyright laws have gone too far and now act in opposition to the reasons they were introduced in the first place.
"It is easy to bash the company because its works have benefited from the expansion of copyright terms..."
You're right, it is easy to bash the company because its works have benefited from the expansion of copyright terms that they spent tons of time and money fighting for.
"...but to say it is "taking" things is just plain wrong and misleading to a fault."
Of course they're "taking" from the public domain, that's exactly what is supposed to happen. They're being criticized for then going to great lengths to prevent others from doing the same thing with their works.
But's it's not obsolete. While it may be stretching the definition of DRM a little, thanks to some digital management, it stops working after operating for only a fraction of it's potential useful life. That's just as bad as true DRM.
"The reason for the DRM is because off-brand cups aren't made of the same non-recyclable plastic, and would warp and sometimes burst spraying scalding hot coffee everywhere."
Sounds more like a fundamental flaw in the design of the machine to me.
"UMG, the RIAA, MPAA, etc., misinterpret copyright law to protect their business model."
'Misinterpret' is completely the wrong word here. They practically write the laws to benefit them above all others, then they twist, reinterpret or just plain ignore the law when they're not quite beneficial enough.
"I left Techdirt due to Tim's cop hating nonsense."
Oh don't be such a drama queen. You don't 'leave' a website, you either read it or you don't. And clearly, you still do.
"Do none of you seriously understand why a cop might not want people wandering around when then are trying to detain or arrest someone?"
Of course we all understand that a cop might not want to be held fully accountable for their actions, and might want to be able to make up whatever story suits them best it things go south. At this point it's pretty much considered to be standard operating procedure.
"A dozen people buzzing around a few feet away creates severe security issues."
Indeed it could, and if you can prove that's ever actually happened (literally a dozen people, literally within a few feet), and happens often enough to justify punishing people for filming a lot further than a few feet away feet, then you might have a case.
"And having armed people buzzing around... good grief, that is just a recipe for someone getting shot."
So you're basically admitting cops are a danger to other people's lives when they get nervous. Y'know, like a wild animal. You really think that's a good thing?
Since the jury is supposed to be representative of society, we should be pretty upset that "society" is so damn ignorant of what copyright actually allows and restricts.
"The problem is... citizens who wrongly expect that their speech rights should overrule those of the services they use."
True, but just because YouTube are entitled to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do, and thanks to those free speech rights everyone is free to criticism them for it.
How did you manage to use so many words to say so little? You offer not a shred of counter-argument, just a bunch on name-calling surrounded by a lot of blah-blah. Sounds like the criticism hit a bit close to home for you...
"There are literally dozens of affordable, easy to use legal services."
You're right! IF you want to be able access the same range of content you can have though illegal means you'll have to sign up to dozens of different legal services. No problem right? That's not inconvenient at all!
On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re:
Wow, spot the fanboi... What "countless sacrifices" are you talking about exactly? All I see are lawyers being paid with taxpayer dollars to do their damn job (badly so far).
On the post: How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why don't you take some of the advice you regularly dole out to Mike and tell us what you think about the government taking peoples' property before there's even been a trial, let alone a guilty verdict. It's not a legal question.
On the post: Elon Musk Says SpaceX Photos Are Now Fully Public Domain
Re: Re: Re:
Claiming that "everything must be completely unrestricted" would indeed be going to far, if anyone was making that claim. This is a complete strawman.
The fact is, as Leigh mentioned, humanity's default position for millenia has been that everything created was what we now call public domain, and only very recently in our history did we decide to place restrictions on that. The real argument is about the extent of those restrictions, and there's a very strong feeling that copyright laws have gone too far and now act in opposition to the reasons they were introduced in the first place.
On the post: Stop The Presses: Disney Tells Court About The Importance Of The Public Domain
Re:
You're right, it is easy to bash the company because its works have benefited from the expansion of copyright terms that they spent tons of time and money fighting for.
"...but to say it is "taking" things is just plain wrong and misleading to a fault."
Of course they're "taking" from the public domain, that's exactly what is supposed to happen. They're being criticized for then going to great lengths to prevent others from doing the same thing with their works.
On the post: DRM; Or How To Make 30,000-Hour LED Bulbs 'Last' Only One Month
Re: Re: Where's the DRM?
On the post: DRM; Or How To Make 30,000-Hour LED Bulbs 'Last' Only One Month
Re: Keureg
Sounds more like a fundamental flaw in the design of the machine to me.
On the post: UMG Licenses Indie Artist's Track, Then Uses Content ID To Claim Ownership Of It
Re: UMG et al. must die
'Misinterpret' is completely the wrong word here. They practically write the laws to benefit them above all others, then they twist, reinterpret or just plain ignore the law when they're not quite beneficial enough.
On the post: UMG Licenses Indie Artist's Track, Then Uses Content ID To Claim Ownership Of It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This wasn't a mistake. They upheld their claim when it was disputed. That's a deliberate act.
On the post: Texas Lawmaker Wants To Make It Illegal To Film Cops From Less Than 25 Feet Away
Re: Seriously?
Oh don't be such a drama queen. You don't 'leave' a website, you either read it or you don't. And clearly, you still do.
"Do none of you seriously understand why a cop might not want people wandering around when then are trying to detain or arrest someone?"
Of course we all understand that a cop might not want to be held fully accountable for their actions, and might want to be able to make up whatever story suits them best it things go south. At this point it's pretty much considered to be standard operating procedure.
"A dozen people buzzing around a few feet away creates severe security issues."
Indeed it could, and if you can prove that's ever actually happened (literally a dozen people, literally within a few feet), and happens often enough to justify punishing people for filming a lot further than a few feet away feet, then you might have a case.
"And having armed people buzzing around... good grief, that is just a recipe for someone getting shot."
So you're basically admitting cops are a danger to other people's lives when they get nervous. Y'know, like a wild animal. You really think that's a good thing?
On the post: The FBI's Paranoia And Incompetence Threatens Free Speech
Re: Surely they are trying to prove the wrong thing!
On the post: Years Of Brainwashing The Public Into Thinking Everything Creative Must Be 'Owned' Has Led To This New Mess
Re:
On the post: The Cartoonist Has No Idea How Fair Use Works
Re: Chip Bok
That's your take as a lawyer?! Yikes...
On the post: The Cartoonist Has No Idea How Fair Use Works
Re: Re: No incentives to do so
They just have to consider fair use, not make a correct assessment of whether it actually is fair use.
"Is this fair use? Nope! Job done."
On the post: Nokia CEO: We Have To Get Rid Of Net Neutrality, Otherwise Self-Driving Cars Will Keep On Crashing Into Each Other
Re:
On the post: The FCC's Historic Day: Voting Yes For Net Neutrality, Voting No On Protectionist State Telecom Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Day the Internet Died
It's hilarious how clowns like you can't tell the difference between the internet and internet providers.
On the post: Is Retweeting ISIS 'Material Support Of Terrorism'?
Re: Re:
True, but just because YouTube are entitled to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do, and thanks to those free speech rights everyone is free to criticism them for it.
On the post: FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai Is Leading An Incoherent, Facts-Optional Last Minute War On Net Neutrality...For The American People
Re:
On the post: Thought Komodia/Superfish Bug Was Really, Really Bad? It's Much, Much Worse!
Re: Re: Re:
The CFAA is only used against people the government doesn't like, and I doubt they give a shit about this.
On the post: Total Wipes Decides The Word 'Download' Means Infringement, Issues DMCA Takedown Loaded With Non-Infringing URLs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Total Wipes Decides The Word 'Download' Means Infringement, Issues DMCA Takedown Loaded With Non-Infringing URLs
Re:
You're right! IF you want to be able access the same range of content you can have though illegal means you'll have to sign up to dozens of different legal services. No problem right? That's not inconvenient at all!
Next >>