He was talking about detecting it 100% of the time, you idiot! Also, it isn’t just “challenging”; it is impossible to do well with decent accuracy. And as has been pointed out to you over and over and over again, every single case you’ve given doesn’t actually do a good job, anyways.
No. No, they don’t do copyright checks. The only examples you offered have nothing to do with copyright at all, and some aren’t even actual features used in web browsers. To the extent they may possibly offer some copyright protection, they are clearly completely ineffective. Exhibit A: people still use them a lot to pirate stuff easily without having to resort to any trickery at all. Exhibit B: online piracy still exists.
At any rate, you were asked to either provide an example of a text editor that performs copyright checks and is still useful or provide an example of a piece of software that successfully stops 100% of all copyright infringement that in any way involves or is facilitated by the use of said software while still being useful for at least some legal purpose(s). The former was because you seem to think text editors perform copyright checks (but they don’t), while the second is because, without such an example, your idea of liability for infringement is shown to be completely and utterly unreasonable, unrealistic, and unfair, as well as having no basis whatsoever in reality.
None of them have been found liable or even been sued for anything like that, really.
The idea that the copyright maximalists are unaware of these browsers being capable of being used for infringement is absolutely ridiculous. You may be the only person who thinks that’s even plausible.
An error in technology is insufficient to create liability for copyright infringement. Again, specific knowledge of particular instances of infringement is required or the technology must be designed specifically (and intentionally) to aid in piracy or have no substantial noninfringing uses.
People sue without understanding the technology all the time.
Mozilla doesn’t actually have that much money.
That you fail to see how much your idea of copyright would stifle innovation and creativity (the things copyright is supposed to be encouraging) is simply incredible.
Again, browsers don’t actually implement any measures that are designed to enforce copyright or reduce piracy.
You’re still suggesting that the only way for a software developer to completely avoid any liability for infringement using their product (at least if the product is capable of transmitting or being used to create anything that could possibly be used to infringe) is to cripple the software to the point of being completely useless at providing any services. You apparently don’t see that as a problem, unreasonable, unrealistic, or not based in reality. Despite this, you still haven’t even argued why that should be the case, offered any legal evidence that would suggest that is the case, why such a thing would be more desirable than the current state of affairs, or why the whims of a few copyright holders and copyright trolls should outweigh every other consideration, such as free speech, encouraging creativity and innovation, the desires of any other copyright holders, equity, due process, etc.
Copyright maximalists engage in free speech suppression when they use the law without fully understanding copyright law, which is also a violation of the law. And as I’ve said before, generally, copyright infringement isn’t illegal; it’s unlawful. There’s a difference. Additionally, none of what you described as copyright minimalism involves the person in question engaging in copyright infringement themselves. Even if someone is liable for someone else’s copyright infringement, that does not necessarily mean that they themselves are “doing copyright infringement.”
Furthermore, your understanding of copyright law has no resemblance to reality at all, and it presumes technical and human capabilities that simply do not exist. You also express views that care nothing at all for reducing or minimizing collateral damage, encouraging innovation rather than locking in the current big players, or allowing free speech and also assert the use of certain measures in software that don’t exist or aren’t used by that particular software and claim that certain measures are used in software or hardware as copyright enforcement measures that actually have nothing to do with copyright and often don’t actually do anything to stop, prevent, or reduce infringement, anyway. Basically, if our point of view is too minimal to be useful, yours is so over-the-top that it is also useless as it is completely unrealistic and unreasonable.
And again, and I cannot stress this enough, it is far, far more difficult to be found contributorily or vicariously liable for copyright infringement than you think, and lawsuits for it are relatively infrequent (nonexistent for a number of cases that you insist should be sued).
Counterpoint: web browsers allow you to download as much as you want without checking anything. Restrictions on downloads exist, sure, but not through the web browser. Also, restrictions on quantity have absolutely nothing to do with copyright at all (nor does the way browsers handle displaying web pages), and zip files are absolutely not a violation of section 1201 as you imply. Again, we went over this months ago, and you failed then, too. These examples, to the extent they exist, are in place purely for efficiency and practicality; they don’t exist as copyright protection, and many aren’t actually a function of the web browser itself in most cases.
You don’t have anything resembling a point here, and you don’t seem to exist in this reality based on your claims.
You haven’t even shown a way to substantially reduce piracy using text editors that wouldn’t eliminate essentially all non-infringing uses. Basically, you haven’t proven that it’s possible to create a text editor program that would even eliminate a significant amount of piracy that would use the software without rendering the software effectively useless even for noninfringing uses and would be reasonably difficult to circumvent. And that isn’t even the bar you have to reach. In order to prevail, you’d have to prove that there is a way to prevent all piracy using the software without greatly impeding or preventing entirely most noninfringing uses. After all, if you can’t do that, the law mandating such things would run afoul of the First Amendment protection of free speech, as well as prevent essentially any content from being created at all, except by a select few, maybe, and it would also unreasonably subject people to liability for things they had no way of reasonably preventing.
Also, what makes the copyright minimalist view any more wrong than the copyright maximalist view?
That’s not how it works. You assume that each check is independent, or that each check is 50% accurate after the previous one(s) have been applied, but we don’t have 34 or whatever distinct checks that work like that. You also ignore false positives, which—like false negatives—also need to be minimized. If each check not only fails to discover 50% of pirates on their own but also misidentifies 50% of non-pirates as pirates, then doing more and more checks will 1) be literally no different than flipping a coin over and over again to determine whether a person is a pirate and 2) lead to essentially 100% of all users of the software being declared a pirate and stopped. And it’s impossible to eliminate false positives entirely, at least not without leaving so many false negatives that the test is essentially worthless or only picks up the most obvious and indisputable cases (and not even all of them).
You also still haven’t addressed any of the problems Stephen and I pointed out, either; namely things like how no text editor could implement any sort of copyright checking that works more than a small fraction of the time, that the law doesn’t actually require such a thing, that no text editor actually implements such a thing, that any copyright checking implemented in a text editor would compromise the ability for it to perform legitimate, noninfringing uses significantly or even entirely, that implementing copyright checks will not actually reduce piracy by any significant amount and may actually increase it, that there is no way for a text editor to be able to detect someone copying—by hand in a text editor or drawing program or something—something they are reading or looking at (among other ways to pirate)—making the checks trivial to circumvent, that it is unfeasible for programs to be able to check against every copyrighted work (the only method with any chance of being more accurate than random chance), that people can and do lie, and other issues we’ve addressed. It also doesn’t really fit the problem you proposed: that makers of, say, a text editor should be liable if they don’t catch exactly 100% of pirates, and that’s impossible.
Compare what happens when you don't even try to do copyright check, then you'd be liable for 100% of user's copyright infringements.
As we’ve said several times before, that’s not how U.S. copyright law or liability work. Heck, in cases like text editors, I’m pretty sure that’s not even how European or Australian copyright law works. Not doing copyright checks at all does not lead to liability for copyright infringement by users. Do I need to go through the list yet again?
Look, none of the methods you’ve suggested are substantially more likely to catch actual infringement more than a coin toss. There are way too many false positives and way too many false negatives. Many also depend on both copyright holders and users being completely upfront and honest with the makers of the software, which is demonstrably false; this further decreases the accuracy of the checks.
Before we start holding them liable for infringement, we first have to know that they could take action to substantially reduce it without essentially nullifying the good their software provides. Otherwise, putting liability on them would only discourage them from providing any software at all, not to innovate potential new ways to solve a complex problem that we don’t even know can be solved to begin with and we don’t know has a substantially negative effect on anyone that can’t be remedied through lawsuits against the actual infringers and any potential solution for it we can come up with doesn’t work well at scale and the only solutions that might help solve it require a ton of resources that smaller businesses don’t have and it only gets more complicated all the time. Devs, especially smaller ones, aren’t going to accept liability for every pirate that slips through, even if we get a solution that captures 90% of pirates, and they certainly aren’t going to do so when nothing they do has any significant effect on piracy but does anger legitimate users. There’s a reason YouTube and large-scale copyright holders like AP, Nintendo, Sony, or Ubisoft (and some smaller ones) really try to go beyond what the law requires with respect to copyright enforcement.
In fairness, this is definitely worse than the fake sweepstakes and and lotteries because it involves disinformation and public health issues and isn’t narrowly targeted towards criminals that they already had probable cause and a warrant to arrest. It’s one thing to send misinformation to a specific known suspect who they already have evidence to arrest and that information only affects that one specific person, but it’s quite another to capitalize on fears stemming from a real and fairly serious public health crisis by broadcasting misinformation to everyone in order to create a dragnet to capture any number of people—many of whom were previously unknown to law enforcement—and have them submit evidence of their own guilt in the process.
I agree that the claims were suspicious from the start, but it does seem like a new low.
The addiction itself is a mental health concern. The brain (and often the body) forms an unhealthy dependence on whatever it is that one is addicted to. Naturally, a number of cases of drug addictions start because of an issue with someone’s mental/emotional health, but even when it’s not, the ongoing addiction itself is a mental health problem; in fact, if there isn’t an underlying mental health issue leading to the addiction, there isn’t really any other issue underlying it other than a tendency to follow their peers or something (though that, too, can be addressed in therapy), so there is no “root cause” below the addiction itself.
Perhaps you’re confusing “mental health concern” with “mental illness” or “mental disorder” and don’t think that a drug addiction itself falls under either category. That’s not entirely true. Setting aside that addiction is generally considered a mental disorder if it’s unhealthy, mental health also covers things like stress, temporary or chronic, loss of a loved one (including a pet), relationship or family issues, unhealthy relationships, etc.
Mental health care, when done properly, will try to address any underlying issues behind things like drug addiction as well as the addiction itself, and it covers a broad variety of issues. It’s not perfect, it can’t fix every problem, and different providers will often give different results, but you seriously underestimate the full scope of what goes into mental health care.
Hey! Are you calling me an idiot, or ignoring me entirely?
Kidding aside, I enjoy reading Stephen taking down idiots and trolls, but then I also enjoy engaging in such activities (though in a less confrontational manner, usually; otherwise I’d just be aping Stephen and others).
None of that addresses any of the cases we’ve pointed out (like reading something and typing it up by hand, or copying your own work from one place and pasting it somewhere else, or copying something in the public domain).
Actually, since I know nothing about building houses, any house I built probably would have a leaky roof. Additionally, I’m pretty sure that people who build houses do owe a duty of care to not leave leaky roofs, and there are an awful lot of building codes that probably have something to say on the matter, so actually, the laws probably do require that level of quality.
By contrast, authors of text editor software don’t have a duty of care to disallow as many possible methods of piracy as possible, and the laws governing software and copyright are nowhere near as complicated, jurisdiction-specific, or difficult to find and understand as building codes. They aren’t necessarily simple, but there’s no contest here.
At any rate, you asked why shouldn’t we try to lower the amount of piracy, and so I pointed out why some hypothetical developers wouldn’t: it’s not really feasible for them to do so, anything they try is likely to reduce piracy by much or for long, anything they try is likely to negatively impact legitimate, noninfringing users more than pirates, and there is no legal requirement to do so. Basically, it would be a lot of effort for little to no gain.
You’re making an argument from emotion; that developers should work harder on this simply because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of how effective or reasonable it may be. I’m just saying that there’s no logical reason for them to do so and plenty of reasons not to.
First, words do have meaning, and your definition had no relation to any reasonable definition of “sapient”. That’s not my autism or inability to get a joke; I was pointing out that your joke made no sense.
Second, if you didn’t realize that the vast majority of people who post in the comment section of TechDirt followed a rationalist approach to arguments, claims, evidence, etc. after several years, then clearly you are worse at reading the room than I am.
Third, that approach is far from unique to people with autism. A number of autistic persons don’t follow that philosophy or more of discourse, anyway.
Fourth, and I can’t believe I of all people have to explain this, but communities often have unwritten rules for etiquette that should be followed. This is not exclusive to TechDirt; it’s extremely common in literally every community or society.
Fifth, the rules aren’t that rigid, nor is being a skeptic or rational thinker anything close to “quasi-religious”. It also doesn’t necessarily involve secular humanism, Harvard, or autism.
Sixth, who the hell is Chip? Well, whoever he is, SDM, I, and others have actually shown that your “evidence” doesn’t prove your claims at all. Or rather, it doesn’t support your claims over what SDM offered as an explanation.
Seventh, the comment you’re responding to never said anything about etiquette or criticized your tone. I was criticizing the quality of your arguments and your jokes. That has nothing to do with tone or etiquette.
Considering no one else seems to be discussing what you’ve said, I don’t think it’s working very well. Also, those flags cannot remove your posts, so that wouldn’t be the Streisand Effect exactly.
I would also argue that any attention you’ve received regarding your activity here hasn’t really been positive.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re:
He was talking about detecting it 100% of the time, you idiot! Also, it isn’t just “challenging”; it is impossible to do well with decent accuracy. And as has been pointed out to you over and over and over again, every single case you’ve given doesn’t actually do a good job, anyways.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re:
Since what you’re asking for also isn’t required by law, that makes no difference to this argument.
Stephen wasn’t talking about every purpose. “Functionally useless” means “unsuitable for any purpose.”
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re:
No. No, they don’t do copyright checks. The only examples you offered have nothing to do with copyright at all, and some aren’t even actual features used in web browsers. To the extent they may possibly offer some copyright protection, they are clearly completely ineffective. Exhibit A: people still use them a lot to pirate stuff easily without having to resort to any trickery at all. Exhibit B: online piracy still exists.
At any rate, you were asked to either provide an example of a text editor that performs copyright checks and is still useful or provide an example of a piece of software that successfully stops 100% of all copyright infringement that in any way involves or is facilitated by the use of said software while still being useful for at least some legal purpose(s). The former was because you seem to think text editors perform copyright checks (but they don’t), while the second is because, without such an example, your idea of liability for infringement is shown to be completely and utterly unreasonable, unrealistic, and unfair, as well as having no basis whatsoever in reality.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re:
Here’s the thing:
You haven’t explained anything like that.
None of them have been found liable or even been sued for anything like that, really.
The idea that the copyright maximalists are unaware of these browsers being capable of being used for infringement is absolutely ridiculous. You may be the only person who thinks that’s even plausible.
An error in technology is insufficient to create liability for copyright infringement. Again, specific knowledge of particular instances of infringement is required or the technology must be designed specifically (and intentionally) to aid in piracy or have no substantial noninfringing uses.
People sue without understanding the technology all the time.
Mozilla doesn’t actually have that much money.
That you fail to see how much your idea of copyright would stifle innovation and creativity (the things copyright is supposed to be encouraging) is simply incredible.
Again, browsers don’t actually implement any measures that are designed to enforce copyright or reduce piracy.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright maximalists engage in free speech suppression when they use the law without fully understanding copyright law, which is also a violation of the law. And as I’ve said before, generally, copyright infringement isn’t illegal; it’s unlawful. There’s a difference. Additionally, none of what you described as copyright minimalism involves the person in question engaging in copyright infringement themselves. Even if someone is liable for someone else’s copyright infringement, that does not necessarily mean that they themselves are “doing copyright infringement.”
Furthermore, your understanding of copyright law has no resemblance to reality at all, and it presumes technical and human capabilities that simply do not exist. You also express views that care nothing at all for reducing or minimizing collateral damage, encouraging innovation rather than locking in the current big players, or allowing free speech and also assert the use of certain measures in software that don’t exist or aren’t used by that particular software and claim that certain measures are used in software or hardware as copyright enforcement measures that actually have nothing to do with copyright and often don’t actually do anything to stop, prevent, or reduce infringement, anyway. Basically, if our point of view is too minimal to be useful, yours is so over-the-top that it is also useless as it is completely unrealistic and unreasonable.
And again, and I cannot stress this enough, it is far, far more difficult to be found contributorily or vicariously liable for copyright infringement than you think, and lawsuits for it are relatively infrequent (nonexistent for a number of cases that you insist should be sued).
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re:
Counterpoint: web browsers allow you to download as much as you want without checking anything. Restrictions on downloads exist, sure, but not through the web browser. Also, restrictions on quantity have absolutely nothing to do with copyright at all (nor does the way browsers handle displaying web pages), and zip files are absolutely not a violation of section 1201 as you imply. Again, we went over this months ago, and you failed then, too. These examples, to the extent they exist, are in place purely for efficiency and practicality; they don’t exist as copyright protection, and many aren’t actually a function of the web browser itself in most cases.
You don’t have anything resembling a point here, and you don’t seem to exist in this reality based on your claims.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uhhh, no. The download operation in web browsers does not carry out copyright checks. We went over this months ago.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re:
You haven’t even shown a way to substantially reduce piracy using text editors that wouldn’t eliminate essentially all non-infringing uses. Basically, you haven’t proven that it’s possible to create a text editor program that would even eliminate a significant amount of piracy that would use the software without rendering the software effectively useless even for noninfringing uses and would be reasonably difficult to circumvent. And that isn’t even the bar you have to reach. In order to prevail, you’d have to prove that there is a way to prevent all piracy using the software without greatly impeding or preventing entirely most noninfringing uses. After all, if you can’t do that, the law mandating such things would run afoul of the First Amendment protection of free speech, as well as prevent essentially any content from being created at all, except by a select few, maybe, and it would also unreasonably subject people to liability for things they had no way of reasonably preventing.
Also, what makes the copyright minimalist view any more wrong than the copyright maximalist view?
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s not how it works. You assume that each check is independent, or that each check is 50% accurate after the previous one(s) have been applied, but we don’t have 34 or whatever distinct checks that work like that. You also ignore false positives, which—like false negatives—also need to be minimized. If each check not only fails to discover 50% of pirates on their own but also misidentifies 50% of non-pirates as pirates, then doing more and more checks will 1) be literally no different than flipping a coin over and over again to determine whether a person is a pirate and 2) lead to essentially 100% of all users of the software being declared a pirate and stopped. And it’s impossible to eliminate false positives entirely, at least not without leaving so many false negatives that the test is essentially worthless or only picks up the most obvious and indisputable cases (and not even all of them).
You also still haven’t addressed any of the problems Stephen and I pointed out, either; namely things like how no text editor could implement any sort of copyright checking that works more than a small fraction of the time, that the law doesn’t actually require such a thing, that no text editor actually implements such a thing, that any copyright checking implemented in a text editor would compromise the ability for it to perform legitimate, noninfringing uses significantly or even entirely, that implementing copyright checks will not actually reduce piracy by any significant amount and may actually increase it, that there is no way for a text editor to be able to detect someone copying—by hand in a text editor or drawing program or something—something they are reading or looking at (among other ways to pirate)—making the checks trivial to circumvent, that it is unfeasible for programs to be able to check against every copyrighted work (the only method with any chance of being more accurate than random chance), that people can and do lie, and other issues we’ve addressed. It also doesn’t really fit the problem you proposed: that makers of, say, a text editor should be liable if they don’t catch exactly 100% of pirates, and that’s impossible.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re:
As we’ve said several times before, that’s not how U.S. copyright law or liability work. Heck, in cases like text editors, I’m pretty sure that’s not even how European or Australian copyright law works. Not doing copyright checks at all does not lead to liability for copyright infringement by users. Do I need to go through the list yet again?
Look, none of the methods you’ve suggested are substantially more likely to catch actual infringement more than a coin toss. There are way too many false positives and way too many false negatives. Many also depend on both copyright holders and users being completely upfront and honest with the makers of the software, which is demonstrably false; this further decreases the accuracy of the checks.
Before we start holding them liable for infringement, we first have to know that they could take action to substantially reduce it without essentially nullifying the good their software provides. Otherwise, putting liability on them would only discourage them from providing any software at all, not to innovate potential new ways to solve a complex problem that we don’t even know can be solved to begin with and we don’t know has a substantially negative effect on anyone that can’t be remedied through lawsuits against the actual infringers and any potential solution for it we can come up with doesn’t work well at scale and the only solutions that might help solve it require a ton of resources that smaller businesses don’t have and it only gets more complicated all the time. Devs, especially smaller ones, aren’t going to accept liability for every pirate that slips through, even if we get a solution that captures 90% of pirates, and they certainly aren’t going to do so when nothing they do has any significant effect on piracy but does anger legitimate users. There’s a reason YouTube and large-scale copyright holders like AP, Nintendo, Sony, or Ubisoft (and some smaller ones) really try to go beyond what the law requires with respect to copyright enforcement.
On the post: Cop Shops Around The Nation Think It's Hilarious To Crack Jokes About Coronavirus-Contaminated Drugs
Re:
In fairness, this is definitely worse than the fake sweepstakes and and lotteries because it involves disinformation and public health issues and isn’t narrowly targeted towards criminals that they already had probable cause and a warrant to arrest. It’s one thing to send misinformation to a specific known suspect who they already have evidence to arrest and that information only affects that one specific person, but it’s quite another to capitalize on fears stemming from a real and fairly serious public health crisis by broadcasting misinformation to everyone in order to create a dragnet to capture any number of people—many of whom were previously unknown to law enforcement—and have them submit evidence of their own guilt in the process.
I agree that the claims were suspicious from the start, but it does seem like a new low.
On the post: Cop Shops Around The Nation Think It's Hilarious To Crack Jokes About Coronavirus-Contaminated Drugs
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The addiction itself is a mental health concern. The brain (and often the body) forms an unhealthy dependence on whatever it is that one is addicted to. Naturally, a number of cases of drug addictions start because of an issue with someone’s mental/emotional health, but even when it’s not, the ongoing addiction itself is a mental health problem; in fact, if there isn’t an underlying mental health issue leading to the addiction, there isn’t really any other issue underlying it other than a tendency to follow their peers or something (though that, too, can be addressed in therapy), so there is no “root cause” below the addiction itself.
Perhaps you’re confusing “mental health concern” with “mental illness” or “mental disorder” and don’t think that a drug addiction itself falls under either category. That’s not entirely true. Setting aside that addiction is generally considered a mental disorder if it’s unhealthy, mental health also covers things like stress, temporary or chronic, loss of a loved one (including a pet), relationship or family issues, unhealthy relationships, etc.
Mental health care, when done properly, will try to address any underlying issues behind things like drug addiction as well as the addiction itself, and it covers a broad variety of issues. It’s not perfect, it can’t fix every problem, and different providers will often give different results, but you seriously underestimate the full scope of what goes into mental health care.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re:
Hey! Are you calling me an idiot, or ignoring me entirely?
Kidding aside, I enjoy reading Stephen taking down idiots and trolls, but then I also enjoy engaging in such activities (though in a less confrontational manner, usually; otherwise I’d just be aping Stephen and others).
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can’t do manual checking with a text editor because you don’t have the necessary access, and type checking doesn’t work for copyright at all.
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re:
None of that addresses any of the cases we’ve pointed out (like reading something and typing it up by hand, or copying your own work from one place and pasting it somewhere else, or copying something in the public domain).
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The address isn’t illegal. At most, it may point to a location that is illegal or where illegal activities take place. Same with URLs.
(Also, you have it backwards; the laws would have to say something to make some URLs illegal.)
On the post: Copyright In The Modern Era: Fortnite Lets Players Mute Emote To Avoid Auto-Copyright Claims Against YouTubers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, since I know nothing about building houses, any house I built probably would have a leaky roof. Additionally, I’m pretty sure that people who build houses do owe a duty of care to not leave leaky roofs, and there are an awful lot of building codes that probably have something to say on the matter, so actually, the laws probably do require that level of quality.
By contrast, authors of text editor software don’t have a duty of care to disallow as many possible methods of piracy as possible, and the laws governing software and copyright are nowhere near as complicated, jurisdiction-specific, or difficult to find and understand as building codes. They aren’t necessarily simple, but there’s no contest here.
At any rate, you asked why shouldn’t we try to lower the amount of piracy, and so I pointed out why some hypothetical developers wouldn’t: it’s not really feasible for them to do so, anything they try is likely to reduce piracy by much or for long, anything they try is likely to negatively impact legitimate, noninfringing users more than pirates, and there is no legal requirement to do so. Basically, it would be a lot of effort for little to no gain.
You’re making an argument from emotion; that developers should work harder on this simply because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of how effective or reasonable it may be. I’m just saying that there’s no logical reason for them to do so and plenty of reasons not to.
On the post: SLAPP Suits And The Enemies Of Writing And Ideas
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: manufacturing consent
You’re really bad at this trolling thing, huh? Also at listening or arguing or making sense or anger management.
On the post: SLAPP Suits And The Enemies Of Writing And Ideas
Re: You could have just said Tail/no tail
First, words do have meaning, and your definition had no relation to any reasonable definition of “sapient”. That’s not my autism or inability to get a joke; I was pointing out that your joke made no sense.
Second, if you didn’t realize that the vast majority of people who post in the comment section of TechDirt followed a rationalist approach to arguments, claims, evidence, etc. after several years, then clearly you are worse at reading the room than I am.
Third, that approach is far from unique to people with autism. A number of autistic persons don’t follow that philosophy or more of discourse, anyway.
Fourth, and I can’t believe I of all people have to explain this, but communities often have unwritten rules for etiquette that should be followed. This is not exclusive to TechDirt; it’s extremely common in literally every community or society.
Fifth, the rules aren’t that rigid, nor is being a skeptic or rational thinker anything close to “quasi-religious”. It also doesn’t necessarily involve secular humanism, Harvard, or autism.
Sixth, who the hell is Chip? Well, whoever he is, SDM, I, and others have actually shown that your “evidence” doesn’t prove your claims at all. Or rather, it doesn’t support your claims over what SDM offered as an explanation.
Seventh, the comment you’re responding to never said anything about etiquette or criticized your tone. I was criticizing the quality of your arguments and your jokes. That has nothing to do with tone or etiquette.
On the post: SLAPP Suits And The Enemies Of Writing And Ideas
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:I understand it COMPLETELY
Considering no one else seems to be discussing what you’ve said, I don’t think it’s working very well. Also, those flags cannot remove your posts, so that wouldn’t be the Streisand Effect exactly.
I would also argue that any attention you’ve received regarding your activity here hasn’t really been positive.
Next >>