"It takes no particular innovation to distribute things over the internet when you don't have to trouble yourself with issues like licensing, fees and paying the owners of the content."
You've conflated two completely separate issues; the implementation of the distribution service (i.e. the innovation) and the cost of the licensing. If internet distributorship is so easy when licensing isn't an issue, why have the content owners failed so spectacularly in offering their own services? After all, since they don't have to pay fees to themselves for the content (dodgy accounting practices aside...) and it's super easy to throw up a website, the money should just pour in shouldn't it?
"Those so-called "innovators" don't have a business at all were it not for the content of others that they're monetizing for their own profit."
Ugh, this old trope. It's a meaningless statement, which you could equally (and equally stupidly) apply to anybody selling anything made by someone else.
"If your "innovation" requires breaking the law, then it's a bad business model."
If if a popular innovation is breaking the law, then it's probably a bad law. And in case you've missed it, based on their actions it seems the general public believes that's the case.
"Wikipedia has a responsibility to follow the laws of other countries and if a court finds that a website can be held liable then the owner of that website either needs to block Germany from accessing Wikipedia..."
Excellent suggestion. Wikipedia should not be forced to operate under legal threat from one country with outdated laws on secondary liability. Perhaps if Wikipeia was blocked in Germany for a while, a couple of million grumpy German Wikipedia fans might be able to show the government the error of their ways.
"What nobody realizes is that if a member on a website posts something inflammatory or they post something libel, and the owner of that website does not take adequate measures to remove that content, then the website administrator/owner SHOULD be held libel for that content."
Actually quite a lot of people realise that the website administrator/owner should not be held LIABLE for that content posted by others. It has been explained many times at great length why this is such a bad thing, including in this article.
You do realise that liable and libel are two quite different words right?
"He lied and cheated fellow Americans, for his own 'gains', but you expect that everything he says is true, when you know he lies and lies for his own means and gains."
This sounds like the the weak and simplistic argument I'd expect from a teenager, complete with mindless patriotism thrown in for good measure.
Snowden lied to the "fellow Americans" whose wrongdoings he wanted to expose, entirely for the benefit of hundreds of millions of other "fellow Americans" and non-Americans.
And what exactly is it you think has he's gained personally? It looks to me like he's made immense sacrifices.
"Gandhi won, and no one has to explain how or why he won, Luther King win and no one had to explain or justify that."
Nice attempt at deflection, but this doesn't pass the laugh test. Millions of words have been written about the actions of both Gandhi and MLK. What they did and the impact they had has been explained at great length.
Oh I'm sure of that. Probably somebody who's made out quite well during the period when record labels had total control over music production and distribution, and a tiny fraction of musicians won the 'label lottery'. Now that control (and hence money) is readily available to all musicians and their fans, and that's terrifying to old-school label types and their pet musicians.
Ignore the musician-hating claims being thrown at Mike and others, it's just a desperate attempt to gain the appearance of a moral high ground.
So now that the producer of the song has proven Mike right and you wrong, as you going to retract your incorrect assertion and apologise for the baseless insults? Or will to keep on digging your deep hole of stupidity?
Yeah, I might've misread that, but I didn't take GoldBlox's comment to imply any claim to authorship of the original song, just that they didn't like the lyrical message. You don't have to 'own' something to have pride in it, or a lack of pride.
"But you do not understand respect for an artist, his/her wishes, or respect for an artist's work."
And you clearly don't understand copyright law and the reasons why it exists. It has nothing to do with respect for an artists wishes and everything to do with encouraging creation of new works (at least that's supposed to be what it's for). Mike's articles on this topic were about the legal issues.
Again with the hate on lyric writers. It's quite extraordinary that people claiming to support musicians would at the same time be so utterly dismissive of the art of writing lyrics. In this case every single word but one was rewritten, but apparently that doesn't count as authorship in your control-freak view of copyright.
Do you have anything to say in support of your dismissive attitude to writing lyrics?
Nice how you fixate on a single word and a simple tune, but completely ignore the 99% lyrical rewrite and the message it contains. Apparently you have no respect for writers and lyricists. Why is that?
That's not a theory, that's the way it's supposed to be. We all realise that it's not though, and that there are some things that are legal that shouldn't be and there are some things that are illegal and shouldn't be. Sometimes this is because societal norms have changed and the laws haven't been updated to match (e.g. anti-homosexuality laws), and sometimes it's because big commercial interests have been prioritised over what's best for society as a whole (e.g. current copyright laws).
On the post: Hollywood Studio Bosses Ask Obama To Help Improve Relationship With Silicon Valley... While Pressing TPP That Will Harm Silicon Valley
Re:
On the post: Clueless French Court Orders Search Engines To Disappear Entire Sites For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've conflated two completely separate issues; the implementation of the distribution service (i.e. the innovation) and the cost of the licensing. If internet distributorship is so easy when licensing isn't an issue, why have the content owners failed so spectacularly in offering their own services? After all, since they don't have to pay fees to themselves for the content (dodgy accounting practices aside...) and it's super easy to throw up a website, the money should just pour in shouldn't it?
"Those so-called "innovators" don't have a business at all were it not for the content of others that they're monetizing for their own profit."
Ugh, this old trope. It's a meaningless statement, which you could equally (and equally stupidly) apply to anybody selling anything made by someone else.
On the post: Clueless French Court Orders Search Engines To Disappear Entire Sites For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
If if a popular innovation is breaking the law, then it's probably a bad law. And in case you've missed it, based on their actions it seems the general public believes that's the case.
On the post: Feinstein And Rogers Try To Scare Americans With Ooga Booga Terrorism Threats
Re: Re:
Shouldn't the potential for having a self-destructing head get you put on the no-fly list?
On the post: German Court Tells Wikimedia Foundation That It's Liable For Things Users Write
Re:
Excellent suggestion. Wikipedia should not be forced to operate under legal threat from one country with outdated laws on secondary liability. Perhaps if Wikipeia was blocked in Germany for a while, a couple of million grumpy German Wikipedia fans might be able to show the government the error of their ways.
On the post: German Court Tells Wikimedia Foundation That It's Liable For Things Users Write
Re:
Actually quite a lot of people realise that the website administrator/owner should not be held LIABLE for that content posted by others. It has been explained many times at great length why this is such a bad thing, including in this article.
You do realise that liable and libel are two quite different words right?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Snowden won. Period.
This sounds like the the weak and simplistic argument I'd expect from a teenager, complete with mindless patriotism thrown in for good measure.
Snowden lied to the "fellow Americans" whose wrongdoings he wanted to expose, entirely for the benefit of hundreds of millions of other "fellow Americans" and non-Americans.
And what exactly is it you think has he's gained personally? It looks to me like he's made immense sacrifices.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Snowden won. Period.
Nice attempt at deflection, but this doesn't pass the laugh test. Millions of words have been written about the actions of both Gandhi and MLK. What they did and the impact they had has been explained at great length.
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
Oh I'm sure of that. Probably somebody who's made out quite well during the period when record labels had total control over music production and distribution, and a tiny fraction of musicians won the 'label lottery'. Now that control (and hence money) is readily available to all musicians and their fans, and that's terrifying to old-school label types and their pet musicians.
Ignore the musician-hating claims being thrown at Mike and others, it's just a desperate attempt to gain the appearance of a moral high ground.
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
So now that the producer of the song has proven Mike right and you wrong, as you going to retract your incorrect assertion and apologise for the baseless insults? Or will to keep on digging your deep hole of stupidity?
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Myth Busting: Yes, An Advertisement Can Be Fair Use Parody
Re: issues of "what is parody"?
You must be trolling, because there's no way anybody could be this stupid...
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re: Respect
And you clearly don't understand copyright law and the reasons why it exists. It has nothing to do with respect for an artists wishes and everything to do with encouraging creation of new works (at least that's supposed to be what it's for). Mike's articles on this topic were about the legal issues.
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re:
Do you have anything to say in support of your dismissive attitude to writing lyrics?
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
On the post: If You Don't Care About The NSA Because You 'Haven't Done Anything Wrong,' You're Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Myth Busting: Yes, An Advertisement Can Be Fair Use Parody
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Myth Busting: Yes, An Advertisement Can Be Fair Use Parody
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually GoldieBlox haven't made that claim, I did, to counter the point that the Beastie Boys are somehow being damaged by this.
"Adam Yauch made it clear his music couldn't be used in ads."
No, he made it clear that they wouldn't give permission if asked. That doesn't rule out the legal use of their music in ads.
"Goldiblox knew they wouldn't get permission to use the song, so instead they did it anyway and tried to claim it was just a parody."
Tried to claim? By any legal or common sense definition, it is a parody.
On the post: If You Don't Care About The NSA Because You 'Haven't Done Anything Wrong,' You're Wrong
Re:
On the post: If You Don't Care About The NSA Because You 'Haven't Done Anything Wrong,' You're Wrong
Re: Re:
Next >>