Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 7:23am
Inequality
However, there might still be some copyright questions on whether such files can still be legally transferable even if they are technically and easily transferable. Yet, I don't see many creators who release their works in DRM-free form raising much of a stink about it, although their estates might.
That sums up the inequality of copyright and how far it has gone from its original intent. There is no question about one's heirs inheriting the monopoly privileges over a work, but the people who purchased the use of that work cannot pass that use on to their heirs.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Aug 2012 @ 6:56am
Re:
many companies in ABC's position
have two kinds of customers: advertisers and viewers.
Finding the optimal strategy for maximizing income
is then not (necessarily) just "giving the viewer
what he wants".
This is a monopolist's viewpoint. It assumes that neither the veiwers, nor the advertisers, have other options.
The veiwers will leave and find what they want through other means, legal or not. When the advertisers see that viewers are leaving, they'll stop buying ad space with you and go where they can reach their audience.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Aug 2012 @ 8:09pm
Re: Re: How do we....
I half expect the next extradition request to NZ to be something along the lines of "For facilitating criminal copyright infringement(unfreezing assets), aiding and abetting a pirate (Kim Dotcom), the US hereby demands the extradition of Judge J. Potter."
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Aug 2012 @ 1:51pm
Re:
Shouldn't it be inherently obvious that a ruling that says 'providing links to and embeds of copyrighted materials is not infringement' is relevant? What else was the government accusing Puerto80 of, if not that?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Aug 2012 @ 1:11pm
Re:
But the two or three known ACs will never bother to respond, they'll give up and turn tail just like the government did. I honestly don't expect them in this thread at all - or at least not for hours until they can get their marching orders from the financial backers they won't name.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 28 Aug 2012 @ 2:26pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was stated quite clearly in the article that this was public domain material that he performed a cover of and recorded. Your comment relates to someone else's recording of a work.
There is no possible legitimate copyright claim against him.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Aug 2012 @ 9:15am
Re:
I am sure, not a single inventor was force to sell their patents to IV, and I am equally sure that they would not have sold them if they did not believe it was a good deal.
Hey, if you're an inventor, and can make money by selling ideas (or pieces of paper that say you came up with an idea), I have no problem with that. None at all.
I have a problem when someone says they came up with an idea, but that no one else can use it without paying them money - or else we'll send our thugs(lawyers) to destroy(extort) you and your business.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Aug 2012 @ 9:04am
Re: Re:
So they made a machine that kills mosquitos with lasers. Awesome in a Hollywood comedy kinda movie.
But has anyone considered how impractible this is to the real world and fighting malaria?
Let's assume you could provide millions of these to sub-Saharan Africa at no cost. The places that need them the most have little infrastructure to run them (ie reliable electricity).
I think a case can be made that the money that went to designing and building that thing was a net detriment to fighting malaria - it was spent on a PR stunt toy instead of to a practical solution.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Aug 2012 @ 6:48am
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, they have the license because they either (a) paid to develop the idea, or (b) paid someone else who came up with the idea. It's not money for nothing.
Coming up with an idea is worth about as much as a warm bucket of spit.
Making an idea work is worth something. IV doesn't do this.
Turning a workable idea into something that people want is worth something. IV doesn't do this either.
Being able to provide that thing people want in a profitable way is worth something. IV doesn't do it.
IV is not a tech company. Their lab is nothing more than a front. They're a professional patent trolling law firm with better than average PR.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 1:10pm
Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
So when is my positive coverage of the RIAA going to arrive? If I don't get it, I'll have to think of some laws to violate once you fail to deliver. Boy that will be fun.
I'd like to see you try to violate Techdirt's copyright in a way that anyone cares about, and which wouldn't be shortly fixed by social mores (as opposed to lawyers).
Copy all his sites content? He's already pointed out sites that scrape entire articles and repost them - without attribution. No one cares (or bothers reading them as far as I can tell). If somehow you attract readers, someone will point out that you were taking credit for Mike's work, and it will just drive more traffic to the real Techdirt. So good luck with that.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:01pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And Rojadirecta was back up and running on another domain name within days.
Yes, they were.
First, the courts have said that doesn't make the tiniest difference when determining if constitutional rights were violated - the government cannot seize one newspaper and say no rights were violated because there happens to be another newspaper in town.
Second, if seizing the websites is completely ineffective in stopping or even minimally inconveniencing those committing copyright infringement, and also raises significant constitutional issues, then why the hell is the government doing it? It is just a waste of resources on every possible level.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 7:46pm
Re: Re: Re:
That's like saying laws against some drugs will affect minorities disproportionally compared to non-minorities.
"In establishing the mandatory minimum penalties for cocaine, Congress differentiated between the two principal forms of cocaine – cocaine hydrochloride [hereinafter referred to as powder cocaine] and cocaine base [hereinafter referred to as crack cocaine] – and provided significantly higher punishment for crack cocaine offenses. As a result of the 1986 Act, federal law requires a five-year mandatory minimum penalty for a first-time trafficking offense involving five grams or more of crack cocaine, or 500 grams or more of powder cocaine, and a ten-year mandatory minimum penalty for a first-time trafficking offense involving 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, or 5,000 grams or more of powder cocaine. Because it takes 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the same mandatory minimum penalty, this penalty structure is commonly referred to as the '100-to-1 drug quantity ratio.'"
Source: US Sentencing Commission, "Report to Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy" 2007
"Historically the majority of crack cocaine offenders are black, but the proportion steadily has declined since 1992: 91.4 percent in 1992, 84.7 percent in 2000, and 81.8 percent in 2006."
Same source.
In this reality, some laws do (or did) affect minorities disproportionally. What reality are you living in?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:40am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the fact that you know nothing about these three sites yet will defend them at all costs shows your true self.
It's easy to stick up for the rights of people that agree with you. But if you're sticking up for the rights of people who you disagree with, or who may be breaking the law, then it shows you care about the rights, justice, and equality under the law, and not the people involved.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:13am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They could file suit and get an injunction. So what? I doubt many of the sites would even show up. Federal law permits seizure, and the government is using the law. Due process is not violated.
Did you just make the argument that because some individuals might not show up to defend themselves, it is perfectly ok to violate the rights of others under similar circumstances?
On the post: Blizzard Blocking Iranian WoW Players Due To US Sanctions
Re: Re:
On the post: What Happens To All That Digital Goodness You Have Purchased After You Die?
Inequality
That sums up the inequality of copyright and how far it has gone from its original intent. There is no question about one's heirs inheriting the monopoly privileges over a work, but the people who purchased the use of that work cannot pass that use on to their heirs.
On the post: Doctor Who Travels Through Time To Stop Australian Pirates By Giving Them What They Want
Re:
have two kinds of customers: advertisers and viewers.
Finding the optimal strategy for maximizing income
is then not (necessarily) just "giving the viewer
what he wants".
This is a monopolist's viewpoint. It assumes that neither the veiwers, nor the advertisers, have other options.
The veiwers will leave and find what they want through other means, legal or not. When the advertisers see that viewers are leaving, they'll stop buying ad space with you and go where they can reach their audience.
On the post: New Zealand Court Releases $4.83 Million To Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: How do we....
On the post: Oops: After Seizing & Censoring Rojadirecta For 18 Months, Feds Give Up & Drop Case
Re:
On the post: Oops: After Seizing & Censoring Rojadirecta For 18 Months, Feds Give Up & Drop Case
Re:
On the post: Major Labels Claim Copyright Over Public Domain Songs; YouTube Punishes Musician
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And be hit with billion dollar nuisance lawsuits from every major label and studio until the legal costs destroy your business.
On the post: Major Labels Claim Copyright Over Public Domain Songs; YouTube Punishes Musician
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no possible legitimate copyright claim against him.
On the post: Intellectual Ventures Still Giving Tours Of The Sizzle To Distract Journalists From The Lack Of Steak
Re:
Hey, if you're an inventor, and can make money by selling ideas (or pieces of paper that say you came up with an idea), I have no problem with that. None at all.
I have a problem when someone says they came up with an idea, but that no one else can use it without paying them money - or else we'll send our thugs(lawyers) to destroy(extort) you and your business.
On the post: Intellectual Ventures Still Giving Tours Of The Sizzle To Distract Journalists From The Lack Of Steak
Re: Re:
But has anyone considered how impractible this is to the real world and fighting malaria?
Let's assume you could provide millions of these to sub-Saharan Africa at no cost. The places that need them the most have little infrastructure to run them (ie reliable electricity).
I think a case can be made that the money that went to designing and building that thing was a net detriment to fighting malaria - it was spent on a PR stunt toy instead of to a practical solution.
On the post: Intellectual Ventures Still Giving Tours Of The Sizzle To Distract Journalists From The Lack Of Steak
Re: Re: Re:
Coming up with an idea is worth about as much as a warm bucket of spit.
Making an idea work is worth something. IV doesn't do this.
Turning a workable idea into something that people want is worth something. IV doesn't do this either.
Being able to provide that thing people want in a profitable way is worth something. IV doesn't do it.
IV is not a tech company. Their lab is nothing more than a front. They're a professional patent trolling law firm with better than average PR.
On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
Re: Re: Re:
I applaud you. Now try to do it all the time.
On the post: MPAA Pretends 'Offering Something' Is The Same Thing As 'Offering What People Want'
Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
I'd like to see you try to violate Techdirt's copyright in a way that anyone cares about, and which wouldn't be shortly fixed by social mores (as opposed to lawyers).
Copy all his sites content? He's already pointed out sites that scrape entire articles and repost them - without attribution. No one cares (or bothers reading them as far as I can tell). If somehow you attract readers, someone will point out that you were taking credit for Mike's work, and it will just drive more traffic to the real Techdirt. So good luck with that.
On the post: District Court: $675,000 For Non-commercially Sharing 30 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable
Re: Re: Re:
I back all mine up online.
It's so easy. You don't even have to upload it! Just go to thepiratebay.se and search for your backed up copies!
On the post: RIAA Lobbyist-Turned-Judge: ISPs Deserve Copyright Trolls For Not Stopping Infringement
Re:
Soon they'll be claiming that every ipod sold is another $8 billion loss.
On the post: The DVD Is Dying. Hollywood's Plan? Do Nothing And Cede Ground To File Sharing
(Also, we won a decade ago.)
On the post: Feds Back To Seizing Websites Over Claims Of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, they were.
First, the courts have said that doesn't make the tiniest difference when determining if constitutional rights were violated - the government cannot seize one newspaper and say no rights were violated because there happens to be another newspaper in town.
Second, if seizing the websites is completely ineffective in stopping or even minimally inconveniencing those committing copyright infringement, and also raises significant constitutional issues, then why the hell is the government doing it? It is just a waste of resources on every possible level.
On the post: Infographic Shows Why You Should Be Worried About The TPP... And What You Can Do
Re: Re: Re:
"In establishing the mandatory minimum penalties for cocaine, Congress differentiated between the two principal forms of cocaine – cocaine hydrochloride [hereinafter referred to as powder cocaine] and cocaine base [hereinafter referred to as crack cocaine] – and provided significantly higher punishment for crack cocaine offenses. As a result of the 1986 Act, federal law requires a five-year mandatory minimum penalty for a first-time trafficking offense involving five grams or more of crack cocaine, or 500 grams or more of powder cocaine, and a ten-year mandatory minimum penalty for a first-time trafficking offense involving 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, or 5,000 grams or more of powder cocaine. Because it takes 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the same mandatory minimum penalty, this penalty structure is commonly referred to as the '100-to-1 drug quantity ratio.'"
Source: US Sentencing Commission, "Report to Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy" 2007
"Historically the majority of crack cocaine offenders are black, but the proportion steadily has declined since 1992: 91.4 percent in 1992, 84.7 percent in 2000, and 81.8 percent in 2006."
Same source.
In this reality, some laws do (or did) affect minorities disproportionally. What reality are you living in?
On the post: Feds Back To Seizing Websites Over Claims Of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's easy to stick up for the rights of people that agree with you. But if you're sticking up for the rights of people who you disagree with, or who may be breaking the law, then it shows you care about the rights, justice, and equality under the law, and not the people involved.
On the post: Feds Back To Seizing Websites Over Claims Of Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you just make the argument that because some individuals might not show up to defend themselves, it is perfectly ok to violate the rights of others under similar circumstances?
Next >>