Reading comprehension was never your strong suit. This is a story where Mike Masnick is, yet again, looking out for the *best interests* of artists by suggesting that a law that harms up-and-coming artists and only benefits those already successful is bad for most artists.
I can't believe that I get attacked as being somehow "anti-artist" for speaking out against a bill that hurts artists.
You, of course, did not address the substance of my argument. How do the bills "harm[] up-and-coming artists" if you admit that the "bills only apply to sales of artwork over $10,000," i.e., only appl to artists who are "already super successful" (and whom it can "only help[]")?
I know you won't give a simple answer to this simple question, Mike. Let the weaseling begin...
Nope. It's a fact that Mike doesn't want artists to have copyright rights, and he doesn't support them exercising the copyright rights that they do have. It's a fact that Mike defends and apologizes for piracy day after day on this blog. All fact, my friend. No FUD needed. The proof is all around you.
What facts? It's just a bunch of opinion masked as fact (they should have asked an economist, like Mike!). His argument is not even logical (he admits it can only help successful artists, with no explanation of how it hurts unsuccessful ones). The whole post is just another anti-IP, anti-artist rant. And (of course!) it's all founded on faith-based FUD couched in economic terms to give it heft. What a joke.
Support it? I've never heard of it until a few moments ago. And I don't support it--as I said, sounds stupid to me but I'd have to learn more about it first to form an actual position on the matter.
Mike does hate the fact that artists have rights in their works, and he does not support artists exercising those rights. That's just a fact.
Things get sold all the time where less than complete right, title, and interest changes hands, so your argument that this isn't how sales should work rings hollow. Sales do work like that. I bought a DVD just last night (yes, some people still collect DVDs!). I own the physical disc, but I am only a nonexclusive licensee of movie that's on it.
LOL! I didn't say I supported this bill. I'm simply pointing out how terrible and predictable Mike's "logic" is. This bill sounds like a stupid idea to me at first blush, but I don't have enough information to form a solid opinion on the matter.
Oh look, Mike Masnick doesn't support a proposed law that would give artists more rights. Shocker! And where's his evidence that such a right would actually hurt artists? There is none--it's faith-based FUD. Double shocker!
More importantly, this only helps already super successful artists, because they're the only ones who make money off of this. The Nadler and Kohl bills only apply to sales of artwork over $10,000. If an artist has works that are selling for that much they're already super successful and can make a lot more money by simply making new art and selling it themselves.
Your logic is so twisted it hurts. If this only applies to artists who are "already super successful," and if you admit that this "only helps already super successful artists," then you have just admitted that this will help the very artists it applies to.
In other words, once you've reached the stage where your old art is selling for $10,000, you shouldn't be relying on an artist resale right anyway. You should be making new art and selling it for a lot of money directly and cashing in.
Or they could just do both. Sheesh.
So, to recap: this kind of right harms new artists by making it more expensive for anyone to invest in their art, and it only helps super successful artists who can already make a ton of money from their art.
Again, you already admitted that this only applies to artists who can already sell their artwork for $10,000 or more, and you already admitted that this will "only help[]" them. So how does it "harm[] new artists by making it more expensive to invest in their art"? If someone's willing to pay $10,000 or more for a piece of artwork, do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that they wouldn't spend a little bit more? Nope.
What's amazing is that these bills keep popping up.
What's amazing is how twisted and stupid your logic is. What's amazing is how you HATE that artists have ANY RIGHTS. What's amazing is how you don't think artists should exercise the rights they have. What's amazing is how you defend piracy day in and day out, but you think that no one notices that you're pro-piracy.
And what's truly amazing is how you pretend that your policy preference is really an economic reality.
Good for you if you get thousands of people to leave, but put that number into perspective or else it's meaningless. If 99.9% of their customers aren't participating in the "SOPA boycott," then that's obviously a significant fact that cuts against your side's portrayal of what's happening.
As to the rest of your arguments, you must have me confused with someone else. I don't care what registrar you use. I used GoDaddy once and thought the service sucked. I won't use them again based on that experience alone. I couldn't care less what you do.
"Fighting online piracy is of the utmost importance, which is why Go Daddy has been working to help craft revisions to this legislation -- but we can clearly do better," Warren Adelman, Go Daddy's newly appointed CEO, said. "It's very important that all Internet stakeholders work together on this. Getting it right is worth the wait. Go Daddy will support it when and if the Internet community supports it."
What spinelessness. "We'll like it when you like it too." Give me a break. I don't care whether Go Daddy supports it or not, but I think it's hilarious that they're being such transparent weasels about it. Score one for the "file sharers."
You want a real change in attitude? You'll have to show them kindness even when they act like dicks. It's hard to be a dick to someone who is being ridiculously nice, even when they disagree.
Not impossible. I enjoy doing it from time to time.
You, of course, are absolutely right that that sort of reaction is better that being a dick back. Most days I do strive to be more congenial and diplomatic, but sometimes I just say whatever comes to mind.
"No, you wondered aloud how Randazza could dare ask for IP to be turned over that he previously argued they did not possess."
Yes, I was anticipating that Randazza would want to seize the very copyrights that he had previously argued Righthaven did not possess. Is he not doing that? I dunno.
"Then you wondered aloud how the Judge could do the same."
Yes, I was wondering if Judge Pro is ordering Righthaven to turn over the very copyright that Judge Pro said they didn't own. Is he doing that? I dunno.
"Now you mold that all up into, "wondering if the copyrights that are being sued over are expected to be turned over" and somehow cant muster all your legal knowledge to come up with "If they actually own them, then yes"."
And that's the question. Do they own them? Are they going to turn them over? Are they expected to turn them over? I don't know, but I think it's kind of fun to think about, so I posted it here. Big fucking deal.
"You are indeed a dick, but not because you raise any valid questions or answers."
I'm being a dick because guys like you are busting my chops over nothing. Grow up and give me a fucking break. I actually feel sorry for you that you're so desperate to get me. What a sad and pathetic person you must be.
LOL! Good grief. So do you know which copyrights they're expected to turn over vs. which ones they're planning to turn over? That would be cool to know. That's all I've been trying to understand. But you sure did your sleuthing here. Kudos on your awesomeness.
Huh? I never said that Righthaven has no assets other than copyrights. I don't know (or care) what other assets they have. I'm simply wondering out loud if the very copyrights that Righthaven sued over are expected to be turned over to Randazza. Sorry if that's not clear.
I am a dick too, no doubt, but it's only after all these people start ganging up and are dicks to me. You can see for yourself what dicks they are right here in this thread. These guys really can't stand anyone who believes anything different than they do. It's amazing that I threaten them so. I mean, look at this sad and pathetic twerp who is impersonating me. I actually feel sorry for him. Not everyone can be a winner.
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re: Re:
I can't believe that I get attacked as being somehow "anti-artist" for speaking out against a bill that hurts artists.
You, of course, did not address the substance of my argument. How do the bills "harm[] up-and-coming artists" if you admit that the "bills only apply to sales of artwork over $10,000," i.e., only appl to artists who are "already super successful" (and whom it can "only help[]")?
I know you won't give a simple answer to this simple question, Mike. Let the weaseling begin...
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
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:
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:
Mike does hate the fact that artists have rights in their works, and he does not support artists exercising those rights. That's just a fact.
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re: Re:
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re: Re:
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
More importantly, this only helps already super successful artists, because they're the only ones who make money off of this. The Nadler and Kohl bills only apply to sales of artwork over $10,000. If an artist has works that are selling for that much they're already super successful and can make a lot more money by simply making new art and selling it themselves.
Your logic is so twisted it hurts. If this only applies to artists who are "already super successful," and if you admit that this "only helps already super successful artists," then you have just admitted that this will help the very artists it applies to.
In other words, once you've reached the stage where your old art is selling for $10,000, you shouldn't be relying on an artist resale right anyway. You should be making new art and selling it for a lot of money directly and cashing in.
Or they could just do both. Sheesh.
So, to recap: this kind of right harms new artists by making it more expensive for anyone to invest in their art, and it only helps super successful artists who can already make a ton of money from their art.
Again, you already admitted that this only applies to artists who can already sell their artwork for $10,000 or more, and you already admitted that this will "only help[]" them. So how does it "harm[] new artists by making it more expensive to invest in their art"? If someone's willing to pay $10,000 or more for a piece of artwork, do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that they wouldn't spend a little bit more? Nope.
What's amazing is that these bills keep popping up.
What's amazing is how twisted and stupid your logic is. What's amazing is how you HATE that artists have ANY RIGHTS. What's amazing is how you don't think artists should exercise the rights they have. What's amazing is how you defend piracy day in and day out, but you think that no one notices that you're pro-piracy.
And what's truly amazing is how you pretend that your policy preference is really an economic reality.
On the post: GoDaddy Says It Doesn't Support PIPA Either, As Domains Keep Transferring Away
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: GoDaddy Says It Doesn't Support PIPA Either, As Domains Keep Transferring Away
Re: Re:
As to the rest of your arguments, you must have me confused with someone else. I don't care what registrar you use. I used GoDaddy once and thought the service sucked. I won't use them again based on that experience alone. I couldn't care less what you do.
On the post: GoDaddy Says It Doesn't Support PIPA Either, As Domains Keep Transferring Away
Re: Re:
On the post: GoDaddy Says It Doesn't Support PIPA Either, As Domains Keep Transferring Away
Re: Re:
On the post: GoDaddy Says It Doesn't Support PIPA Either, As Domains Keep Transferring Away
"Big trouble"? Hardly. Wake me up when you guys affect even 1% of their business.
On the post: Breaking: GoDaddy Drops SOPA Support
What spinelessness. "We'll like it when you like it too." Give me a break. I don't care whether Go Daddy supports it or not, but I think it's hilarious that they're being such transparent weasels about it. Score one for the "file sharers."
On the post: Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not impossible. I enjoy doing it from time to time.
You, of course, are absolutely right that that sort of reaction is better that being a dick back. Most days I do strive to be more congenial and diplomatic, but sometimes I just say whatever comes to mind.
On the post: Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"No, you wondered aloud how Randazza could dare ask for IP to be turned over that he previously argued they did not possess."
Yes, I was anticipating that Randazza would want to seize the very copyrights that he had previously argued Righthaven did not possess. Is he not doing that? I dunno.
"Then you wondered aloud how the Judge could do the same."
Yes, I was wondering if Judge Pro is ordering Righthaven to turn over the very copyright that Judge Pro said they didn't own. Is he doing that? I dunno.
"Now you mold that all up into, "wondering if the copyrights that are being sued over are expected to be turned over" and somehow cant muster all your legal knowledge to come up with "If they actually own them, then yes"."
And that's the question. Do they own them? Are they going to turn them over? Are they expected to turn them over? I don't know, but I think it's kind of fun to think about, so I posted it here. Big fucking deal.
"You are indeed a dick, but not because you raise any valid questions or answers."
I'm being a dick because guys like you are busting my chops over nothing. Grow up and give me a fucking break. I actually feel sorry for you that you're so desperate to get me. What a sad and pathetic person you must be.
On the post: Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away
Re:
Next >>