"The idea is to prove that Mike has been ignoring 'the tens of thousands of live venues that pay into the system, ....in order to make ASCAP look bad".
First, I'm not sure if people realize this, but I'm pretty sure "Anonymous Coward" is a label Techdirt applies to commenters who don't sign in with a name, not *one* person making comments.
you know it took me a while to figure that out too,, i thought AC was just one person who drank too much coffee , or was a techdirt employee,, or both.
me? never. I can give you personal references of profs , teachers , and co-workers , who would swear under oath to that.
----------
"willfully clueless"
If you meant mike ,, and not me , with your comment ,, well then , no comment from me is needed.
There is self -evident truth
------
"flat-out liar," [re: Mike}
even i would not say that !!
Mike is honest in his assertions and beliefs. Wrong , but honest,
nah, its just the Masnick way. he hates big business. he is anti-capitalist, and pro free everything. he cant report, he always spins. there isnt an ounce of objectivity in his writing. all his articles are laced with his opinion, ..........
yep,
but he can still change, and get better at reading and writing.. if he wishes techdirt do be a serious policy forum
sorry , I am more than a bit dyslexic, and really don't have the time to proofread 15 x --- plus 2 friends proofreading --- as i would with a formal paper.
Then consider me a lost cause. I believe that civilized society comes from the society itself, not its laws.
Do you consider yourself an anarchist?
Which is a respectable political philosophy,
Some of my best friend are anarchists -- really .
The Tompkin Square riot
was a lot of friends and co-workers of mine at the time who were squatters. ( i was busy playing guitar in the West Village and missed the party.) en.wikipedia.org/.../Tompkins_Square_Park_Riot_(1988)
If that is how you hold and are an anarchist , well then you are the type of guy , with as rearguards to Copyright and Patent laws, that the Constitution protects us Artists and Inventors from.
Just as the Constitution protects us from Dick Cheney eavesdropping on my phone call. Usually, I just pick up the phone and read poetry into a wiretapped phone.
(No Joke . when I worked for Greenpeace NYC in the late 1980s , the Reagan / Bush Admins was tapping our phones , under warrant even. Greenpeace was classified as terrorist by Ronny & co. in the 1980s. )
(( And as far as my resume , in 1986 while employed at NYPIRG , I had a co-worker who is now our American President.))
My Point. Don't tell me , i do not know what I am talking about. I have been there and done that politically since you where in diapers. I have deep sympathy for anarchist philosophy. However , I do view as unwork-able in practical terms, as long as evil exists in the world.
(I personally , am an extreme personal civil libertarian , but hold that corporations have no rights- only privileges as granted to them by law.. I vote Democrat 90 % of the time. I like Sen.Oran Hatch {R-Ut.} and the late Bill Safire of the NY Times, but often differ with them.)
But as long as you cite sources for for your points in our discussions -- ( and I will too) , and you renounce terrorism, we can talk and be friends.
False. I'm sorry. Go talk to a lawyer. You are wrong. Copyright is an exception to the public domain, and is a * privilege* doctrine. Users do have certain privileges as well, but many of them DO NOT need the artist's approval. Fair use, for example. Com
"False. I'm sorry. Go talk to a lawyer. You are wrong. Copyright is an exception to the public domain, and is a * privilege* doctrine. Users do have certain privileges as well, but many of them DO NOT need the artist's approval. Fair use, for example. Compulsory licensing in certain areas as well.
It's difficult to take you seriously when you don't seem to be aware of the law."
Site sources mike. Meaningless words with proper MLA citation.
Again do a thread with Judges , lawyers and you. I will watch.
Wrong. The law is to promote the progress. It is not about protecting artists.
"Wrong. The law is to promote the progress. It is not about protecting artists."
The law promotes progress BY protecting artists and inventors.
That is why Jefferson embedded patent and copyright into the Constitution, he knew the new nation could not build a vibrant economy without proper Copyright and patent laws. It is basic political-economic theory , a "self-evident truth" even.
Did you ever take a high school social studies course, this was there ? Check you notes.
This is meaningless babble that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. No one denies that laws protect certain rights. The problem is that you are flat out lying about what copyright law does (and doing so in barely comprehensible English).
Mike I have a B.A. in Pol-Sci , with a Writing Arts Minor and concentration in English lit. . My written papers always got "A"s.
Again , bring in some Copyright Laywer Pros, professors , judges, and you Mike discuss with them copyright laws with them in a locked thread, no other posters allowed.
I challenge you. And I hope you are not too chicken to do it.
ASCAP's bill of rights is not the law. ASCAP is not a gov't organizatio
Actually ,i read the ASCAP rights very carefully ,, and they do reflect how copyright law now does stand in the USA.Which quiet frankly has the strongest and the best copyright laws in the world.
The ASCAP B.O.Rs. extends focus of artist rights onto new areas of the digital age, as well better international protections.
That is what I suggested you review and critic them, and they do actually summarize the law as it stands in the USA for printed media , and most digital media. ( But if you read them you would know that. More reading , less writing Mike.)
-----------
Why do we have the best copyright/patent laws?
Because the laws are an embedded institution
within the U.S. Constitution ,
right there with the formation of the President and Congress and the Supreme Court and balance of powers..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,
“ To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times ** to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
(**Limited times are determined by law. If you want to cut the time to 10 days ,, try to get the law passed. Good Luck.)
Free speech is in the "bill of rights" , of the first of the ten amendments to the u.s const.
There was much opposition to granting absolute free speech and press in 1700's.
there was no opposition to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,
If you fail to understand how this torpedoes your worldviews on copyright and patent laws,
Re: " It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property.� -- Thomas Jefferson
T.J. is also condemning censorship in this quote . That is why Techdirt readers in China , might never see it .
" It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property.” -- Thomas Jefferson
" It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property.” -- Thomas Jefferson
MY REPLY :
Ok ,, now I see the problem.
As , Daffy Duck would say : “ hmm Adverb Trouble “ : except here it is a noun: IDEA.
Thomas Jefferson is lamenting that you cannot copyright IDEAS.
Take an Average human brain:
The levels of Brain Function:
1]Instinct /Reflex : I digest food. If food bad I throw up. This is deep in the “reptilian brain , and I cannot control.
2] Animal thought : Animal need food, Animal needs sex. , but animals stop there , they do not ove to next level:
3] Human thought: Ideas and concepts. Let us make a spear . Easier to kill Food.
Ideas and concepts , can also , be : Freedom, Love , Woman’s and Human suffrage.
Idea s are nice , but cannot be copy righted thus , Jefferson Lament. Ideas need to next step-
4] execution into physical action.
I have Idea, We Hunt Food. Let us make a spear , or dig a hole in ground to trap our game.
That is execution into physical action. If it is a good spear , with some new innovation – even today ,, I can patent it.
Artist have IDEAS / inspiration : again the IDEA , cannot be copyrighted.
But , Artist make ART . A painting , a song , a play , a poem, a book .
Artist apply for and get copyright to protect work from Pirates.
Pirates sets up website with ART :
Artist call lawyer. Artist: Throw up { see #1}.
Quite Frankly , Mile , I am deeply disappointed, and somewhat heartbroken, that you did not know the difference between “Idea” and “Execution /Creation /Physical Action” that puts the Idea , into the world where is can be copyrighted.( It is high school stuff.)
For with Ideas alone ,, there no copyright , thus Jefferson’s Lament ? No Jeferson’s Ode to the beauty of human thought , to free slaves , heal the sick , end suffering.
So now read Tommy J.’s quote again, with that thought in mind:
…. [I]deas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation." -- Thomas Jefferson
Man , that is beautiful – and if written today , would be covered by copyright
On the post: Nice Work ASCAP: Convinces Yet Another Coffee Shop To Stop Promoting Local Bands
"The idea is to prove that Mike has been ignoring 'the tens of thousands of live venues that pay into the system, ....in order to make ASCAP look bad".
On the post: Nice Work ASCAP: Convinces Yet Another Coffee Shop To Stop Promoting Local Bands
We're asking posters to do the work of proving their point.
On the post: Nice Work ASCAP: Convinces Yet Another Coffee Shop To Stop Promoting Local Bands
First, I'm not sure if people realize this, but I'm pretty sure "Anonymous Coward" is a label Techdirt applies to commenters who don't sign in with a name, not *one* person making comments.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
willfully clueless or a flat-out liar,
----------
"willfully clueless"
If you meant mike ,, and not me , with your comment ,, well then , no comment from me is needed.
There is self -evident truth
------
"flat-out liar," [re: Mike}
even i would not say that !!
Mike is honest in his assertions and beliefs. Wrong , but honest,
On the post: Nice Work ASCAP: Convinces Yet Another Coffee Shop To Stop Promoting Local Bands
At any rate, I think life + 70 is too long a term given current lifespans, but I don't think the system is irreparably broken.
If the Rockefellers and Kenedys can pass $$ and biz on to grand-children and great-grandchilren,
why should not John , Paul , George and Ringo be able to have their estates control and profit from their Art for 1000 years?
On the post: Nice Work ASCAP: Convinces Yet Another Coffee Shop To Stop Promoting Local Bands
This is not a source for stories that challenge that viewpoint
, lets keep posting , and keep mike honest
On the post: Nice Work ASCAP: Convinces Yet Another Coffee Shop To Stop Promoting Local Bands
nah, its just the Masnick way. he hates big business. he is anti-capitalist, and pro free everything. he cant report, he always spins. there isnt an ounce of objectivity in his writing. all his articles are laced with his opinion, ..........
but he can still change, and get better at reading and writing.. if he wishes techdirt do be a serious policy forum
On the post: Nice Work ASCAP: Convinces Yet Another Coffee Shop To Stop Promoting Local Bands
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
typos
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Then consider me a lost cause. I believe that civilized society comes from the society itself, not its laws.
Which is a respectable political philosophy,
Some of my best friend are anarchists -- really .
The Tompkin Square riot
was a lot of friends and co-workers of mine at the time who were squatters. ( i was busy playing guitar in the West Village and missed the party.) en.wikipedia.org/.../Tompkins_Square_Park_Riot_(1988)
If that is how you hold and are an anarchist , well then you are the type of guy , with as rearguards to Copyright and Patent laws, that the Constitution protects us Artists and Inventors from.
Just as the Constitution protects us from Dick Cheney eavesdropping on my phone call. Usually, I just pick up the phone and read poetry into a wiretapped phone.
(No Joke . when I worked for Greenpeace NYC in the late 1980s , the Reagan / Bush Admins was tapping our phones , under warrant even. Greenpeace was classified as terrorist by Ronny & co. in the 1980s. )
(( And as far as my resume , in 1986 while employed at NYPIRG , I had a co-worker who is now our American President.))
My Point. Don't tell me , i do not know what I am talking about. I have been there and done that politically since you where in diapers. I have deep sympathy for anarchist philosophy. However , I do view as unwork-able in practical terms, as long as evil exists in the world.
(I personally , am an extreme personal civil libertarian , but hold that corporations have no rights- only privileges as granted to them by law.. I vote Democrat 90 % of the time. I like Sen.Oran Hatch {R-Ut.} and the late Bill Safire of the NY Times, but often differ with them.)
But as long as you cite sources for for your points in our discussions -- ( and I will too) , and you renounce terrorism, we can talk and be friends.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
False. I'm sorry. Go talk to a lawyer. You are wrong. Copyright is an exception to the public domain, and is a * privilege* doctrine. Users do have certain privileges as well, but many of them DO NOT need the artist's approval. Fair use, for example. Com
It's difficult to take you seriously when you don't seem to be aware of the law."
Site sources mike. Meaningless words with proper MLA citation.
Again do a thread with Judges , lawyers and you. I will watch.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Wrong. The law is to promote the progress. It is not about protecting artists.
The law promotes progress BY protecting artists and inventors.
That is why Jefferson embedded patent and copyright into the Constitution, he knew the new nation could not build a vibrant economy without proper Copyright and patent laws. It is basic political-economic theory , a "self-evident truth" even.
Did you ever take a high school social studies course, this was there ? Check you notes.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
This is meaningless babble that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. No one denies that laws protect certain rights. The problem is that you are flat out lying about what copyright law does (and doing so in barely comprehensible English).
Again , bring in some Copyright Laywer Pros, professors , judges, and you Mike discuss with them copyright laws with them in a locked thread, no other posters allowed.
I challenge you. And I hope you are not too chicken to do it.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Those who engage in infringing practices may subvert some of those rights
exactly. That is why it is illegal.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
ASCAP's bill of rights is not the law. ASCAP is not a gov't organizatio
The ASCAP B.O.Rs. extends focus of artist rights onto new areas of the digital age, as well better international protections.
That is what I suggested you review and critic them, and they do actually summarize the law as it stands in the USA for printed media , and most digital media. ( But if you read them you would know that. More reading , less writing Mike.)
-----------
Why do we have the best copyright/patent laws?
Because the laws are an embedded institution
within the U.S. Constitution ,
right there with the formation of the President and Congress and the Supreme Court and balance of powers..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,
“ To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times ** to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
(**Limited times are determined by law. If you want to cut the time to 10 days ,, try to get the law passed. Good Luck.)
Free speech is in the "bill of rights" , of the first of the ten amendments to the u.s const.
There was much opposition to granting absolute free speech and press in 1700's.
there was no opposition to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,
If you fail to understand how this torpedoes your worldviews on copyright and patent laws,
,, you, well, should quit your job , or be fired.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: " It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property.� -- Thomas Jefferson
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
" It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property.” -- Thomas Jefferson
MY REPLY :
Ok ,, now I see the problem.
As , Daffy Duck would say : “ hmm Adverb Trouble “ : except here it is a noun: IDEA.
Thomas Jefferson is lamenting that you cannot copyright IDEAS.
Take an Average human brain:
The levels of Brain Function:
1]Instinct /Reflex : I digest food. If food bad I throw up. This is deep in the “reptilian brain , and I cannot control.
2] Animal thought : Animal need food, Animal needs sex. , but animals stop there , they do not ove to next level:
3] Human thought: Ideas and concepts. Let us make a spear . Easier to kill Food.
Ideas and concepts , can also , be : Freedom, Love , Woman’s and Human suffrage.
Idea s are nice , but cannot be copy righted thus , Jefferson Lament. Ideas need to next step-
4] execution into physical action.
I have Idea, We Hunt Food. Let us make a spear , or dig a hole in ground to trap our game.
That is execution into physical action. If it is a good spear , with some new innovation – even today ,, I can patent it.
Artist have IDEAS / inspiration : again the IDEA , cannot be copyrighted.
But , Artist make ART . A painting , a song , a play , a poem, a book .
Artist apply for and get copyright to protect work from Pirates.
Pirates sets up website with ART :
Artist call lawyer. Artist: Throw up { see #1}.
Quite Frankly , Mile , I am deeply disappointed, and somewhat heartbroken, that you did not know the difference between “Idea” and “Execution /Creation /Physical Action” that puts the Idea , into the world where is can be copyrighted.( It is high school stuff.)
For with Ideas alone ,, there no copyright , thus Jefferson’s Lament ? No Jeferson’s Ode to the beauty of human thought , to free slaves , heal the sick , end suffering.
So now read Tommy J.’s quote again, with that thought in mind:
…. [I]deas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation." -- Thomas Jefferson
Man , that is beautiful – and if written today , would be covered by copyright
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Q: Explain why the DMCA outlaws circumventing DRM? A;" Because that's what the entertainment lobby told Congress to do, that's why"
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Dear Techdirt ,re: Artists and copyrights
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: copyright is a natural right//then are are unconstitutional and must be repealed.
Next >>