Not paranoia. Just observation. I would be completely and utterly shocked to find out that Mike doesn't in fact operate several puppets. I really think he's that desperate.
To help clarify, while he says 'puppet', what he probably means is 'people who disagree with me'.
No, I mean Mike and his gang of puppets. I'm certain that several posters are Mike in disguise. I can't prove it obviously as only Mike has access to the proof, but I think Mike is so desperate and dishonest that there is no depth that he wouldn't go to. One thing he won't ever do is just address arguments directly on the merits and be honest and explicit about what he actually believes. Nobody runs away faster and gets more angry when called out on their bullshit than Mike.
Re: Re: Re: Re: First sale rights in CDs are already limited
As the poster I was responding to quoted, certain "lending" of "phonorecords" (which include CDs) is prohibited in Section 109. Not sure how you read that to mean it's perfectly legal when it is explicitly proscribed.
You don't like the way someone distributes their content, buy someone else's content. Funny how you guys just have to have the copyrighted stuff. Thank goodness for copyright.
Yes, well given your "experience with Mike" consist of you derailing threads with "WHY WON'T YOU DEBATE ME?!?! RAWR!!!" and throwing temper tantrums and insulting Mike it's easy to see/understand why he isn't interested in actually discussing anything. WITH YOU.
You're just an angry broken record. I will continue to point out the fact that Mike is too dishonest and cowardly to actually answer questions and give specifics. Mike hates being challenged, and he hates to be pinned down on anything. You know it's true.
Hey, if people don't want to rely on copyright for their business model, then good for them. And if people want to rely on copyright, good for them too. Why don't you support all the great artists, filmmakers, etc. who don't rely on copyright? Funny how you guys flock to the copyrighted stuff because it's the good stuff.
Empty rhetoric. Nobody is having their rights violated. There is no right to post stuff on Facebook or YouTube. If your post gets flagged and you don't like it, don't use those services. But to pretend like innocents are being convicted of anything is stupid.
Stop blaming the victims. Blame yourselves for making the conscious decision to violate other people's rights. It, of course, is easy for pirates to give away content that they don't have to license or pay for. Rationalize your decision to violate other people's rights all you want, but the fact will always remain that the ONLY party to blame for piracy are the pirates. You don't like how someone sells their goods? Don't buy them. It's not a service problem. It's a bullshit sense of entitlement and lack of morality problem.
Requoted as my $.02 as well, chubby. The zealotry you engage in only polarizes and will never lead to an actual resolution. You're no different than Grover Norquist, Glenn Beck or Wayne Lapierre.
My experience with Mike is that he is not interested in actually discussing or resolving issues. He'd rather pump out multiple stories a day where he tells us all how smart he is while whining about how everyone else is incompetent. When he does actually bother to engage someone substantively, it's only to insult them and to demand that his view is the only one with any merit. Need someone to stir up the masses in a frenzy? Mike's your man. Need someone to have a productive discussion on the merits about an issue? Keep looking. Mike doesn't do that.
First :-
Its enforcement require levels of monitoring and control over communications that are draconian, and establish the tools that wouild greatly simplify takeovers by totalitarian regimes. All the measure put forward by the maxmalists to protect there copyrights are badly biased against normal society by enabling takedown of content with no easy remedy for affected parties. They are too easily abused as a means of censorship. Taken to the extreme they are pucshing for, any copying device, which is ant device with a computer in it, will need to get permission for any copy operation, just to make shure their rights are not infringed. This means they will control all computers and their software.
Wow. This is pretty paranoid and silly. First of all, if you guys are going to use the internet to willingly violate other people's rights, then you shouldn't be too surprised when those victims fight back. But that fighting back isn't censorship. Censorship is the suppression of speech because of the ideas or points of view being expressed. Copyright enforcement concerns proprietary rights, and it is fundamentally unconcerned with suppressing ideas or points of view. Calling is censorship is disingenuous. Nor do I think your concern that they'll monitor everything makes any sense. We have fundamental rights to privacy and the free flow of ideas. The Constitution would outright forbid the exact sort of totalitarian state you're so worried about. So it's all tinfoil-hat-wearing FUD. Will ISPs and intermediaries rain on the piracy parade? You bet. I look forward to it because to me reigning in those who willingly violate other people's rights is the right thing to do. The pirates are the tyrants. They're the ones who put themselves above others and who are bringing this on themselves.
Second :-
Its enforcement is damaging to culture and society by attacking the very sharing that is fundamental to a healthy society and culture. All the proposed measures to detect infringement require the use of automatic tools, which leave no room for fair use. Blocking viseoa of babies dancing because of 30 seconds of badly recorded music is blocking communication between member of a family.
I think clearly the vast majority of the downloading of copyrighted materials is not fair use. Automated tools are needed because the pirates are so numerous that it couldn't be done any other way. You guys can't gang up to violate people's rights and then claim that the only tool available to combat your wrongs, automation, somehow can't magically tell when one pirate out of a million actually makes fair use of a work. It's a silly argument that rests on the faulty premise that all enforcement must be perfect or we shouldn't do it all. There's going to be errors in enforcement with such a big problem. This error is the fault of the wrongdoers, i.e., the pirates, and not on the parties that are trying to enforce people's rights. To blame the victims for the problem that the pirates created is clearly backwards.
Various forms of fan finction, and remix to make some form of staement have always been part of culture, from written works through music and song, and now video as the technology has become affordable and avilable. This is basic to how people communicate, and how their learn tyhe various arts. This sort of work is communicated by the Internet, which makes it easier for the publishers to find, and also for people to gain a wider audience and gain critical review which allow them to develop as an arftist. If this is prevented, then culture will be stifled, as it stops the sharing that is the basis opf culture.
Culture is great, and the internet is wonderful for bringing the world's culture right to us. That's certainly something that will always be a good policy argument. But it's silly to pretend like the copyright system doesn't greatly improve our culture. You guys love copyrighted works so much that you're willing to violate people's rights to get them. To then blame the system that brings you things you clearly value is silly. It's great that the internet can disseminate culture worldwide with the click of the mouse, but we musn't forget that those who create culture have rights too. Rights that everyone must respect even if we don't agree with them.
That is a world where there is no free speech, and culture is reduced to the lowest common denominator, like endless quizz show and reality shows, along with manufactured pop music. That is not a world that I desire. Think deeply about where copyright right is taking the world before supporting the maximalist position.
There will always be free speech and culture is only growing and becoming more accessible to everyone. To pretend like everything is being thwarted left and right when we are in fact in the greatest point of human culture is just sour grapes. You guys are pretending like the world is ending because you'd rather violate someone's rights than pay a couple bucks to watch a movie.
It's an exciting time to be covering all of the opportunity out there, even if it also means covering those who stand in the way of such opportunity.
Which to you means every single person attempting to enforce their copyright rights against those who intentionally violate their rights. You attack any and all efforts to enforce any aspect of copyright law while at the same time pretending like you think that piracy is not OK. That's bullshit. I think it's great that you encourage people to investigate new opportunities. What I think sucks big time is your incredible hatred and disgust at everyone who doesn't subscribe to your alternative views. Maybe for 2013 try being a little more understanding and open-minded. You might have good ideas, but you're losing many by being so extremely opinionated and inflexible. Just my two cents.
So is there not any case law that says you can lend your CDs to your friends? I looked but didn't see any. Mike and others are assuming that you can just lend out your CDs legally, but I don't think that's at all clear. As you note, it depends on how you define "commercial advantage." IIRC, that phrase is interpreted broadly in the context of Section 506. I don't see why that same broad interpretation wouldn't apply here as well since it's the same phrase. Seems to me that under that broad meaning, lending to your friends would often be prohibited. So in other words, that label is right and it isn't copyfraud at all. Instead, the copyfraud is Mike claiming that everyone can lend out their CDs legally since that's claiming more rights than people actually have Ha! Mike's the one committing copyfraud! I love a good turnabout. Mike, you better stop committing copyfraud. It's really a problem, I hear.
Brilliant, Peter! That's the answer. Section 109(b)(1)(A) explicitly proscribes "lending" under certain circumstances. Looks to me like there's no copyfraud, whatever that even means.
But you know that don't you Joe, you just want to mess around and try to confuse those who are not in the law profession to try and create sympathy towards your positions.
That's not at all my intent. I'm not trying to confuse anyone. I think copyright notices are usually boilerplate language that focus on prima facie infringement, not on the possible defenses one might raise. It's like if I post a "No Trespassing" sign in my yard. In general, you don't have the right to trespass. But under certain facts, your trespass would be justifiable. It's not fraud for me to say "No Trespassing" even though some people might have a defense to a trespassing claim. Regardless, I don't think this fraudulent over-claiming, if that's even what it is, is a problem. Where's the harm?
Well, even posting it on the internet *might not* infringe on the right to distribute -- as there is still somewhat unsettled law as to whether or not "making available" infringes on the distribution right, or if actual downloading must also occur...
No, they couldn't. They would have to have knowledge of the infringement, and take some sorts of affirmative steps to contribute to it. Merely lending the disc would not be enough, even if the person you loan it to ends up infringing with it.
My hypo was more than mere lending: "Some lending clearly would be infringing, such as if I lent you the disc with the intent for you to copy it and post in the internet for all to download."
In any case, the act of lending wouldn't itself be the problem; it would be the act of intentionally materially contributing to direct infringement that gives rise to liability. Lending a CD is no different from any other act in this regard.
The lending to you is what makes me the contributory infringer. I have done no action other than lend it to you.
On the post: Innovation, Optimism And Opportunity: All Coming Together To Make Real Change
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Innovation, Optimism And Opportunity: All Coming Together To Make Real Change
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I mean Mike and his gang of puppets. I'm certain that several posters are Mike in disguise. I can't prove it obviously as only Mike has access to the proof, but I think Mike is so desperate and dishonest that there is no depth that he wouldn't go to. One thing he won't ever do is just address arguments directly on the merits and be honest and explicit about what he actually believes. Nobody runs away faster and gets more angry when called out on their bullshit than Mike.
On the post: Copyfraud: Copyright Claims On CDs Say It's Infringement To Loan Your CD To A Friend
Re: Re: Re: Re: First sale rights in CDs are already limited
On the post: Innovation, Optimism And Opportunity: All Coming Together To Make Real Change
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Innovation, Optimism And Opportunity: All Coming Together To Make Real Change
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're just an angry broken record. I will continue to point out the fact that Mike is too dishonest and cowardly to actually answer questions and give specifics. Mike hates being challenged, and he hates to be pinned down on anything. You know it's true.
On the post: Innovation, Optimism And Opportunity: All Coming Together To Make Real Change
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Innovation, Optimism And Opportunity: All Coming Together To Make Real Change
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Innovation, Optimism And Opportunity: All Coming Together To Make Real Change
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Innovation, Optimism And Opportunity: All Coming Together To Make Real Change
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Innovation, Optimism And Opportunity: All Coming Together To Make Real Change
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Innovation, Optimism And Opportunity: All Coming Together To Make Real Change
Re: Re:
My experience with Mike is that he is not interested in actually discussing or resolving issues. He'd rather pump out multiple stories a day where he tells us all how smart he is while whining about how everyone else is incompetent. When he does actually bother to engage someone substantively, it's only to insult them and to demand that his view is the only one with any merit. Need someone to stir up the masses in a frenzy? Mike's your man. Need someone to have a productive discussion on the merits about an issue? Keep looking. Mike doesn't do that.
On the post: Innovation, Optimism And Opportunity: All Coming Together To Make Real Change
Re: Re:
Its enforcement require levels of monitoring and control over communications that are draconian, and establish the tools that wouild greatly simplify takeovers by totalitarian regimes. All the measure put forward by the maxmalists to protect there copyrights are badly biased against normal society by enabling takedown of content with no easy remedy for affected parties. They are too easily abused as a means of censorship. Taken to the extreme they are pucshing for, any copying device, which is ant device with a computer in it, will need to get permission for any copy operation, just to make shure their rights are not infringed. This means they will control all computers and their software.
Wow. This is pretty paranoid and silly. First of all, if you guys are going to use the internet to willingly violate other people's rights, then you shouldn't be too surprised when those victims fight back. But that fighting back isn't censorship. Censorship is the suppression of speech because of the ideas or points of view being expressed. Copyright enforcement concerns proprietary rights, and it is fundamentally unconcerned with suppressing ideas or points of view. Calling is censorship is disingenuous. Nor do I think your concern that they'll monitor everything makes any sense. We have fundamental rights to privacy and the free flow of ideas. The Constitution would outright forbid the exact sort of totalitarian state you're so worried about. So it's all tinfoil-hat-wearing FUD. Will ISPs and intermediaries rain on the piracy parade? You bet. I look forward to it because to me reigning in those who willingly violate other people's rights is the right thing to do. The pirates are the tyrants. They're the ones who put themselves above others and who are bringing this on themselves.
Second :-
Its enforcement is damaging to culture and society by attacking the very sharing that is fundamental to a healthy society and culture. All the proposed measures to detect infringement require the use of automatic tools, which leave no room for fair use. Blocking viseoa of babies dancing because of 30 seconds of badly recorded music is blocking communication between member of a family.
I think clearly the vast majority of the downloading of copyrighted materials is not fair use. Automated tools are needed because the pirates are so numerous that it couldn't be done any other way. You guys can't gang up to violate people's rights and then claim that the only tool available to combat your wrongs, automation, somehow can't magically tell when one pirate out of a million actually makes fair use of a work. It's a silly argument that rests on the faulty premise that all enforcement must be perfect or we shouldn't do it all. There's going to be errors in enforcement with such a big problem. This error is the fault of the wrongdoers, i.e., the pirates, and not on the parties that are trying to enforce people's rights. To blame the victims for the problem that the pirates created is clearly backwards.
Various forms of fan finction, and remix to make some form of staement have always been part of culture, from written works through music and song, and now video as the technology has become affordable and avilable. This is basic to how people communicate, and how their learn tyhe various arts. This sort of work is communicated by the Internet, which makes it easier for the publishers to find, and also for people to gain a wider audience and gain critical review which allow them to develop as an arftist. If this is prevented, then culture will be stifled, as it stops the sharing that is the basis opf culture.
Culture is great, and the internet is wonderful for bringing the world's culture right to us. That's certainly something that will always be a good policy argument. But it's silly to pretend like the copyright system doesn't greatly improve our culture. You guys love copyrighted works so much that you're willing to violate people's rights to get them. To then blame the system that brings you things you clearly value is silly. It's great that the internet can disseminate culture worldwide with the click of the mouse, but we musn't forget that those who create culture have rights too. Rights that everyone must respect even if we don't agree with them.
That is a world where there is no free speech, and culture is reduced to the lowest common denominator, like endless quizz show and reality shows, along with manufactured pop music. That is not a world that I desire. Think deeply about where copyright right is taking the world before supporting the maximalist position.
There will always be free speech and culture is only growing and becoming more accessible to everyone. To pretend like everything is being thwarted left and right when we are in fact in the greatest point of human culture is just sour grapes. You guys are pretending like the world is ending because you'd rather violate someone's rights than pay a couple bucks to watch a movie.
On the post: Innovation, Optimism And Opportunity: All Coming Together To Make Real Change
Which to you means every single person attempting to enforce their copyright rights against those who intentionally violate their rights. You attack any and all efforts to enforce any aspect of copyright law while at the same time pretending like you think that piracy is not OK. That's bullshit. I think it's great that you encourage people to investigate new opportunities. What I think sucks big time is your incredible hatred and disgust at everyone who doesn't subscribe to your alternative views. Maybe for 2013 try being a little more understanding and open-minded. You might have good ideas, but you're losing many by being so extremely opinionated and inflexible. Just my two cents.
On the post: Copyfraud: Copyright Claims On CDs Say It's Infringement To Loan Your CD To A Friend
Re: First sale rights in CDs are already limited
On the post: Copyfraud: Copyright Claims On CDs Say It's Infringement To Loan Your CD To A Friend
Re: First sale rights in CDs are already limited
On the post: Copyfraud: Copyright Claims On CDs Say It's Infringement To Loan Your CD To A Friend
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not at all my intent. I'm not trying to confuse anyone. I think copyright notices are usually boilerplate language that focus on prima facie infringement, not on the possible defenses one might raise. It's like if I post a "No Trespassing" sign in my yard. In general, you don't have the right to trespass. But under certain facts, your trespass would be justifiable. It's not fraud for me to say "No Trespassing" even though some people might have a defense to a trespassing claim. Regardless, I don't think this fraudulent over-claiming, if that's even what it is, is a problem. Where's the harm?
On the post: Doing Data Journalism Badly
I was wondering why it opened down like that. Buying opportunity and rally back to $26. Great day for $FB daytraders.
On the post: Copyfraud: Copyright Claims On CDs Say It's Infringement To Loan Your CD To A Friend
Re: Re: Re:
No doubt.
On the post: Copyfraud: Copyright Claims On CDs Say It's Infringement To Loan Your CD To A Friend
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My hypo was more than mere lending: "Some lending clearly would be infringing, such as if I lent you the disc with the intent for you to copy it and post in the internet for all to download."
In any case, the act of lending wouldn't itself be the problem; it would be the act of intentionally materially contributing to direct infringement that gives rise to liability. Lending a CD is no different from any other act in this regard.
The lending to you is what makes me the contributory infringer. I have done no action other than lend it to you.
On the post: Copyfraud: Copyright Claims On CDs Say It's Infringement To Loan Your CD To A Friend
I know how much you like made up things like "copyfraud," so here's another one for you--"copyblight": http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2033105
It's made up by a law professor, just like "copyfraud," so you can sell it really hard. Go get 'em!
Next >>