I would hope that you don't go away, but rather focus on providing valuable commentary.
Seconded.
Also, I really don't like hitting the "report" button for this sort of thing, but in this case it's become mandatory. If you see one of his comments, report it, don't read the replies, move on.
p.s. Mike - does your web software allow something like auto-hiding the replies to reported posts? That way, the entire thread could be hidden, and we'd feed the trolls a lot less. (Not that I don't feed the trolls myself...)
You have your answer. I've linked to dozens of his comments where he answered you. He answered you personally. In case you've deliberately forgotten, the answer is: 1. It's unlawful, and 2. Going against the interests of artists is wrong.
He may, or may not, have other reasons for being against piracy. But even if those reasons are his only ones, it doesn't matter. Those reasons, right there, are enough to show that Techdirt is not "pro-piracy," and to stop calling him "Pirate Mike."
Yet, here you are, derailing the comments in a story that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with piracy.
I live in Boston, and I wanted to read the comments to see if anyone had anything to add about the situation. Instead, I see you're spreading your verbal diarrhea all over the Internet.
The only thing you've shown is that you're an idiot. An abusive, obsessed, childish idiot. You have succeeded in making a fool out of yourself to everyone who comes here.
In the interests of rational discourse on this site, I really hope you stop now. Somehow, I don't believe you will. Because your only goal is to disrupt rational discourse.
That's why you post anonymously: so you can mount a one-man smear campaign against the site, without any accountability.
So Universal produced the video? That's not typical
On what planet is this not typical?
When artists on major labels make videos, it is almost always the case that the labels front the production costs, which are then taken out of the recording artists' album royalties. Usually they have a great deal of editorial control as well, and I've never heard of a single major label music video where the label didn't get final approval, at the very least.
In fact, the credits at the beginning of the video list the copyright owner as Cash Money Records, a subsidiary of Universal.
Since it's not a copyright claim, however, the suit alleges that the video is being used to promote Universal's album. This is true (you can see it at the end of the video), and also more relevant in terms of damages.
No, that particular video is not copyright. However, framed into a video window broadcast with other material on the screen (even a logo) makes that particular PERFORMANCE copyright.
No, it absolutely does not.
If a work is in the public domain, then no copyright holder can ever claim rights to it. Framing it on screen with other material would not grant you, or anyone else, any kind of copyright on the public domain material ("performance" or not).
In fact, if anyone tried to claim copyright on it, then that would be copyfraud (a fraudulent copyright notice). This is a criminal act under 17 USC 506(c), and anyone using it in a DMCA notice is guilty of perjury under 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(vi), and liable for damages under 17 USC 512(f).
The only possible claim would be a trademark claim (for the logo itself), which is not covered by DMCA notices.
And, in fact, I just watched the footage, and no such logo or "framing" appears at all.
Well, actually, Netflix and Apple run on the old system
Not exactly. They do run on the "system" of selling access to media, so in that way they are similar. But they have significant differences that make them closer to a "new" business model. iTunes Match is a good example.
Normal disruptive changes in business are a move from one reasonable successful model to an even more successful one.
That is not even remotely what "disruptive change" means. A disruptive change is a change in market conditions, not business models, usually brought about via technology. The "even more successful" models don't exist until upstart industries find ways of capitalizing on disruptive changes. But the disruptive changes come about whether "even more successful" models exist or not.
This is a move from a functional and successful model to no model at all, just give it all away.
The only person who thinks anyone is saying "just give it all away" is you.
What you don't seem to get is that copyright doesn't stop anyone with a better idea, a better system, and better product to operate in their own ways.
That's exactly what it does. If that were true, Megaupload or The Pirate Bay would be perfectly legal, since that's exactly what they were doing.
If there is a better way that makes so much more money, the labels will climb over broken glass to get to it.
That's not what "efficiency" means. In fact, the more efficient an economic system is, the less money labels will make. Their profit arises entirely from economic inefficiency.
Taking a dozen songs, packaging them together in $1.50 worth of plastic and paper, and selling them for $15, is not economic efficiency. Yet that's the only reason record labels were able to achieve their profits in the 90's. On the other hand, taking those songs, packaging them as digital files, and distributing them for $1 each is much more efficient. And it's the main reason labels aren't making as much money nowadays.
Yes, but it doesn't change the cost to make what is being transported, and that is still the big end of the deal.
Then, the sunk cost will shift from those who make money under the old, inefficient system - manufacturers and wholesalers (which is what record labels really are) - to those who make money under new, efficient systems.
That may not happen soon (copyright ownership has delayed this process considerably). And the "new" moneymakers may be the same companies as the "old" moneymakers (if they embrace change and adapt). But it will happen.
Please point to the part of the "new company" music industry that has made even 20% of the sales in the last year (so about 1 billion).
Digital sales are certainly part of the "new company" music industry. I'm pretty sure iTune, Amazon MP3, Spotify, Rhapsody, and eMusic made a hell of a lot more than 20% of sales. Not to mention services like Pandora, Tunecore, CD Baby, RouteNote, Soundcloud, Kickstarter, etc - the impact of which is hard to quantify, as most don't report to Soundscan.
The real question is how much the "old company" music model made - that is, sales of physical CD's. They still sell plenty; but as of 2011, they make up less than half of total sales for recorded music. (That's in dollars; in purchases, digital overtook physical way back in 2007.)
Since the "new company" music models pay artists a much higher percentage of income than the "old company" music models, I'll bet that they all account for a lot more than 20% of the money that actually goes to musicians.
Now I don't think the owner was doing this purely out of the goodness of his heart. There had to be a reason for this site to make money. I don't know how as I missed the chance to join before it was taken down.
It wasn't through the eBook lending program.
He had originally set up the website to be an Amazon affiliate. This is why all Amazon books were up there. There was a "Buy this book" link to the Amazon store, and if anyone followed that link and bought the book, Dale would get a (very small) payment. That's how Amazon affiliates work; there are hundreds of thousands of Amazon affiliate sites.
Unfortunately, right after he set up the site, Amazon dumped all their California affiliates due to California tax laws. So, he never ended up making any money from the site, other than banner ads (which pay almost nothing).
If you looked at a page for a book that couldn't be loaned, the option was grayed out. In any case, Dale did not make any money whatsoever from lending; all the site did was send both parties emails, so they could get in touch with each other, and loan books through Amazon or B&N directly.
some of the posts on here seem to think an author or creative shouldn't make a dime. A particular nameless commenter on Amazon seems to totally condone piracy on his blog
There is a huge difference between "condoning piracy," and thinking that authors or "creatives" shouldn't make a dime. If by "piracy" you mean "non-commercial file sharing," then it's not even remotely settled that piracy is responsible for a drop in sales (or an increase in sales, for that matter). It's certainly possible to condone piracy and hope for authors and "creatives" to earn more money.
There's also a big difference between advocating for file sharing and condoning piracy. For example: if I said "you should share your books on the Pirate Bay, you'd make more money," I would not be condoning piracy, nor wishing for you to earn less money.
On a separate note: If you're looking for reasons why nobody takes an "anti-piracy" stance seriously, the LendInk fiasco is a perfect example. These were not the actions of a group of authors who were legitimately concerned about their incomes. These were the actions of authors who are so frightened of the digital age, that the very mention of the p-word turned them into a lynch mob.
Yeah, well, SOPA disappears pretty much because of a twitmob, so welcome to being on the other side of things.
There are a couple of significant differences.
1. The notion that LendInk was a "pirate site" was a complete fabrication. The notion that SOPA undermined an open Internet was not.
2. The United States is a democracy; if the public doesn't support a bill, it is Congress' obligation not to pass it. LendInk was a website (a completely legal one), and had no obligation to put copyright holders' interests in front of their users'.
Perhaps copyright holders can twitmob more thieving pirate sites out of existence.
They haven't "twitmobbed" even one "pirate site" out of existence, since LendInk was not a "pirate site."
There was nothing good that came out of the LendInk situation. It was bad for LendInk, bad for readers, and bad for authors.
Here's Mike reporting on a case that he clearly hadn't even done 5 seconds of research on:
Interesting, but inaccurate. First of all, it took me much longer than 5 seconds to actually find the Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari (PDF).
Since it was linked in none of the news stories reporting on the case. In fact, here's how Dow Jones Newswires (apparently the syndicated source) described it:
The publisher, Perfect 10 Inc., was seeking an injunction barring Google from displaying small "thumbnail" versions of the images in its search results, and from linking to full-size versions of the photos. It also brought other related claims. [...]
Last year, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Perfect 10 had not demonstrated a sufficient connection between its financial struggles and Google's operation of its search engine.
The Supreme Court let that ruling stand without comment.
Mike's confusion was understandable, to say the least.
Now, about that Writ. The issue was, indeed, whether the eBay case did away with the "presumption of harm" if there was a likelihood of success on the merits for claims of copyright infringement. But to see why this is important, read footnote 3 to the 9th Circuit decision (reprinted as Appendix A in the writ):
As part of its interlocutory appeal of the district court’s denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction, Perfect 10 also sought review of the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Google based on its ruling that Google is entitled to the safe harbor protection of the DMCA for its caching feature, Blogger service, and (in part) its web and image search. While partial summary judgment decisions are not normally appealable, Perfect 10 argues that we may consider this interlocutory because it is "inextricably intertwined" with the denial of merits of the preliminary injunction decision, and review of the partial summary judgment ruling is "necessary to ensure meaningful review" of that decision. Because Perfect 10 has failed to show irreparable harm, we need not address its likelihood of success on the merits, and therefore also need not address the relationship between the preliminary injunction and summary judgment orders.
In other words, Perfect 10 was effectively hoping to overturn eBay, expressly so that it could appeal the fair use and DMCA defences that went in Google's favor.
The Supreme Court did not touch these issues - but by denying review, it effectively blocked Perfect 10 from revisiting the fair use issue (among others).
In the final analysis, Mike's characterization (like the Dow Jones Newswires') was accurate. He didn't go into the (rather esoteric) legal reasons why, but you'll notice that me explaining this took up more space than Mike's entire post.
He stopped responding to you only after he had explained himself. And you did nothing but call him "Pirate Mike," and post ridiculous insults like "Dishonest as the day is long" or "Your lies are truly revolting." And here's the kicker: the only reason you believe Mike is "pro-piracy" is because he's not "anti-piracy" enough to agree with YOU.
It's a classic case of binary thinking. "You're not against my enemies as much as I think you should be, so therefore you're against me." It's the type of limited thinking that's found in dictators and lynch mobs. It says nothing about Mike, but an awful lot about you.
And that's just in that one thread. If this is your version of Mike being "as slimy as they come," then you've just proven that you're someone who is not here for any kind of substantive discussion on anything. A delusional child throwing a temper tantrum.
Mike is absolutely, 100% right to not engage with you.
Hello, Anonymous Coward. (By the way, are you the person who used to post under the username Average Joe? It would explain a lot.)
Errors? The homepage was loading already-scrolled-down a ways earlier, but not any more. Other than that, no problems on my end.
No, different situation. If I try to submit a reply, I often get a Server Error (I think it's 503 Service Unavailable). It's the kind of error you usually get when there are problems reading from/writing to the database.
If you're not getting that, it's probably something to do with my account. I do have a lot of comments, maybe that has something to do with it.
I guess Techdirt's servers are telling me to get a life...?
If I were Mike, and I really wanted to abandon my copyright on each article, and I would simply have a bit of text at the end of each one saying simply "no rights reserved" (or something similar).
Like I said, I can't speak for Mike, but I also think a notice would be a good idea. If nothing else, it would reveal the misconceptions of all those critics who claim Mike would sue if someone else used his content. Still, it's not my website.
I'm not sure he can abandon the rights to articles he hasn't even written yet, which is what he appears to think he can do/is doing (I don't see how you can affirmatively abandon your rights to property that doesn't even exist yet; it HAS to be ex post)
I don't see why not. That sort of thing happens all the time: recording artists assign the copyright to future recordings, graphic artists sign "work for hire" contracts, etc; all before the work is even begun. (Yet another reason to view copyright as distinct from other forms of legal property.)
P.S. What the fuck with the Rojadirecta case? 2d Circuit sitting on it since oral arguments in December, and the district court sitting on a motion to dismiss for two months? C'mon already! I'm dying here!!
If you're getting impatient, imagine how Puerto 80 feels. They were supposed to get their domain name returned in January. (Not to mention the fact that if December's ruling stands, the DOJ never had the right to seize it in the first place.)
Yes, in the U.S., works are automatically copyrighted when fixed in a tangible medium. But an author can then abandon the copyright and put the work in the public domain
This is not easy to do. For one thing, that "dedication" may work in the U.S., but in other countries (the EU especially), authors have certain rights ("droit d'auteur," or "moral rights") that cannot be waived, even voluntarily. (In the U.S., this right is also granted to visual artists in 17 USC 106a.)
Plus, "copyright abandonment" is a common-law affirmative defense, and occurs nowhere in the federal statutes. This presents its own set of problems. There is no generalized process to go through to "abandon" your copyright; the legal definition differs slightly in each region; and common-law "abandonment" statutes would be trumped by Federal copyright law, if there was any kind of conflict.
One such conflict might be between "copyright abandonment" and the termination rights in 17 USC 203. This would occur if, for example, a programmer assigned the copyright on her code to the FSF, who release it under the GPL. Under 203's termination rights, she could eventually nullify the assignment, and place that same code under a "full" copyright. That probably wouldn't apply to Techdirt articles by Mike, but it might with some of the other Techdirt authors (though it's unlikely).
In reality, the only way to affect a federally-enforcable copyright "abandonment" is to grant an unrestricted license. This is the idea behind a CC0 license. Of course, in order to grant that license, you need to hold the copyright in the first place. So, even CC0 material would still be under copyright, technically speaking.
(this is what Pirate Mike claims to do with his articles, even though he doesn't bother to actually abandon the copyright in each article--which he could do rather easily with a simple notice).
Since Mike actually holds the copyright on the articles he writes, if he "claims" to abandon the copyright, then he does (to the extent that abandonment is possible).
I can't answer why he doesn't simply put a CC0 notice on his articles, but I suspect it has to do with the issues above.
And calling him "Pirate Mike" is just an ad hominem - and a baseless one at that, since Mike has never once advocated piracy, nor has he ever said that copyright is always bad. I wouldn't blame him if he never replied to anyone who used this insult: it shows that you're here for name-calling, not debate.
p.s. What's with all the Techdirt server errors? Time to move to a new webhost?
This isn't a particularly new story. But it is notable for one specific quote:
We want to make it as easy as possible for the 2,500 games on Steam to run on Linux as well. It’s a hedging strategy.
Open-source proponents have long hoped Microsoft's mistakes (which have been many) would lead to a general adoption of Linux or other open-source platforms. So far, it hasn't happened - and a big reason is because most AAA game developers have been shunning Linux.
If Win8 really becomes effectively closed to non-Live games developers, then that's pretty much the death knell for Microsoft. It would become a world of consoles and Linux - and eventually, Linux would win out (but only eventually). Pity that computer users everywhere would have to suffer while that happened.
all this Google hate is actually being driven by Google's commercial competitors
Sometimes, but not in this case.
This time, it's driven by media companies who are used to demanding money from everyone who has any connection to content whatsoever. The whole "anti-Google" sentiment is merely a smokescreen designed to force Google to pay them money.
Whether they actually deserve money for anything Google is doing is completely immaterial to them.
The sad part is when artists actually buy this bullshit. Fortunately most artists don't.
Small correction: Though Google quoted the study, it was neither conducted by them, nor funded by them. It was a study conducted by Jennifer Urban of USC, and Laura Quilter of UC Berkeley, called Efficient Process or “Chilling Effects”? (the link is to a PDF of the summary report).
On the post: Boston Shuts Down Uber Because Massachusetts Doesn't Approve Of The GPS
Re: Re: Re:
I'm just saying that's why he remains anonymous - not that anonymous posters, in general, are bad.
Don't worry, I know first-hand that many AC's are actually insightful and/or funny. This particular guy is just being a douche.
On the post: Boston Shuts Down Uber Because Massachusetts Doesn't Approve Of The GPS
Re: Re:
Seconded.
Also, I really don't like hitting the "report" button for this sort of thing, but in this case it's become mandatory. If you see one of his comments, report it, don't read the replies, move on.
p.s. Mike - does your web software allow something like auto-hiding the replies to reported posts? That way, the entire thread could be hidden, and we'd feed the trolls a lot less. (Not that I don't feed the trolls myself...)
On the post: Boston Shuts Down Uber Because Massachusetts Doesn't Approve Of The GPS
Re:
Fucking unbelievable...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120807/00073319950/join-us-thursday-conversati on-with-rob-reid-author-year-zero-plus-augusts-book-month.shtml#c865
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/i nnovation/articles/20120810/02111919983/entrepreneurs-vcs-tell-white-house-to-focus-innovation-rathe r-than-ip-enforcement.shtml#c986
You have your answer. I've linked to dozens of his comments where he answered you. He answered you personally. In case you've deliberately forgotten, the answer is: 1. It's unlawful, and 2. Going against the interests of artists is wrong.
He may, or may not, have other reasons for being against piracy. But even if those reasons are his only ones, it doesn't matter. Those reasons, right there, are enough to show that Techdirt is not "pro-piracy," and to stop calling him "Pirate Mike."
Yet, here you are, derailing the comments in a story that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with piracy.
I live in Boston, and I wanted to read the comments to see if anyone had anything to add about the situation. Instead, I see you're spreading your verbal diarrhea all over the Internet.
The only thing you've shown is that you're an idiot. An abusive, obsessed, childish idiot. You have succeeded in making a fool out of yourself to everyone who comes here.
In the interests of rational discourse on this site, I really hope you stop now. Somehow, I don't believe you will. Because your only goal is to disrupt rational discourse.
That's why you post anonymously: so you can mount a one-man smear campaign against the site, without any accountability.
You are truly pathetic.
On the post: Boston Shuts Down Uber Because Massachusetts Doesn't Approve Of The GPS
Re: Re: Who were the other three passengers in the car?
Wrong reference...
"Who you gonna call?"
On the post: Boston Shuts Down Uber Because Massachusetts Doesn't Approve Of The GPS
Re:
I've worked the deli department of a corner store, and I can tell you that the scales at the meat department are far less accurate than 97%.
p.s. Why the hell was this comment flagged?
On the post: Universal Music Sued Because 62% Of A Bow Wow Video Is Actually A French Porn Star's Music Video
Re:
On what planet is this not typical?
When artists on major labels make videos, it is almost always the case that the labels front the production costs, which are then taken out of the recording artists' album royalties. Usually they have a great deal of editorial control as well, and I've never heard of a single major label music video where the label didn't get final approval, at the very least.
In fact, the credits at the beginning of the video list the copyright owner as Cash Money Records, a subsidiary of Universal.
Since it's not a copyright claim, however, the suit alleges that the video is being used to promote Universal's album. This is true (you can see it at the end of the video), and also more relevant in terms of damages.
Nothing in the article was in any way dishonest.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
No, it absolutely does not.
If a work is in the public domain, then no copyright holder can ever claim rights to it. Framing it on screen with other material would not grant you, or anyone else, any kind of copyright on the public domain material ("performance" or not).
In fact, if anyone tried to claim copyright on it, then that would be copyfraud (a fraudulent copyright notice). This is a criminal act under 17 USC 506(c), and anyone using it in a DMCA notice is guilty of perjury under 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(vi), and liable for damages under 17 USC 512(f).
The only possible claim would be a trademark claim (for the logo itself), which is not covered by DMCA notices.
And, in fact, I just watched the footage, and no such logo or "framing" appears at all.
So, your argument is totally, 100% bogus.
On the post: From SOPA To Cybersecurity: All About Trying To Control The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not exactly. They do run on the "system" of selling access to media, so in that way they are similar. But they have significant differences that make them closer to a "new" business model. iTunes Match is a good example.
Normal disruptive changes in business are a move from one reasonable successful model to an even more successful one.
That is not even remotely what "disruptive change" means. A disruptive change is a change in market conditions, not business models, usually brought about via technology. The "even more successful" models don't exist until upstart industries find ways of capitalizing on disruptive changes. But the disruptive changes come about whether "even more successful" models exist or not.
This is a move from a functional and successful model to no model at all, just give it all away.
The only person who thinks anyone is saying "just give it all away" is you.
What you don't seem to get is that copyright doesn't stop anyone with a better idea, a better system, and better product to operate in their own ways.
That's exactly what it does. If that were true, Megaupload or The Pirate Bay would be perfectly legal, since that's exactly what they were doing.
If there is a better way that makes so much more money, the labels will climb over broken glass to get to it.
That's not what "efficiency" means. In fact, the more efficient an economic system is, the less money labels will make. Their profit arises entirely from economic inefficiency.
Taking a dozen songs, packaging them together in $1.50 worth of plastic and paper, and selling them for $15, is not economic efficiency. Yet that's the only reason record labels were able to achieve their profits in the 90's. On the other hand, taking those songs, packaging them as digital files, and distributing them for $1 each is much more efficient. And it's the main reason labels aren't making as much money nowadays.
Yes, but it doesn't change the cost to make what is being transported, and that is still the big end of the deal.
Then, the sunk cost will shift from those who make money under the old, inefficient system - manufacturers and wholesalers (which is what record labels really are) - to those who make money under new, efficient systems.
That may not happen soon (copyright ownership has delayed this process considerably). And the "new" moneymakers may be the same companies as the "old" moneymakers (if they embrace change and adapt). But it will happen.
Please point to the part of the "new company" music industry that has made even 20% of the sales in the last year (so about 1 billion).
Digital sales are certainly part of the "new company" music industry. I'm pretty sure iTune, Amazon MP3, Spotify, Rhapsody, and eMusic made a hell of a lot more than 20% of sales. Not to mention services like Pandora, Tunecore, CD Baby, RouteNote, Soundcloud, Kickstarter, etc - the impact of which is hard to quantify, as most don't report to Soundscan.
The real question is how much the "old company" music model made - that is, sales of physical CD's. They still sell plenty; but as of 2011, they make up less than half of total sales for recorded music. (That's in dollars; in purchases, digital overtook physical way back in 2007.)
Since the "new company" music models pay artists a much higher percentage of income than the "old company" music models, I'll bet that they all account for a lot more than 20% of the money that actually goes to musicians.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
I see what you did there.
On the post: Legit Ebook Lending Site Taken Down By An Angry Twitmob Of Writers [UPDATED]
Re: Re:
http://www.digitalmediamachine.com/2012/08/what-happened-to-lendink-owner-explains.html
Get the story straight from the horse's mouth.
On the post: Legit Ebook Lending Site Taken Down By An Angry Twitmob Of Writers [UPDATED]
Re:
It wasn't through the eBook lending program.
He had originally set up the website to be an Amazon affiliate. This is why all Amazon books were up there. There was a "Buy this book" link to the Amazon store, and if anyone followed that link and bought the book, Dale would get a (very small) payment. That's how Amazon affiliates work; there are hundreds of thousands of Amazon affiliate sites.
Unfortunately, right after he set up the site, Amazon dumped all their California affiliates due to California tax laws. So, he never ended up making any money from the site, other than banner ads (which pay almost nothing).
If you looked at a page for a book that couldn't be loaned, the option was grayed out. In any case, Dale did not make any money whatsoever from lending; all the site did was send both parties emails, so they could get in touch with each other, and loan books through Amazon or B&N directly.
some of the posts on here seem to think an author or creative shouldn't make a dime. A particular nameless commenter on Amazon seems to totally condone piracy on his blog
There is a huge difference between "condoning piracy," and thinking that authors or "creatives" shouldn't make a dime. If by "piracy" you mean "non-commercial file sharing," then it's not even remotely settled that piracy is responsible for a drop in sales (or an increase in sales, for that matter). It's certainly possible to condone piracy and hope for authors and "creatives" to earn more money.
There's also a big difference between advocating for file sharing and condoning piracy. For example: if I said "you should share your books on the Pirate Bay, you'd make more money," I would not be condoning piracy, nor wishing for you to earn less money.
On a separate note: If you're looking for reasons why nobody takes an "anti-piracy" stance seriously, the LendInk fiasco is a perfect example. These were not the actions of a group of authors who were legitimately concerned about their incomes. These were the actions of authors who are so frightened of the digital age, that the very mention of the p-word turned them into a lynch mob.
On the post: Baldaur Regis' Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
There are a couple of significant differences.
1. The notion that LendInk was a "pirate site" was a complete fabrication. The notion that SOPA undermined an open Internet was not.
2. The United States is a democracy; if the public doesn't support a bill, it is Congress' obligation not to pass it. LendInk was a website (a completely legal one), and had no obligation to put copyright holders' interests in front of their users'.
Perhaps copyright holders can twitmob more thieving pirate sites out of existence.
They haven't "twitmobbed" even one "pirate site" out of existence, since LendInk was not a "pirate site."
There was nothing good that came out of the LendInk situation. It was bad for LendInk, bad for readers, and bad for authors.
On the post: Join Us Thursday For A Conversation With Rob Reid, Author Of Year Zero; Plus August's Book Of The Month
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interesting, but inaccurate. First of all, it took me much longer than 5 seconds to actually find the Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari (PDF).
Since it was linked in none of the news stories reporting on the case. In fact, here's how Dow Jones Newswires (apparently the syndicated source) described it:
Mike's confusion was understandable, to say the least.
Now, about that Writ. The issue was, indeed, whether the eBay case did away with the "presumption of harm" if there was a likelihood of success on the merits for claims of copyright infringement. But to see why this is important, read footnote 3 to the 9th Circuit decision (reprinted as Appendix A in the writ):
In other words, Perfect 10 was effectively hoping to overturn eBay, expressly so that it could appeal the fair use and DMCA defences that went in Google's favor.
The Supreme Court did not touch these issues - but by denying review, it effectively blocked Perfect 10 from revisiting the fair use issue (among others).
In the final analysis, Mike's characterization (like the Dow Jones Newswires') was accurate. He didn't go into the (rather esoteric) legal reasons why, but you'll notice that me explaining this took up more space than Mike's entire post.
On the post: Join Us Thursday For A Conversation With Rob Reid, Author Of Year Zero; Plus August's Book Of The Month
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you kidding me?
I gave you a whole slew of quotes where Mike said, explicitly, that piracy is not OK:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/21453616141/another-ninjavideo-admin-pleads-guilty-ex pect-rest-to-do-so-too.shtml#c1629
Not only did Mike not "refuse to explain" his position, he directly engaged with you, numerous times:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/21453616141/another-ninjavideo-admin-pleads-guilty -expect-rest-to-do-so-too.shtml#c478
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/21453616141/another- ninjavideo-admin-pleads-guilty-expect-rest-to-do-so-too.shtml#c1735
http://www.techdirt.com/article s/20110929/21453616141/another-ninjavideo-admin-pleads-guilty-expect-rest-to-do-so-too.shtml#c1793
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/21453616141/another-ninjavideo-admin-pleads-guilty-expect- rest-to-do-so-too.shtml#c1861
He stopped responding to you only after he had explained himself. And you did nothing but call him "Pirate Mike," and post ridiculous insults like "Dishonest as the day is long" or "Your lies are truly revolting." And here's the kicker: the only reason you believe Mike is "pro-piracy" is because he's not "anti-piracy" enough to agree with YOU.
It's a classic case of binary thinking. "You're not against my enemies as much as I think you should be, so therefore you're against me." It's the type of limited thinking that's found in dictators and lynch mobs. It says nothing about Mike, but an awful lot about you.
And that's just in that one thread. If this is your version of Mike being "as slimy as they come," then you've just proven that you're someone who is not here for any kind of substantive discussion on anything. A delusional child throwing a temper tantrum.
Mike is absolutely, 100% right to not engage with you.
On the post: Join Us Thursday For A Conversation With Rob Reid, Author Of Year Zero; Plus August's Book Of The Month
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hello, Anonymous Coward. (By the way, are you the person who used to post under the username Average Joe? It would explain a lot.)
Errors? The homepage was loading already-scrolled-down a ways earlier, but not any more. Other than that, no problems on my end.
No, different situation. If I try to submit a reply, I often get a Server Error (I think it's 503 Service Unavailable). It's the kind of error you usually get when there are problems reading from/writing to the database.
If you're not getting that, it's probably something to do with my account. I do have a lot of comments, maybe that has something to do with it.
I guess Techdirt's servers are telling me to get a life...?
If I were Mike, and I really wanted to abandon my copyright on each article, and I would simply have a bit of text at the end of each one saying simply "no rights reserved" (or something similar).
Like I said, I can't speak for Mike, but I also think a notice would be a good idea. If nothing else, it would reveal the misconceptions of all those critics who claim Mike would sue if someone else used his content. Still, it's not my website.
I'm not sure he can abandon the rights to articles he hasn't even written yet, which is what he appears to think he can do/is doing (I don't see how you can affirmatively abandon your rights to property that doesn't even exist yet; it HAS to be ex post)
I don't see why not. That sort of thing happens all the time: recording artists assign the copyright to future recordings, graphic artists sign "work for hire" contracts, etc; all before the work is even begun. (Yet another reason to view copyright as distinct from other forms of legal property.)
P.S. What the fuck with the Rojadirecta case? 2d Circuit sitting on it since oral arguments in December, and the district court sitting on a motion to dismiss for two months? C'mon already! I'm dying here!!
If you're getting impatient, imagine how Puerto 80 feels. They were supposed to get their domain name returned in January. (Not to mention the fact that if December's ruling stands, the DOJ never had the right to seize it in the first place.)
On the post: Join Us Thursday For A Conversation With Rob Reid, Author Of Year Zero; Plus August's Book Of The Month
Re: Re: Re:
This is not easy to do. For one thing, that "dedication" may work in the U.S., but in other countries (the EU especially), authors have certain rights ("droit d'auteur," or "moral rights") that cannot be waived, even voluntarily. (In the U.S., this right is also granted to visual artists in 17 USC 106a.)
Plus, "copyright abandonment" is a common-law affirmative defense, and occurs nowhere in the federal statutes. This presents its own set of problems. There is no generalized process to go through to "abandon" your copyright; the legal definition differs slightly in each region; and common-law "abandonment" statutes would be trumped by Federal copyright law, if there was any kind of conflict.
One such conflict might be between "copyright abandonment" and the termination rights in 17 USC 203. This would occur if, for example, a programmer assigned the copyright on her code to the FSF, who release it under the GPL. Under 203's termination rights, she could eventually nullify the assignment, and place that same code under a "full" copyright. That probably wouldn't apply to Techdirt articles by Mike, but it might with some of the other Techdirt authors (though it's unlikely).
In reality, the only way to affect a federally-enforcable copyright "abandonment" is to grant an unrestricted license. This is the idea behind a CC0 license. Of course, in order to grant that license, you need to hold the copyright in the first place. So, even CC0 material would still be under copyright, technically speaking.
(this is what Pirate Mike claims to do with his articles, even though he doesn't bother to actually abandon the copyright in each article--which he could do rather easily with a simple notice).
Since Mike actually holds the copyright on the articles he writes, if he "claims" to abandon the copyright, then he does (to the extent that abandonment is possible).
I can't answer why he doesn't simply put a CC0 notice on his articles, but I suspect it has to do with the issues above.
And calling him "Pirate Mike" is just an ad hominem - and a baseless one at that, since Mike has never once advocated piracy, nor has he ever said that copyright is always bad. I wouldn't blame him if he never replied to anyone who used this insult: it shows that you're here for name-calling, not debate.
p.s. What's with all the Techdirt server errors? Time to move to a new webhost?
On the post: Game Developers Concerned About A Potentially Closed Windows 8
We want to make it as easy as possible for the 2,500 games on Steam to run on Linux as well. It’s a hedging strategy.
Open-source proponents have long hoped Microsoft's mistakes (which have been many) would lead to a general adoption of Linux or other open-source platforms. So far, it hasn't happened - and a big reason is because most AAA game developers have been shunning Linux.
If Win8 really becomes effectively closed to non-Live games developers, then that's pretty much the death knell for Microsoft. It would become a world of consoles and Linux - and eventually, Linux would win out (but only eventually). Pity that computer users everywhere would have to suffer while that happened.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, then I guess you're adamantly opposed to the idea of statutory royalty rates, then?
On the post: More Anti-Youtube Whining: 'YouTube Complies With Our Takedown Requests Just To Make Us Look Bad'
Re: Re: What they want
Sometimes, but not in this case.
This time, it's driven by media companies who are used to demanding money from everyone who has any connection to content whatsoever. The whole "anti-Google" sentiment is merely a smokescreen designed to force Google to pay them money.
Whether they actually deserve money for anything Google is doing is completely immaterial to them.
The sad part is when artists actually buy this bullshit. Fortunately most artists don't.
On the post: More Anti-Youtube Whining: 'YouTube Complies With Our Takedown Requests Just To Make Us Look Bad'
Re: Illegitimate requests
Small correction: Though Google quoted the study, it was neither conducted by them, nor funded by them. It was a study conducted by Jennifer Urban of USC, and Laura Quilter of UC Berkeley, called Efficient Process or “Chilling Effects”? (the link is to a PDF of the summary report).
Next >>