Censorship is censorship. There is no broad or narrow definition. If the government does something that restricts your free speech, it's censorship.
Obviously there are different definitions. Mike is defining it broadly, as are you, to include any government restriction on speech. Smith is defining it narrowly to include only government restriction on speech based on the content of that speech, i.e., the ideas being conveyed. It's the difference between content-based and content-neutral regulation of speech, a distinction that has existed in First Amendment jurisprudence for years. It's silly to pretend like there's no difference between the two.
Mike is using the broader definition because it allows him to call this "censorship," a word that carries with it strong negative connotations. Smith obviously is using the narrow definition to avoid that connotation. Neither one is incorrect, and it's simply a matter of which version (content-neutral vs. content-based) of regulation is being referred to.
First of all, the first statement is an outright fabrication. The entire point of the bill is to censor parts of the internet. Smith is trying to pretend that because the censorship is about stopping infringement, it's not censorship, but that's simply false. The government telling internet sites that they have to block access to other websites is -- undeniably -- censorship. If Smith were being intellectually honest, he would admit that and then we could have a nice discussion on whether or not this form of censorship makes sense. But, instead, he pretends that it's not censorship.
You both just define the word "censorship" differently. Your definition is broad and his is narrow. It's not an issue of "being intellectually honest" for either of you. It seems like a silly point for you to get personal on since from my point of view you are both correct--the word simply has two different meanings.
A simple 30-item screening test that was first published in 1975 basically became a defacto standard that was used (and published!) widely. As the authors note, it was available in textbooks, pocket guides and websites -- and "memorized by countless residents and medical students." All in all, it sounds like a useful tool that was being put to good use. But then, decades after it was created, the authors of the diagnostic test discovered copyright.
If that's the case, then perhaps the copyright was abandoned, i.e., the test fell into the public domain. It's a shame the Sweet 16 people backed off and didn't challenge. Whatever copyright the MMSE has is thin, if it exists at all, since ideas are not copyrightable.
Re: Response to: average_joe on Dec 30th, 2011 @ 7:36am
And the judge cut it down to $2,250 per track, well above $1 per track like Mike is saying, because there's more to it than the $1 per track number. I agree that the juries in both Tenenbaum's and Thomas-Rasset's cases went overboard. But considering that their infringement was willful and that they lied under oath (if I'm remembering that correctly), then they certainly deserved an award that punished them. That said, my point was merely that there's more to an award of damages than $1 per track, and it's silly for Mike to pretend it's that simple.
That's why something like this ruling is interesting, as it suggests (again) that perhaps the payment for downloading music should be the cost of licensing it for personal use -- or around $1. But as with the Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum trials, juries seem to massively inflate what they'd like to award for damages, even if there's no evidence that the downloads directly caused any real or significant damage.
You fail to consider that the amount the jury awards is for more than simply what a download would have cost. There are several factors that go into determining the award. For example, if the infringement was willful, part of the award is meant to punish the defendant's intentional wrongdoing. If you want to say something intelligent about jury awards, you should do some basic research on what factors are considered in coming up with those numbers. Simply saying that it should be about $1, the cost of a download, shows you haven't done any research on the issue.
If a site is "dedicated to infringement" then surely it would be easy to team up with enough players to post a $1 billion bond and file suit.
If it's just one small company complaining, then the site probably isn't dedicated to infringement and shouldn't be killed off just because some small company overreacted...
Why is Prof. Goldman talking abut "cutoff notices" in SOPA and PROTECT IP? Can you point me the sections you guys are talking about?
You're taking one sentence that he said out of context, stretching it, and trying to come up with a silly "Gotcha!" moment. Surely there's some real reporting you could be doing. Oh, never mind...
Smith was talking about net neutrality--he rejects government regulation of the internet in the context of net neutrality. What's that got to do with SOPA? Seems like a desperate stretch. Just because he's against government regulation of the internet in one context doesn't mean he's against it in others. You're reading too much into things as usual...
I know you're just a troll with nothing to add to the conversation, but it's completely obvious that they only person spouting faith-based FUD is Mike. His logic is "ROI, QED." Obviously, it's more complicated than that and he is intentionally lying and manipulating his readers by claiming otherwise. What a joke.
Do you need a study to show that if you decrease the ROI people will invest less in it?
Yes, you need the study. Why? Because there's more going on in this market than simply people investing for the ROI. I personally am in the up-and-coming art market as a buyer, and I can tell you that the possibility of being taxed more should the artwork appreciate in value significantly is not (and would not) be a factor in my purchasing. Perhaps the vast majority of buyers are like me.
The joke is that I'm trying to explain a simple economic fact to you, and you're pretending like ROI is the only issue in that market. It's not and you know it. You're simply lying to get your way. What's new, right? And the fact that you aren't pointing us to any actual studies leads me to think the studies that exist are contra to what you claim. Why else wouldn't you point to the studies if not but to deceive?
That report focuses on one key aspect: did the market move overseas.
There is no evidence that ARR has diverted business away from the UK, where the size of the art market has grown as fast, if not faster, than the art market in jurisdictions where ARR is not currently payable.
There is no evidence that ARR has reduced prices, as prices have appreciated substantially for art eligible for ARR, and faster than in markets where ARR is not currently payable.
Now, I have no idea how reliable that study is, but it does show that this situation is a lot more complicated than your overly-simplistic claim that it's all about ROI.
Good grief, Mike. Just admit that you didn't and can't prove it hurts artists. I know you won't. But don't think for one second you're fooling anyone. What's amazing is that you NEED to claim that it hurts artists, no matter what the actual data says. You start with the conclusion and work backwards. I've seen you do it time and again, just like you're doing here. What a joke.
Your level of intellectual dishonesty is appalling, Mike. I can't believe you won't just admit that you didn't prove anything. For example, how many people buying artwork from up-and-coming artists are buying it because of the ROI? That number could be quite low. You don't know, because you've done absolutely no analysis of the actual market. Instead, you just pretend like your ROI argument is controlling. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but intuition tells me the market is more complicated than that and you aren't considering other factors. The fact that you think you've proved this shows what an incredibly dishonest person you are. If you weren't so well educated, I might just think you were stupid. But as it is, it's just evidence that you're a liar. Good grief, Mike. Can you really not just admit that you haven't proved how this particular market works? That you just haven't proven that this will harm artists? What a joke. And the problem is when you lie about obvious stuff like this, I (and I'm sure others as well) just assume you're lying about the nonobvious stuff.
Sorry, Mike. That's just an argument based on an economic theory. You are not offering any proof whatsoever. You're making faith-based assumptions.
Where's the studies, Mike?
Following the link the poster gave just above, it appears that at least one report disagrees with you:
However, what is clear is that it has not been demonstrated that the implementation of the ARR has had any negative impact on the British art market. Art sales have not moved overseas to jurisdictions where there is no ARR. In fact, the art market survives, as it did following the introduction of VAT (arguably a far more cumbersome payment obligation), and has continued to rapidly grow and flourish.
Thus, while it is difficult to judge the effect of a law on a specialist market, in this case the changes that have already taken place appear to have had little negative impact on the British art market and the future change is unlikely to either.
I don't pretend to know what the right answer is. Maybe you're right. Maybe it does hurt artists. What I do know is that you haven't proved anything. All you've done is stated an economic theory and assumed that it would explain this whole market without any data whatsoever. I know you're smart enough to know it doesn't work like that. You're lying if you say you've proved it.
Sorry, Zachary, but he hasn't proven anything. All he's given is one argument about one factor that might be a disincentive for people to invest. There's no analysis of the market for up-and-coming artists, no consideration of what other factors might be at play, etc. It's just a blind faith assumption that this will hurt a particular market with no actual analysis of that market. It's faith-based FUD, pure and simple. He has presented absolutely no proof whatsoever that this will hurt up-and-coming artists.
For all we know the bulk of up-and-coming artists sell their works for $500 or less, and nobody would not buy a piece because of the possibility of there being some additional fee if it sells for more than $10,000 somewhere down the road. I've bought lots of art with no consideration of resale value--these bills wouldn't negatively affect my purchasing decisions. I have no idea how that market works, and neither does Mike. All he gives is a conclusory statement that it will hurt up-and-coming artists. That just doesn't cut it. That's just an argument, and one supported by no proof.
I don't have a problem with giving someone a limited property right in their works, as indicated in the Constitution. I don't have a problem with the government "censoring" websites that are devoted to violating people's rights. And I have never supported anyone abusing the law (which is why I'm against piracy, unlike you I presume). It's funny how much you guys pretend to care about people's rights, but when it comes to copyright rights you guys pretend like it's OK to violate as much as you want. It's not OK--you're the sociopath, not me.
Um. This isn't complicated at all. While the *fee* only applies to sales over $10,000, the IMPACT applies to any sale before it reaches that, because anyone making the investment knows that any future potential return is diminished.
Look this is really basic economics. I mean it's the stuff that you would normally get past in your first week of econ 101. If you're looking to invest in widget A, but I tell you that later on when you sell widget A you'll have to pay a 7% tax on it, your calculation of how much you invest in widget A and how much you'll pay for it changes, because your ROI calculation changes and you're guaranteed to make less on your investment than you would otherwise.
That's not "faith-based." That's just basic reality. There's no assumptions or opinions here. This is pure fact-based stuff.
So basically your argument is that people won't want to buy art as an investment because if it appreciates too much (above $10,000) and they sell it, then they'll have to pay some percentage as a fee. And you claim this is "pure fact-based stuff." OK, show me the data. Show me the proof. It's obvious that you have absolutely no evidence that artists would be harmed by this. It's 100% faith-based. It's 100% assumption. It's 100% opinion. Show me the proof or admit that you just assumed it all to be true. Show me exactly how you know for certain that this is "fact-based stuff." I won't hold my breath. And saying it's "basic economics" doesn't cut it. The fact is you cannot prove this would hurt artists. It's just a guess based on some basic economic principles that may not be true in this particular market or may be subject to some countervailing forces that you aren't accounting for. Sorry, Mike, you haven't proved a thing except that you're just making it up.
On the post: Lamar Smith Out Of Touch With The Internet: Still Thinks It's Just Google That Opposes SOPA
Re: Re:
Obviously there are different definitions. Mike is defining it broadly, as are you, to include any government restriction on speech. Smith is defining it narrowly to include only government restriction on speech based on the content of that speech, i.e., the ideas being conveyed. It's the difference between content-based and content-neutral regulation of speech, a distinction that has existed in First Amendment jurisprudence for years. It's silly to pretend like there's no difference between the two.
Mike is using the broader definition because it allows him to call this "censorship," a word that carries with it strong negative connotations. Smith obviously is using the narrow definition to avoid that connotation. Neither one is incorrect, and it's simply a matter of which version (content-neutral vs. content-based) of regulation is being referred to.
On the post: Lamar Smith Out Of Touch With The Internet: Still Thinks It's Just Google That Opposes SOPA
You both just define the word "censorship" differently. Your definition is broad and his is narrow. It's not an issue of "being intellectually honest" for either of you. It seems like a silly point for you to get personal on since from my point of view you are both correct--the word simply has two different meanings.
On the post: Doctors Discover Copyright Law: Cognitive Screening Test Killed Over Infringement Claims
If that's the case, then perhaps the copyright was abandoned, i.e., the test fell into the public domain. It's a shame the Sweet 16 people backed off and didn't challenge. Whatever copyright the MMSE has is thin, if it exists at all, since ideas are not copyrightable.
On the post: Is A Naked Danica Patrick Working To Quell GoDaddy Boycott Efforts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiot
On the post: Company Caught Downloading Competitor's Software Just Has To Pay The Fee To Buy One License
Re: Response to: average_joe on Dec 30th, 2011 @ 7:36am
On the post: Company Caught Downloading Competitor's Software Just Has To Pay The Fee To Buy One License
You fail to consider that the amount the jury awards is for more than simply what a download would have cost. There are several factors that go into determining the award. For example, if the infringement was willful, part of the award is meant to punish the defendant's intentional wrongdoing. If you want to say something intelligent about jury awards, you should do some basic research on what factors are considered in coming up with those numbers. Simply saying that it should be about $1, the cost of a download, shows you haven't done any research on the issue.
On the post: Shouldn't There Be Significant Punishment For Bogus Copyright Claims That Kill Companies?
Re: Re:
If it's just one small company complaining, then the site probably isn't dedicated to infringement and shouldn't be killed off just because some small company overreacted...
Why is Prof. Goldman talking abut "cutoff notices" in SOPA and PROTECT IP? Can you point me the sections you guys are talking about?
On the post: Lamar Smith, Against Regulating The Internet... Until Hollywood Became His Biggest Campaign Funder
Re: Re:
So why is he for it now?
If he was so against regulation of the internet in 2006 (while he was chair of the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, no less), then why was he introducing bills like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Property_Protection_Act_of_2006
You're taking one sentence that he said out of context, stretching it, and trying to come up with a silly "Gotcha!" moment. Surely there's some real reporting you could be doing. Oh, never mind...
On the post: Lamar Smith, Against Regulating The Internet... Until Hollywood Became His Biggest Campaign Funder
On the post: Is A Naked Danica Patrick Working To Quell GoDaddy Boycott Efforts?
Re: Re:
On the post: Is A Naked Danica Patrick Working To Quell GoDaddy Boycott Efforts?
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, you need the study. Why? Because there's more going on in this market than simply people investing for the ROI. I personally am in the up-and-coming art market as a buyer, and I can tell you that the possibility of being taxed more should the artwork appreciate in value significantly is not (and would not) be a factor in my purchasing. Perhaps the vast majority of buyers are like me.
The joke is that I'm trying to explain a simple economic fact to you, and you're pretending like ROI is the only issue in that market. It's not and you know it. You're simply lying to get your way. What's new, right? And the fact that you aren't pointing us to any actual studies leads me to think the studies that exist are contra to what you claim. Why else wouldn't you point to the studies if not but to deceive?
That report focuses on one key aspect: did the market move overseas.
I got the sense that the study looked at more than that, but I couldn't find the full study. I did find another one, though: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/study-droitdesuite.pdf
Major findings include:Now, I have no idea how reliable that study is, but it does show that this situation is a lot more complicated than your overly-simplistic claim that it's all about ROI.
Good grief, Mike. Just admit that you didn't and can't prove it hurts artists. I know you won't. But don't think for one second you're fooling anyone. What's amazing is that you NEED to claim that it hurts artists, no matter what the actual data says. You start with the conclusion and work backwards. I've seen you do it time and again, just like you're doing here. What a joke.
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where's the studies, Mike?
Following the link the poster gave just above, it appears that at least one report disagrees with you:Source: http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2010/12/artists-royalty-right-not-as-much.html
I don't pretend to know what the right answer is. Maybe you're right. Maybe it does hurt artists. What I do know is that you haven't proved anything. All you've done is stated an economic theory and assumed that it would explain this whole market without any data whatsoever. I know you're smart enough to know it doesn't work like that. You're lying if you say you've proved it.
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For all we know the bulk of up-and-coming artists sell their works for $500 or less, and nobody would not buy a piece because of the possibility of there being some additional fee if it sells for more than $10,000 somewhere down the road. I've bought lots of art with no consideration of resale value--these bills wouldn't negatively affect my purchasing decisions. I have no idea how that market works, and neither does Mike. All he gives is a conclusory statement that it will hurt up-and-coming artists. That just doesn't cut it. That's just an argument, and one supported by no proof.
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look this is really basic economics. I mean it's the stuff that you would normally get past in your first week of econ 101. If you're looking to invest in widget A, but I tell you that later on when you sell widget A you'll have to pay a 7% tax on it, your calculation of how much you invest in widget A and how much you'll pay for it changes, because your ROI calculation changes and you're guaranteed to make less on your investment than you would otherwise.
That's not "faith-based." That's just basic reality. There's no assumptions or opinions here. This is pure fact-based stuff.
So basically your argument is that people won't want to buy art as an investment because if it appreciates too much (above $10,000) and they sell it, then they'll have to pay some percentage as a fee. And you claim this is "pure fact-based stuff." OK, show me the data. Show me the proof. It's obvious that you have absolutely no evidence that artists would be harmed by this. It's 100% faith-based. It's 100% assumption. It's 100% opinion. Show me the proof or admit that you just assumed it all to be true. Show me exactly how you know for certain that this is "fact-based stuff." I won't hold my breath. And saying it's "basic economics" doesn't cut it. The fact is you cannot prove this would hurt artists. It's just a guess based on some basic economic principles that may not be true in this particular market or may be subject to some countervailing forces that you aren't accounting for. Sorry, Mike, you haven't proved a thing except that you're just making it up.
Next >>