Another one of my favorites: The people charged with cracking down on the free distribution of music and movies online (with the argument that file-sharing disincentivizes the creation of more) are the same people charged with cracking down on child pornography online (with the argument that file-sharing incentivizes the creation of more).
The most amusing part to me, is that patents and copyright are government-granted monopolies, but when companies exploit those monopolies to their fullest extent, they are accused of anti-competitive behavior by the very government who set the system up in the first place.
Make up your mind, big-government: Do you want to create monopolies or break them up?
IP-maximalism sucks, but anti-trust laws suck worse. As I saw someone put it recently:
If you sell for more than your competition, you're "gouging".
If you sell for less than your competition, you're "dumping".
If you sell for the same as your compmetition, you're "price fixing".
you are entirely free to do WHATEVER YOU WANT with your OWN MUSIC
And here you assume that music can be owned. It can't. You can own the CD that it resides on, and you can own the hard drive that stores it, but the music itself isn't property subject to ownership. In fact, your so called "intellectual property" (a phrase which, mind you, is completely absent from the very document that allows the government to grant you a monopoly by force) violates my very real property rights.
It's my hard drive; I'll twiddle the bits on it as I please. You can whine and cry and try to send the government in with guns to stop people from twiddling the bits on their hard drives in a manner that you object to, but it won't make any difference; people across the globe will continue to assert their real property rights in the face of your imaginary ones, and you will lose, like every petty tyrant eventually loses in the end.
I saw him mention that he had talked about illegal copying, but he didn't elaborate on the subject and I was waiting to see what he had said, so thanks for posting this.
I've seen a lot of discussions on the Minecraft forums about copying, and it's amazing to me the number of people who come forward to say that they copied the game initially, but then bought a copy for both themselves and a friend. Or the number of people who didn't ever buy a copy, but had three friends who learned about it through them that went on to buy copies.
Treating ever copied game as a lost sale is ridiculously short-sighted.
But all of the business models you bring up tend to depend on it continuing.
"Depend on it continuing" is an incorrect choice of words. "Assume that it will continue regardless of what you do" is more accurate.
But I think you know that, and chose to word your statement in a way that tries (too hard) to make Mike look bad. Must be that "Anonymous Coward Effect".
* If they don't show the jury his pamphlet as evidence, they don't have a case against him.
* If they do, by their own argument, they are tampering with the jury.
Tough break for the prosecutors, but you know what John Wayne said: "Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."
Again, I feel the need to clarify because so many people have the wrong impression of Citizen's United: The Supreme Court did not say that corporations can donate as much as they want to political campaigns; they still cant.
The court only said that the government can't stop people from publishing actual speech on political issues just because they are grouped as a corporation.
It was tremendous blow for free speech, and doesn't deserve to be vilified as it has been in the press.
They didn't base their Citizen's United decision on corporations being "persons". They based their decision on the fact that the government was shutting down political speech from a group of persons merely because they had pooled their money and incorporated.
but doesn't anyone else feel that Obama is doing exactly the opposite things of what he promised during election time
Only those honest about reality. Sadly, most people have an "it's okay if it's my political party doing it" outlook, so they'll march against something Bush does one week and then applaud Obama for doing the same thing next week.
On the post: ICE Arrests Operator Of Seized Domain; Charges Him With Criminal Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shredding a document would qualify as the first, but your posting as an Anonymous Coward would qualify as the second.
On the post: ICE Arrests Operator Of Seized Domain; Charges Him With Criminal Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Arrests Operator Of Seized Domain; Charges Him With Criminal Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
No, I don't. Perhaps you can explain it to me.
On the post: Justice Department Investigating MPEG-LA For Antitrust Violations Over VP8 Patent Threats
Re: Re: The Most Amusing Part
On the post: Justice Department Investigating MPEG-LA For Antitrust Violations Over VP8 Patent Threats
The Most Amusing Part
Make up your mind, big-government: Do you want to create monopolies or break them up?
On the post: ICE Arrests Operator Of Seized Domain; Charges Him With Criminal Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
Explain that one. Has any court said that mere anonymity is proof of a guilty mind?
On the post: ICE Arrests Operator Of Seized Domain; Charges Him With Criminal Copyright Infringement
Re:
Err, he says it outright: If merely linking to infringing material on a webpage with ads is worthy of jail time, the internet is in big trouble.
If I enable ads on my blogger.com page, and link to a YouTube video that ends up being taken down by a DMCA notice, should I go to jail?
On the post: Music Companies In Korea Guilty Of Price Fixing, Collusion For Boycotting DRM-Free Music Retailers
Ugh
If you sell for more than your competition, you're "gouging".
If you sell for less than your competition, you're "dumping".
If you sell for the same as your compmetition, you're "price fixing".
On the post: Music Is Not A Product, And You'll Never Adapt If You Think It Is
Re: Do What you Want
And here you assume that music can be owned. It can't. You can own the CD that it resides on, and you can own the hard drive that stores it, but the music itself isn't property subject to ownership. In fact, your so called "intellectual property" (a phrase which, mind you, is completely absent from the very document that allows the government to grant you a monopoly by force) violates my very real property rights.
It's my hard drive; I'll twiddle the bits on it as I please. You can whine and cry and try to send the government in with guns to stop people from twiddling the bits on their hard drives in a manner that you object to, but it won't make any difference; people across the globe will continue to assert their real property rights in the face of your imaginary ones, and you will lose, like every petty tyrant eventually loses in the end.
Enjoy your descent into irrelevancy.
On the post: Homeland Security Was Interested In Doing 'Covert' Pedestrian 'Scans' From 30 Feet Away
Re: Re: I don't understand why
We know; we've been watching DHS's live feed.
On the post: Minecraft Creator Says 'No Such Thing As A Lost Sale'
Thanks For Posting This
I've seen a lot of discussions on the Minecraft forums about copying, and it's amazing to me the number of people who come forward to say that they copied the game initially, but then bought a copy for both themselves and a friend. Or the number of people who didn't ever buy a copy, but had three friends who learned about it through them that went on to buy copies.
Treating ever copied game as a lost sale is ridiculously short-sighted.
On the post: New Study: 70% Of People Find 'Piracy' Socially Acceptable [Updated]
Re:
"Depend on it continuing" is an incorrect choice of words. "Assume that it will continue regardless of what you do" is more accurate.
But I think you know that, and chose to word your statement in a way that tries (too hard) to make Mike look bad. Must be that "Anonymous Coward Effect".
On the post: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
Re: Re: jury nullification
On the post: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
Re: Re:
* If they don't show the jury his pamphlet as evidence, they don't have a case against him.
* If they do, by their own argument, they are tampering with the jury.
Tough break for the prosecutors, but you know what John Wayne said: "Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."
On the post: Supreme Court Says AT&T Has No Right To 'Personal Privacy'
Re:
The court only said that the government can't stop people from publishing actual speech on political issues just because they are grouped as a corporation.
It was tremendous blow for free speech, and doesn't deserve to be vilified as it has been in the press.
On the post: Supreme Court Says AT&T Has No Right To 'Personal Privacy'
Re: OK, so...
Big difference, and both decisions were correct.
On the post: Supreme Court Says AT&T Has No Right To 'Personal Privacy'
Buwahaha
Masterfully done.
On the post: For Every Entertainment Industry Job 'Lost' To Infringement, Could 12 Jobs Be Created Elsewhere?
Re:
On the post: Judge Dumps Yet Another Mass Infringement Suit In Response To Single, Pro Se Motion To Quash
What is it . . .
On the post: Feds Got Reporter's Phone, Credit Card & Bank Records In Trying To Track Leaker
Re:
Only those honest about reality. Sadly, most people have an "it's okay if it's my political party doing it" outlook, so they'll march against something Bush does one week and then applaud Obama for doing the same thing next week.
Next >>