Without copyright, you would have no structure under which to grant those rights and make it binding.
You are confusing the chicken with the egg.
Without copyright, there is no need or reason to grant those rights or make them binding in the first place at all.
Copyright restricts the natural right of copying. If copyright didn't exist, creative commons licenses wouldn't either, because there wouldn't be a need for them.
According to urban legend, Fox News in the US was initially set up as an "entertainment" outlet as opposed to a "news" outlet to avoid those pesky rules news organizations operate under.
Working the street, I can’t even count how many times I withstood curses, screaming tantrums, aggressive and menacing encroachments on my safety zone, and outright challenges to my authority.
Ummm. Most of that is completely legal. The speech, as long as it remains nonthreatening, non-libelous and within local statutes concerning obscenity and noise levels is protected.
Also, in my state, I do not have to necessarily obey a policeman's order, especially if I believe it to be an unlawful command. This was upheld in People v Moreno, 2012 WL 1381039.
Oh yeah, all the "first amendment over copyright" arguments in the courts have pretty much flamed out and died. Just doesn't play very well.
That is sad. I'm ashamed to live in a time where you and people like you don't have the testicular fortitude to stand up against the erosion of our Constitution. I guess profits really do outweigh scruples these days. I am sad for my grandchildren and the world we have bequeathed them.
Prior restraint and other first amendment clauses apply only to legal free speech. IE, you cannot claim prior restraint if your obscene material is blocked, as it is not legal free speech.
But we are not talking about "I know it when I see it" obscene material are we? This is about copyright where the legality cannot be determined with a cursory glance or even a ex parte hearing (ham sandwich indictments anyone?).
In this case, the copyright material distributed for profit without licenses is not protected free speech, so prior restraint (and all the other first amendment stuff) just doesn't apply.
You are probably right in this case, but answer me one question: Why do you defend ex parte seizures in copyright cases? It seems that we should always err on the side of Free Speech. Explain how it is such a hardship to notify the parties of an adversarial hearing. In cases where it's an obvious copyright violation, it's most likely the defendants wouldn't show up anyways.
Wouldn't making sure that all the T's are crossed and all the I's are dotted prior to the seizure be the prudent course of action?
...a link to The Onion, Clickhole, or Infowars. You know, sites that are clearly filled with joke articles that nobody in their right minds would believe.
So people can consult Wikipedia, but only a fool would trust it implicitly.
Only a fool would trust ANY single source implicitly. That goes for legacy encyclopedias, as well as Wikipedia.
That said, I trust Wikipedia more that I ever trusted the legacy encyclopedias. There is less corporate bias with Wikipedia because no single entity has complete control over what is published and what is left out.
Furthermore, I'd argue that restricting a domain name is actually worse than a tax on printing press ink.
Restricting a domain name is akin to the government swooping in and impounding all of a newspaper's delivery trucks while not actually impeding the publication of the newspaper itself.
Do you seriously believe that such an action wouldn't be found to be prior restraint and how does that differ from restricting a domain name?
Little problem here... citing Fort Wayne Books v. Indiana doesn't work here because the material isn't being seized, ie the creator doesn't lose control of the material. Further, since much of the material is not actually owned by the sites in question, it's hard to point to something being seized, right?
Does something even have to be "seized" in order for it to be prior restraint on speech and therefore a First Amendment violation?
In MINNEAPOLIS STAR v. MINNESOTA COMM'R OF REV., 460 U.S. 575 (1983) nothing was seized. It was a tax on printing press ink that was found to be prior restraint by SCOTUS.
If a tax on printing press ink can be found to be prior restraint, why wouldn't it follow that restricting a domain name that points to a website is also prior restraint? Both are just pieces of the overall publishing process aren't they?
Man, my reading comprehension skills must not be in tune with the current generation, because the headline is asking if piracy is to blame.
Lol. Don't really know anything about that, seeing that my generation was "current" about 30 years ago.....
Bait trapping headlines are nothing new, but the context of the article is important, and nothing in the article indicates piracy is to blame.
In my opinion, the Variety article definitely slants towards blaming piracy, even if they didn't actually come out and say it outright.
Two of the three people they quoted basically said: "Piracy definitely hurt this movie and ah, oh yeah, the fact that people thought it sucked didn't help."
The third guy, who was sort of debunking the piracy side, still had to include "Even taking piracy out of the equation..." almost like it was already a forgone conclusion that piracy hurt sales.
So yeah, even though it wasn't stated outright, that article reads like piracy is to blame, in my opinion.
We live in a culture that embraces the concept of "snitches get stitches" and everyone giggles and smiles as they do stuff to ignore, bypass, or get around the law. Society as a whole has become massively disrespectful of everyone in it...
I disagree with this. Our society has not become "massively disrespectful of everyone in it" at all. What it has become is disrespectful of is being over-legislated.
When the average person inadvertently breaks 3 or 4 laws a day doing normal activities, the blame doesn't lie with that average person, it lies with our lawmakers. Free thinking people tend to get annoyed when you have to live in a nanny-state.
Our first step should be to eliminate the vast amount of outdated laws on the books. The second step might be to require sunset provisions on all new laws going forward. I'm not 100% convinced sunset provisions would actually help, but it would be a step in the right direction.
And, because some people just don't understand that influence and/or homage is the same copying....
Is it just me having trouble parsing that sentence or is there a typo in there somewhere? I keep rereading it, trying to make sense of it, and I'm still not grasping what is being conveyed there.
Too late. GM's On Star, Ford's SYNC and LoJack can already remotely disable a vehicle. I also believe I've heard that they can lock the doors in a way that those inside cannot open them too.
Imagine, if you will, a Lord of the Rings-style battle pitching Disney and Looney Tunes characters on one side and Muppets on the other.
Similar things have been done before. Who Framed Rodger Rabbit always impressed me, mainly for all the copyright hoops they must have had to jump through to produce it.
Wal-Mart is a leach on society, and its presence is harmful.
Interesting point of view from you. You usually seem to advocate that competitiveness in a free market system is good for all concerned, but not so much here.
Good to know jobs arent good for society, tho. Thanks for that brilliant opinion.
No one said that. What was said that the number of jobs created is a poor indicator of economic progress and therefore is not a good thing to base policy upon.
Like the example given where we suddenly required all road construction to be done with spoons instead of heavy machinery, we would have created a shitload of jobs, but been worse off economically because it would reduce worker productivity and total economic output.
More jobs doesn't necessarily equal a stronger economy, regardless of what mainstream media would have you believe.
On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are confusing the chicken with the egg.
Without copyright, there is no need or reason to grant those rights or make them binding in the first place at all.
Copyright restricts the natural right of copying. If copyright didn't exist, creative commons licenses wouldn't either, because there wouldn't be a need for them.
On the post: The James Foley Beheading Video And How Americans Conceptualize Their Enemies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
nasch's comment was a critical of your piss poor debate tactics, that's all. I happen to agree that your debate skills need some work.
After reading your comments here, my guess is that you are this guy:
http://schindlertweets.tumblr.com/
On the post: Facebook To Ruin Our Good Time With 'Satire' Disclaimer; The Onion Responds With Satire
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not ABOUT the Onion, people
According to urban legend, Fox News in the US was initially set up as an "entertainment" outlet as opposed to a "news" outlet to avoid those pesky rules news organizations operate under.
I have no idea if this is true or not myself.
On the post: LAPD Officer Says Tragedies Could Be Prevented If Citizens Would Just Shut Up And Do What Cops Tell Them To
Ummm. Most of that is completely legal. The speech, as long as it remains nonthreatening, non-libelous and within local statutes concerning obscenity and noise levels is protected.
Also, in my state, I do not have to necessarily obey a policeman's order, especially if I believe it to be an unlawful command. This was upheld in People v Moreno, 2012 WL 1381039.
On the post: Who Needs SOPA? US Court Wipes Sites From The Internet For 'Infringement' Without Even Alerting Sites In Question
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oops
That is sad. I'm ashamed to live in a time where you and people like you don't have the testicular fortitude to stand up against the erosion of our Constitution. I guess profits really do outweigh scruples these days. I am sad for my grandchildren and the world we have bequeathed them.
On the post: Who Needs SOPA? US Court Wipes Sites From The Internet For 'Infringement' Without Even Alerting Sites In Question
Re: Re: Re: Oops
But we are not talking about "I know it when I see it" obscene material are we? This is about copyright where the legality cannot be determined with a cursory glance or even a ex parte hearing (ham sandwich indictments anyone?).
In this case, the copyright material distributed for profit without licenses is not protected free speech, so prior restraint (and all the other first amendment stuff) just doesn't apply.
You are probably right in this case, but answer me one question: Why do you defend ex parte seizures in copyright cases? It seems that we should always err on the side of Free Speech. Explain how it is such a hardship to notify the parties of an adversarial hearing. In cases where it's an obvious copyright violation, it's most likely the defendants wouldn't show up anyways.
Wouldn't making sure that all the T's are crossed and all the I's are dotted prior to the seizure be the prudent course of action?
On the post: FAA Grounds Attempts At Ride Sharing For Amateur Pilots
Re: My examiner
How does one quantify "friends"?
People have thousands of social media friends these days.
On the post: Facebook To Ruin Our Good Time With 'Satire' Disclaimer; The Onion Responds With Satire
Too funny DH!
On the post: Why Do People Trust Wikipedia? Because An Argument Is Better Than A Lecture
Re: Trust or convenience?
Only a fool would trust ANY single source implicitly. That goes for legacy encyclopedias, as well as Wikipedia.
That said, I trust Wikipedia more that I ever trusted the legacy encyclopedias. There is less corporate bias with Wikipedia because no single entity has complete control over what is published and what is left out.
On the post: Who Needs SOPA? US Court Wipes Sites From The Internet For 'Infringement' Without Even Alerting Sites In Question
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oops
Still doesn't matter. Prior restraint can still exist even if there are other avenues for dissemination.
My point was that restricting the domain is like disrupting a newspaper's distribution chain, which I believe would constitute prior restraint.
On the post: Who Needs SOPA? US Court Wipes Sites From The Internet For 'Infringement' Without Even Alerting Sites In Question
Re: Re: Oops
Restricting a domain name is akin to the government swooping in and impounding all of a newspaper's delivery trucks while not actually impeding the publication of the newspaper itself.
Do you seriously believe that such an action wouldn't be found to be prior restraint and how does that differ from restricting a domain name?
On the post: Who Needs SOPA? US Court Wipes Sites From The Internet For 'Infringement' Without Even Alerting Sites In Question
Re: Oops
Does something even have to be "seized" in order for it to be prior restraint on speech and therefore a First Amendment violation?
In MINNEAPOLIS STAR v. MINNESOTA COMM'R OF REV., 460 U.S. 575 (1983) nothing was seized. It was a tax on printing press ink that was found to be prior restraint by SCOTUS.
If a tax on printing press ink can be found to be prior restraint, why wouldn't it follow that restricting a domain name that points to a website is also prior restraint? Both are just pieces of the overall publishing process aren't they?
On the post: Hollywood Desperate To Blame Bad Opening Box Office Of Expendables 3 On Piracy Rather Than The Fact That It Sucked
Re: Re: Re:
Lol. Don't really know anything about that, seeing that my generation was "current" about 30 years ago.....
Bait trapping headlines are nothing new, but the context of the article is important, and nothing in the article indicates piracy is to blame.
In my opinion, the Variety article definitely slants towards blaming piracy, even if they didn't actually come out and say it outright.
Two of the three people they quoted basically said: "Piracy definitely hurt this movie and ah, oh yeah, the fact that people thought it sucked didn't help."
The third guy, who was sort of debunking the piracy side, still had to include "Even taking piracy out of the equation..." almost like it was already a forgone conclusion that piracy hurt sales.
So yeah, even though it wasn't stated outright, that article reads like piracy is to blame, in my opinion.
On the post: Hollywood Desperate To Blame Bad Opening Box Office Of Expendables 3 On Piracy Rather Than The Fact That It Sucked
Re:
Perhaps the headline they choose to use: "‘Expendables 3′ Flops: Is Piracy to Blame?".
On the post: Police Militarization, Citizen Journalism And The Suppression Of Free Speech: The Ferguson Fiasco Highlights Systemic Problem
Re: Re: Re: Re: Three years...
I disagree with this. Our society has not become "massively disrespectful of everyone in it" at all. What it has become is disrespectful of is being over-legislated.
When the average person inadvertently breaks 3 or 4 laws a day doing normal activities, the blame doesn't lie with that average person, it lies with our lawmakers. Free thinking people tend to get annoyed when you have to live in a nanny-state.
Our first step should be to eliminate the vast amount of outdated laws on the books. The second step might be to require sunset provisions on all new laws going forward. I'm not 100% convinced sunset provisions would actually help, but it would be a step in the right direction.
On the post: True Detective Accused Of Plagiarizing Horror Author Because Characters Sounded Similiar
Is it just me having trouble parsing that sentence or is there a typo in there somewhere? I keep rereading it, trying to make sense of it, and I'm still not grasping what is being conveyed there.
On the post: Bad Idea: California Legislature Passes Bill To Mandate Mobile Phone Kill Switches
Re:
Too late. GM's On Star, Ford's SYNC and LoJack can already remotely disable a vehicle. I also believe I've heard that they can lock the doors in a way that those inside cannot open them too.
On the post: New Report Challenges The Whole 'IP Intensive Industries Are Doing Well Because Of Strong IP' Myth
Re: The destructive influence of IP on content
Similar things have been done before. Who Framed Rodger Rabbit always impressed me, mainly for all the copyright hoops they must have had to jump through to produce it.
On the post: New Report Challenges The Whole 'IP Intensive Industries Are Doing Well Because Of Strong IP' Myth
Re: Re: Re:
Interesting point of view from you. You usually seem to advocate that competitiveness in a free market system is good for all concerned, but not so much here.
Do you also view Amazon in a similar light?
On the post: New Report Challenges The Whole 'IP Intensive Industries Are Doing Well Because Of Strong IP' Myth
Re:
No one said that. What was said that the number of jobs created is a poor indicator of economic progress and therefore is not a good thing to base policy upon.
Like the example given where we suddenly required all road construction to be done with spoons instead of heavy machinery, we would have created a shitload of jobs, but been worse off economically because it would reduce worker productivity and total economic output.
More jobs doesn't necessarily equal a stronger economy, regardless of what mainstream media would have you believe.
Next >>