Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 9:58am
Re: AC is a giant raging hypocrite
Can you show me ANYTHING at all that says Youtube specifically had anything to do with the video, beyond being the service someone else used to upload it? Can you show me ANYTHING, ANYTHING where Youtube says "too bad porn girl, we used your video because we don't respect copyright"?
You can't.
Come on AC, if you are going to be a prick, at least try to work with quotes or evidence. This would appear to be the uploader making poor choices - or perhaps even an authorized subsidiary purposefully uploading videos to look independant. Why do you immediately go to the top of the chain and say Youtube personally did it?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 8:45am
Re: Re: Unpublished?
Yes, I can Google it, or check Wikipedia. That however doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. Techdirt is more than a site that just posts news stories - the community discusses them. Eric frequently shows up in the comments here, and he seems to have a strong opinion on the matter, so I was hoping he would respond with context, and perhaps more info than you would find on a cursory search. And maybe others in the community had a similar question and would like to hear from Eric as well.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Aug 2012 @ 6:19am
Unpublished?
How do court opinions go unpublished? There was a ruling here, on a matter of public concern. Does California have some crazy procedure that allows cases to go unpublished?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 3:11pm
That's not just A Few Coins. Sony, who is nothing but a Hustler, screwed him over Just The Same Way they do other artists, but After All These Years, Karma caught up with them. Now Sony is crying like a Little Girl, and With a Tear falling down their cheek, they cry it is a World Gone Wild they can't get away with this. Now other artists will be coming to Nickel and Dime them to death.
Don't Stop Believing that they'll get what is coming to them, and they'll soon be giving out checks Anyway You Want It.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 6:40am
Re:
looking to license patents from others - not just buy them.
Either way it is still a waste of money on pieces of paper and lawyers that could be better spent on actual innovation, product development, or lowering costs to customers.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 6:33am
Article title
Have an issue with the article title. It should be more like:
Nathan Myhrvold: It's Ok To Kill Innovation If You're Also (not) Killing Mosquitoes
or
Nathan Myhrvold: It's Ok To Kill Innovation If You're Also (lying about) Killing Mosquitoes
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 2:10pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
if copyright has nothing to do with the creation of those works, then why do they use copyright as their business model?
Because it's not the artists making that decision. It's the legacy content companies that are taking those rights away from the artists in exchange for
If an artist or author wants to create a work and not use copyright, they can.
Really? Every creative work made is automatically under copyright. Since you're the expert, please explain, step by step, how if I write a book, I can opt-out of copyright in its entirety?
But what you shouldn't do--and what is wrong and immoral to do--
You want to bring morals into this? That's a losing fight for you, but I'll play if you want.
How is it moral to deny to everyone in the world an idea or knowledge that costs nothing to duplicate? How is it moral to lock those ideas up, threaten anyone who wishes to use them with financial ruin, just to make a bit of money? How is it moral to shut down the competition over an obvious idea, or on something they came up with entirely on their own?
And Mike is not the "leader" around here. He only created the site. We make out own decisions and have our own views. Stop viewing us as some hive mine.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 1:55pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If instead of a chair it's a movie, then same rules apply. Fuck you if you don't like what they do with their movie.
Funny, that's the exact thought process that turned me against copyright.
So, I have a legally purchased DVD of a movie. I want to make a backup copy on my computer so that if the disc get scratched, I can still enjoy my movie. It would also be nice that I don't have to get out the disc and put it in the drive if I wanted to watch it. Can I do those things? Not legally, because some asshole made it illegal to circumvent the copy protection on that disc even if it for a legal use.
So that started me down the path to opposing copyright expansion. Along the way I learned all sorts of new things, and now am full tilt against any copyright. So fuck your overreaching laws, your protectionist attitudes, your cronyism and lobbying. I'll buy content if you offer it in a convenient manner for a reasonable price - but if you insist on stupid terms and restrictions, fuck you, I'll keep my money and get that content without harming anything but your bottom line.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 1:42pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those rights create nothing.
Creative content was made before copyright ever entered the picture. Ever heard of Shakespeare? Homer? Leonardo da Vinci? Michelangelo? Bach? They didn't need copyright to create works of art and literature and music that we still enjoy today.
Creative content is being made today by artists and creators who want nothing to do with copyright.
The most innovative people and companies today are showing us they don't want or need patents and they are being attacked by those who have them on the stupidest and vaguest ideas.
Oh, I'm sorry, I was wrong - those rights are good for something. They're good for lawyers who are nothing but leeches sucking money and life from innovative companies. They're good for shady middlemen and unethical accountants taking nearly every bit of profit from artists who are trying to creative beautiful new works.
I couldn't care less how innovation hurts the leeches and gatekeepers and vultures who siphon off the money and life from people who actually create things.
How just admit that you can't get enough copyrighted works, and meet somewhere in the middle?
You want to meet somewhere in the middle? Ok, let's roll back every bit of copyright law that came about after 1975. Let's stop granting vague patents, and void out all software and business model patents currently on the books. That's a start.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:53pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, trolling is worse. IT's a way to live in denial
Oh, and look at that. Right after I mentioned her, I see a new story over at ArsTechnica about how Judge Howell is siding with copyright holders, even though many other judges in the country have seen through their tactics and are throwing the cases out.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Aug 2012 @ 12:43pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, trolling is worse. IT's a way to live in denial
What do you mean lowering the bar again? Nice revisionist history. Had I not made a silly cut and paste error, I would have posted that link in my very first reply in this thread. As soon as I saw you make that unsupportable claim that a judge had NEVER been influenced in a copyright case I knew where to find something disproving it.
And pre-existing or previous membership in lobbying organizations is something we talk about all the time around here. TD covers the revolving door politics of Washington all the time. TD covered Judge Beryl Howell's previous lobbying for RIAA when she started rulling on copyright cases.
Yes, judges should recuse themselves if there is something that points to bias. Are there judges that are members of the ACLU or EFF ruling on copyright cases? Care to cite an example, or are you making wild accusations again? Yet we don't see judges recusing themselves when they have the appearance of a bias being pro-copyright. Having religious affiliations (also, a lack of religious affiliations is seen as a religious affiliation) is considerably harder to avoid, but I think judges (in general) have managed to maintain the appearance of not being influenced - and when they haven't, yes, they should be removed from cases.
Removed from the case sounds like being disciplined to me. The judge didn't recuse herself, as we saw the NZ judge do in the Dotcom case when there was even the slightest hint of a tangentially related comment.
Why is it so important to you that it must be a conviction or disciplinary issue? You make wild accusations that Techdirt is a piracy apologist site. You support that Kim Dotcom is the epitome of evil based on nothing but accusations. You support kicking people off the internet based on nothing but accusations. Why do only pro-copyright supporters get the benefit of due process and skepticism when accusations are good enough to codemn someone of piracy?
On the post: SurfTheChannel Owner Anton Vickerman Sentenced To Four Years In Jail For 'Conspiracy'
On the post: Universal Music Sued Because 62% Of A Bow Wow Video Is Actually A French Porn Star's Music Video
Re: AC is a giant raging hypocrite
You can't.
Come on AC, if you are going to be a prick, at least try to work with quotes or evidence. This would appear to be the uploader making poor choices - or perhaps even an authorized subsidiary purposefully uploading videos to look independant. Why do you immediately go to the top of the chain and say Youtube personally did it?
----
FTFY
On the post: Citations & Sarcasm: How Gizmodo Got A Defamation Lawsuit SLAPPed Down
Re: Re: Unpublished?
On the post: Plunging Through Time To Rescue Out Of Print Sci-Fi Books
Re:
Reading comprehension fail.
From the article: "by seeking out the owner of the copyright and purchasing the rights to publish the ebook."
On the post: Citations & Sarcasm: How Gizmodo Got A Defamation Lawsuit SLAPPed Down
Unpublished?
On the post: Journey's Producer Sues Sony Over Unpaid Royalties For 21 Classic Songs
Don't Stop Believing that they'll get what is coming to them, and they'll soon be giving out checks Anyway You Want It.
On the post: Amazon The Latest Tech Company To Realize It Needs To Waste A Ton Of Money Buying Patents
Re:
Either way it is still a waste of money on pieces of paper and lawyers that could be better spent on actual innovation, product development, or lowering costs to customers.
On the post: Nathan Myhrvold: It's Ok To Kill Innovation If You're Also Killing Mosquitoes
Article title
Nathan Myhrvold: It's Ok To Kill Innovation If You're Also (not) Killing Mosquitoes
or
Nathan Myhrvold: It's Ok To Kill Innovation If You're Also (lying about) Killing Mosquitoes
On the post: Entrepreneurs & VCs Tell The White House To Focus On Innovation, Rather Than IP Enforcement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because it's not the artists making that decision. It's the legacy content companies that are taking those rights away from the artists in exchange for
If an artist or author wants to create a work and not use copyright, they can.
Really? Every creative work made is automatically under copyright. Since you're the expert, please explain, step by step, how if I write a book, I can opt-out of copyright in its entirety?
But what you shouldn't do--and what is wrong and immoral to do--
You want to bring morals into this? That's a losing fight for you, but I'll play if you want.
How is it moral to deny to everyone in the world an idea or knowledge that costs nothing to duplicate? How is it moral to lock those ideas up, threaten anyone who wishes to use them with financial ruin, just to make a bit of money? How is it moral to shut down the competition over an obvious idea, or on something they came up with entirely on their own?
And Mike is not the "leader" around here. He only created the site. We make out own decisions and have our own views. Stop viewing us as some hive mine.
On the post: Entrepreneurs & VCs Tell The White House To Focus On Innovation, Rather Than IP Enforcement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny, that's the exact thought process that turned me against copyright.
So, I have a legally purchased DVD of a movie. I want to make a backup copy on my computer so that if the disc get scratched, I can still enjoy my movie. It would also be nice that I don't have to get out the disc and put it in the drive if I wanted to watch it. Can I do those things? Not legally, because some asshole made it illegal to circumvent the copy protection on that disc even if it for a legal use.
So that started me down the path to opposing copyright expansion. Along the way I learned all sorts of new things, and now am full tilt against any copyright. So fuck your overreaching laws, your protectionist attitudes, your cronyism and lobbying. I'll buy content if you offer it in a convenient manner for a reasonable price - but if you insist on stupid terms and restrictions, fuck you, I'll keep my money and get that content without harming anything but your bottom line.
On the post: Entrepreneurs & VCs Tell The White House To Focus On Innovation, Rather Than IP Enforcement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Creative content was made before copyright ever entered the picture. Ever heard of Shakespeare? Homer? Leonardo da Vinci? Michelangelo? Bach? They didn't need copyright to create works of art and literature and music that we still enjoy today.
Creative content is being made today by artists and creators who want nothing to do with copyright.
The most innovative people and companies today are showing us they don't want or need patents and they are being attacked by those who have them on the stupidest and vaguest ideas.
Oh, I'm sorry, I was wrong - those rights are good for something. They're good for lawyers who are nothing but leeches sucking money and life from innovative companies. They're good for shady middlemen and unethical accountants taking nearly every bit of profit from artists who are trying to creative beautiful new works.
I couldn't care less how innovation hurts the leeches and gatekeepers and vultures who siphon off the money and life from people who actually create things.
How just admit that you can't get enough copyrighted works, and meet somewhere in the middle?
You want to meet somewhere in the middle? Ok, let's roll back every bit of copyright law that came about after 1975. Let's stop granting vague patents, and void out all software and business model patents currently on the books. That's a start.
On the post: Honest Mistake: Order A TV From Amazon, Receive An Illegal Assault Rifle
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As if that's a surprise to anyone.
On the post: Live Video Chat With Rob Reid, Author Of 'Year Zero' About Aliens & Copyright
Awesome book
Rob, thanks for a great book!
About halfway through it. It has me laughing constantly. A lot more truth in this fiction than we see coming out of the major label mouthpieces.
On the post: Is Trolling Just A Form Of Practical Jokes?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, trolling is worse. IT's a way to live in denial
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/judge-sides-with-porn-p2p-plaintiff-setting-up-le gal-showdown/
When she gets slapped down, are you going to try to squirm out from your comments and say the stories are not coming from reputable sources?
On the post: Is Trolling Just A Form Of Practical Jokes?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, trolling is worse. IT's a way to live in denial
And pre-existing or previous membership in lobbying organizations is something we talk about all the time around here. TD covers the revolving door politics of Washington all the time. TD covered Judge Beryl Howell's previous lobbying for RIAA when she started rulling on copyright cases.
Yes, judges should recuse themselves if there is something that points to bias. Are there judges that are members of the ACLU or EFF ruling on copyright cases? Care to cite an example, or are you making wild accusations again? Yet we don't see judges recusing themselves when they have the appearance of a bias being pro-copyright. Having religious affiliations (also, a lack of religious affiliations is seen as a religious affiliation) is considerably harder to avoid, but I think judges (in general) have managed to maintain the appearance of not being influenced - and when they haven't, yes, they should be removed from cases.
On the post: The Daily Show's Awesome Re-imagining Of How Whistleblower Thomas Drake Was A Spy
Re: Re:
On the post: Honest Mistake: Order A TV From Amazon, Receive An Illegal Assault Rifle
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Trolling Just A Form Of Practical Jokes?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, trolling is worse. IT's a way to live in denial
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090525/1542304998.shtml
"Swedish Judge In Charge Of Determining Bias Of Pirate Bay Judge Removed... For Bias"
Removed from the case sounds like being disciplined to me. The judge didn't recuse herself, as we saw the NZ judge do in the Dotcom case when there was even the slightest hint of a tangentially related comment.
If you follow the link in that story, it takes you to:
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/second-judge-removed-from-pirate-bay-case
which doesn't even fit your expansive view of a piracy apologist site. This was covered elsewhere as well. Are you denying that it happened?
Why is it so important to you that it must be a conviction or disciplinary issue? You make wild accusations that Techdirt is a piracy apologist site. You support that Kim Dotcom is the epitome of evil based on nothing but accusations. You support kicking people off the internet based on nothing but accusations. Why do only pro-copyright supporters get the benefit of due process and skepticism when accusations are good enough to codemn someone of piracy?
On the post: The Daily Show's Awesome Re-imagining Of How Whistleblower Thomas Drake Was A Spy
Re: Not a nickel
Planning to write in Ron Wyden, because then at least I know I voted for someone who deserves the job, rather than the "less bad" candidate.
On the post: Is Trolling Just A Form Of Practical Jokes?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, trolling is worse. IT's a way to live in denial
You don't need to be "convicted" of something for it to have influence.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090422/2213024614.shtml
"Judge In Pirate Bay Case Appears To Have Ties To The Copyright Lobby"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090506/1029274770.shtml
"Pirate Bay Judge Accused Of Conflict In Another Case As Well"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090520/0411254949.shtml
"Person In Charge Of Determining If Pirate Bay Judge Is Biased... May Be Biased"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090520/0411254949.shtml
"Swedish Judge In Charge Of Determining Bias Of Pirate Bay Judge Removed... For Bias"
Next >>