I thought that this was essentially an old school media type reacting negatively to actual contact with readers. That is, without the vast distance in time that a print publication confers on the writers, the hate mail is just too much for them. They can't handle it without the calming intervention of editors, and mailboys.
We get all those Anonymous Coward and average_joe trolls on music industry articles, but none on articles about the potentially game changing Wikileaks.
I don't believe a word of it. "Intellectual Property" as a unified concept is very recent, perhaps 40 years or so.
And in fact, "intellectual property" as property isn't necessary for economic advances. The US, until the 20th century, was something of an intellectual property pirate, in the modern sense. That is, in the USA foreign patents weren't legally protected. During some periods, there was a reward or subsidy for bringing in foreign "intellectual property".
There's decent evidence that "intellectual property" as a legal concept, complete with taxpayer funded enforcement of such "property rights", is counter productive, economically.
Thousands of IT industry employees have lost their jobs in the past 10 years, as employment since 1999 has been cut in half, largely due to offshoring.
What, I'm wrong? What, I don't have any proof? Do you have proof either?
You should really try to explain, with verifiable references, why your own position is correct.
Right now, I believe that the side effects of attempting to eliminate piracy would be far worse than tolerating it. Tolerating some degree of "piracy" wouldn't seem to harm anything in the general interest, such toleration only seems to harm (but may not actually harm) a very special interest.
I personally don't care about that special interest, but if you make a logical case, complete with economic analysis and some math or some field studies, I could be convinced otherwise.
I like how CCTV and security cam tapes mysteriously only show Good Behavior on the part of law enforcement. This seems like an International Phenomenon, even though it is highly prevalent in the USA.
Why does the website Techdirt attract such dedicated and persistent trolls? I don't get it. The position advocated by Mike Masnick in the articles that get the most trolling is a fairly minority position. I'd hazard that most people don't think about "intellectual property" a whole lot, and that most people don't read Techdirt.
I'd also hazard that Masnick's articles aren't doing much to convert the heathen as it were. So, the automatic gainsaying of whatever position the Trolls are against probably doesn't really matter that much in the long run.
In conclusion, why troll here, especially anonymously?
How does Internet Freedom have anything to do with this particular issue?
Because the super-draconian measures proposed to counteract purchasing and accessing illegally have effects far beyond merely dealing with counterfeits of physical goods. The measures proposed limit speech on the internet, limiting speech is probably never a good thing. The measures proposed limit legitimate copying, never a good thing. The measures proposed make taxpayers enforce a private company's privilege, arguably a bad thing, the measures proposed keep ideas and implementations of ideas out of the public domain, a bad thing.
Re: Continued conflation of infringement and counterfeiting
I don't think they're the same, because in the case of counterfeit physical goods, the consumer is potentially being deceived, in that case receiving goods of a lower real value.
In the case of infringement, nobody is deprived of the use of anything, and an "infringing" copy may actually have more utility (no un-skippable movie previews, anyone?) than the uninfringing copy.
Also, how does one tell an "infringing" copy from a "real copy" of an electronically copyable good?
We know from studies that purchasers of counterfeit physical goods often know that they're purchasing counterfeits, they just can't afford the Real Thing. So there's that aspect of counterfeit goods as well.
So, I have to conclude that "infringement" and "counterfeit" aren't at all the same. What's your reasonsing?
I think you've hit on an important distinction between groups of ISPs. Time Warner, as the name suggests, has content-provider roots. AT&T used to be a bunch of Baby Bells, a phone company.
The ISPs with a phone company background tend *not* to care what you download, the ISPs with a content provider or cable company history tend to care a lot more. This is true in my city (Denver) where Comcast puts blocks on TCP ports like 25, 22, 80, etc so people can't run a server on conventional TCP ports. Qwest, a phone company, does not do this. They don't care.
It would be really, really easy to go all conspiracy theorist on this, but I actually doubt a conspiracy in this case.
I think you can explain it in one of two ways:
1. Corporate interests (or beliefs about corporate monetary interests) keep those companies from reporting things that are a bit too close to the bone, as it were.
2. They've had it beaten out of them by 30+ years of people bagging on "liberal media", PR companies withholding access if they offend, and a general viewpoint that "the country doesn't need another Watergate".
The point is that infringement (not theft!) is only decidable by a trial!
Therefore, you can't have some automatic system, be it youtube's Magic or Google's JooJoo, or Microsoft's hexing, decide wherther a particular file full of data infringes or not.
Bravo! More! I laughed, I cried, I snorted coffee through my nose.
The Reanimated zombie of Joe McCarthy arises from the grave making weird, illogical, unsupportable accusations about links betwen questioning authority and "terrorism", the communist boogeyman of the 21st century.
Tell you what: I'll publicly announce my connection to AlQueda right after you publicly announce your name, professional affiliations and employer.
Wait, did Manning confess to this treason? When did Fox run that story, I must have missed it!
He needs a trial before anyone can say "committed treason". Actually, he needs to be charged with the crime of treason before you can even say "alleged traitor".
Talk about the ignorant court of public opinion...
On the post: Sports Columnist Tracks Down Trolls And Calls Them
Old School Media Type Reaction
On the post: Karl's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Odd Timing: As State Department Condemns Wikileaks, It's Promoting A Movie Celebrating Daniel Ellsberg & The Pentagon Papers
Where are the Trolls!?!?
We get all those Anonymous Coward and average_joe trolls on music industry articles, but none on articles about the potentially game changing Wikileaks.
On the post: IFPI's Annual Attack On Piracy Once Again Riddled With Errors And Bogus Claims
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Got to Love This Quote
And in fact, "intellectual property" as property isn't necessary for economic advances. The US, until the 20th century, was something of an intellectual property pirate, in the modern sense. That is, in the USA foreign patents weren't legally protected. During some periods, there was a reward or subsidy for bringing in foreign "intellectual property".
There's decent evidence that "intellectual property" as a legal concept, complete with taxpayer funded enforcement of such "property rights", is counter productive, economically.
On the post: IFPI's Annual Attack On Piracy Once Again Riddled With Errors And Bogus Claims
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What, I'm wrong? What, I don't have any proof? Do you have proof either?
On the post: IFPI's Annual Attack On Piracy Once Again Riddled With Errors And Bogus Claims
Re: Re:
Right now, I believe that the side effects of attempting to eliminate piracy would be far worse than tolerating it. Tolerating some degree of "piracy" wouldn't seem to harm anything in the general interest, such toleration only seems to harm (but may not actually harm) a very special interest.
I personally don't care about that special interest, but if you make a logical case, complete with economic analysis and some math or some field studies, I could be convinced otherwise.
On the post: Daniel Ellsberg And Others Discuss The Serious Implications Of Wikileaks
Re:
I recommend you re-read Mike's commentary.
On the post: Canadian TSA's Non-Apology Apology To 82-Year-Old Woman
CCTV mysteriously only shows Good Behavior
On the post: Senator Wyden Calls Out Content Companies For Wanting To Censor The Internet
Why troll here?
Why does the website Techdirt attract such dedicated and persistent trolls? I don't get it. The position advocated by Mike Masnick in the articles that get the most trolling is a fairly minority position. I'd hazard that most people don't think about "intellectual property" a whole lot, and that most people don't read Techdirt.
I'd also hazard that Masnick's articles aren't doing much to convert the heathen as it were. So, the automatic gainsaying of whatever position the Trolls are against probably doesn't really matter that much in the long run.
In conclusion, why troll here, especially anonymously?
On the post: Senator Wyden Calls Out Content Companies For Wanting To Censor The Internet
Why troll here?
On the post: Senator Wyden Calls Out Content Companies For Wanting To Censor The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Ridiculous
Otherwise, why did you bother following up?
On the post: Senator Wyden Calls Out Content Companies For Wanting To Censor The Internet
Re: Free speech does not shield criminal websites for criminal conduct
We're letting "intellectual property" override free speech with this kind of legislation.
On the post: Senator Wyden Calls Out Content Companies For Wanting To Censor The Internet
Re: Ridiculous
Because the super-draconian measures proposed to counteract purchasing and accessing illegally have effects far beyond merely dealing with counterfeits of physical goods. The measures proposed limit speech on the internet, limiting speech is probably never a good thing. The measures proposed limit legitimate copying, never a good thing. The measures proposed make taxpayers enforce a private company's privilege, arguably a bad thing, the measures proposed keep ideas and implementations of ideas out of the public domain, a bad thing.
Anything else?
On the post: European Commission Planning New, More Draconian 'Anti-Piracy' Laws
Re: Continued conflation of infringement and counterfeiting
In the case of infringement, nobody is deprived of the use of anything, and an "infringing" copy may actually have more utility (no un-skippable movie previews, anyone?) than the uninfringing copy.
Also, how does one tell an "infringing" copy from a "real copy" of an electronically copyable good?
We know from studies that purchasers of counterfeit physical goods often know that they're purchasing counterfeits, they just can't afford the Real Thing. So there's that aspect of counterfeit goods as well.
So, I have to conclude that "infringement" and "counterfeit" aren't at all the same. What's your reasonsing?
On the post: The Amazing Ability Of People To Simply Ignore Data That Proves What They Believe Is Wrong
Re: It's only baseball ...
If people can't consider data when debating "only baseball", will they have that ability when debating something that matters to their pocketbook?
On the post: Two Years After The RIAA Suggested ISPs Were Ready To Implement 3 Strikes, Most ISPs Have No Such Plans
Re: Time Warner
The ISPs with a phone company background tend *not* to care what you download, the ISPs with a content provider or cable company history tend to care a lot more. This is true in my city (Denver) where Comcast puts blocks on TCP ports like 25, 22, 80, etc so people can't run a server on conventional TCP ports. Qwest, a phone company, does not do this. They don't care.
On the post: Why Are US Publications Downplaying The Significance Of Some Of Wikileaks' Leaks?
Really, really good question
I think you can explain it in one of two ways:
1. Corporate interests (or beliefs about corporate monetary interests) keep those companies from reporting things that are a bit too close to the bone, as it were.
2. They've had it beaten out of them by 30+ years of people bagging on "liberal media", PR companies withholding access if they offend, and a general viewpoint that "the country doesn't need another Watergate".
On the post: Law Professor Explains How Even When A Site Copies An Entire Article, It May Still Be Fair Use
Re:
The point is that infringement (not theft!) is only decidable by a trial!
Therefore, you can't have some automatic system, be it youtube's Magic or Google's JooJoo, or Microsoft's hexing, decide wherther a particular file full of data infringes or not.
On the post: Yet Another Court Explains To The Obama Administration That The 4th Amendment Means You Need To Get A Warrant
Terrorist Connections Inside the Government
The Reanimated zombie of Joe McCarthy arises from the grave making weird, illogical, unsupportable accusations about links betwen questioning authority and "terrorism", the communist boogeyman of the 21st century.
Tell you what: I'll publicly announce my connection to AlQueda right after you publicly announce your name, professional affiliations and employer.
On the post: US Is Apparently Torturing Bradley Manning, Despite No Trial And No Conviction
Re: Re: Re: Awful
He needs a trial before anyone can say "committed treason". Actually, he needs to be charged with the crime of treason before you can even say "alleged traitor".
Talk about the ignorant court of public opinion...
Next >>