Every time I look for answers from Mike all I find is: "It's broken! Big problem!"
Like I said above - if you are looking for someone to give you an one-size-fits-all plan for success than you are a bona fide idiot.
The idea of Step 2 was never for Mike (or anyone) to fill in what YOUR Step 2 is, that's YOUR job, not anyone else's. It's simply a platform for kicking around ideas with like-minded individuals.
Not sure what your problem is with Step 2 really, if you don't like, don't use it. It's that simple. To use Step 2 as something to attack Mike with just demonstrates YOUR insecurities with new ideas and shows how weak your arguments against this site really are.
You completely skip over that the Step 2 site is a FAILURE and that is SURELY due to Mike's lack of vision AND execution.
Step 2 cannot be a failure because it's not a black & white, win or lose kind of thing. It's a forum to kick around ideas. Nothing more, nothing less. If even one person used the information gleaned there to further their own success then it's most definitely not a failure by anyone's standard.
And if you are looking for someone to tell give you a one-size-fits-all plan to achieve success than you are a bona fide idiot. Every person, every business and every endeavor is unique and has it's own unique challenges. Step 2 provides a platform to discuss these challenges with other like-minded individuals.
I'm 100% positive in my belief that you, Blue, are the least most qualified person in the world to determine whether Step 2 is a success or not.
In order to initiate an enforcement proceeding on must first register their "work" with the Copyright Office. No registration? No lawsuit.
Also not true. If you register a copyright prior to infringement you are entitled to statutory damages and attorney's fees. Without registration you are only entitled to actual damages, but you can still file a lawsuit for infringement.
Notice removed as requirement in 1995, but failure to use it forecloses certain remedies. One is that without such a notice you cannot cut off an innocent infringer d3fense.
Actually, the requirement was removed with the Copyright Act of 1976 and the 1988 Berne Convention Implementation Act. It's optional for any work created on and after March 1, 1989.
As for the innocent infringement defense, that doesn't negate a finding of infringement at all, although it may be effective for reducing the punishment for infringement, it's really an uphill battle for the defendant to prove regardless of whether is there is a copyright notice or not.
Not necessarily as their is an additional requirement, among others, that the work exhibit some modicum of creativity. An objective standard for what constitutes creativity has never, to my knowledge, been recited in case law, but it remains a legal requirement nevertheless.
That standard is the the work has to have a "minimum of creativity". Everything I listed would qualify. What wouldn't qualify would be a phone book or a list of ingredients for a recipe (ie: a database of facts, per the Feist ruling).
Moreover, no matter what the standard, a necessary condition of being able to prevent/limit the use of a work preserved under copyright is that of formal registration, and an optional one that enhances remedies pre-registration is the use of formal notices of copyright on each work.
Formal registration and/or copyright notices have not been required since the Copyright Act of 1976.
As I noted the standard is not a high bar, but in practical terms the vast majority of what some may wish to consider an original work of authorship (whether or not it really is) are of such a nature that enforcement is merely a theoretical possibility and nothing more.
It's not just a theoretical possibility - it's hard coded in copyright statutes and case law. Pretty much everything is copyrighted at the moment it's fixed to a tangible medium and that most certainly includes your daily emails and whatnot. Everyone IS a creator these days, there is no distinction between a "professional creator" and someone who creates stuff within the scope of their daily lives in the eyes of copyright law.
People create content and utilize content, but this statement is largely irrelevant. Copyright law is directed to original works of authorship, and while the legal standard for what constitutes a work of authorship is not as rigorous as some may prefer, the simple matter is that most of the day to day content that people prepare are hardly within the scope of the term "original work of authorship".
Original Work Of Authorship A standard for copyright protection. Under copyright law, a work is considered original, if it owes its origin to the author -- that is, it is the result of independent effort, and not the result of copying.
There is nothing in that definition that infers anything about the "significance" or "relevance" of a work.
The only requirements are:
- It's fixed in a tangible medium - That it's original and not a copy - That it's not a "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery"
That covers daily emails, doodles on a napkin, post-it notes on the fridge and the snowman your kids made on the front lawn. All covered by copyright the moment they created.
Re: Re: You are on thin AFTER any court order. Cut your losses and fight elsewhere.
...just couldnt wait to puke up your nonsense huh blue?
In the last couple of weeks, as more and more people have been hitting the report button and simply ignoring Blue instead of replying to him (his comments usually get hidden within 10 or 15 minutes of being posted these days) I've also noticed a slight tone of underlying desperation in his comments. It's rather amusing really.
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone spent just a few seconds on Wikipedia to educate themselves about the meaning of "copyright" before commenting on it.
I'm pretty sure the comment you responded to is from a commenter who used to post with the screenname darryl, based on the style and poor writing skills.
He has never educated himself on any topic prior to commenting on it, as far as I know.
Re: Re: Mike sez: "I've read nearly a dozen articles... [mmm...] breasts" --I just bet yoiu have.
Lately I've been thinking of that Monkeyscript from a few years ago that would automatically hide darryl's comments and if it could be modified not only to hide Blue's comments, but also automatically click the report button if it's not checked.
And before anyone jumps on my shit for wanting to suppress Blue's Free Speech rights - he would still have the right to his speech, but I also have the right to ignore his crazy rants if I choose to.
Re: Guess posting more interesting links is all I can do to protest this re-hash.
I particularly like the next; nobody in the real world likes weenies cutting in:
Oh those crazy Frenchies! Parisian cabbies smash up Uber-booked rival ride Votre app américain sale n'a pas été cherché ici, imbécile!
Are you really cheering the malicious destruction of private property owned by those who simply choose to compete in a previously monopolized business?
This is a new low, even for you, Blue. I guess the moral standards that you attempted to impart on the unwashed masses here are as hypocritical as the rest of your rhetoric.
"likely he used a SQL injection vulnerability" -- That IS hacking. Fact: those don't attempt to find "vulnerabilities" on web-sites are unlikely to be reported to police. It's almost as though they're telling budding "hackers" not to make such attempts but try to find something useful to do with their time. This level of hacking requires almost zero knowledge or skill, no more than running a simple program. So why do it?
Why do it? I'll tell you why Blue. It's rather simple and I'm surprised you don't get it.
Hacking in this manner is a modern day version of questioning authority. These hackers are pushing the edge just to determine the limits of these systems. They are simply questioning the authority of those limiting what they can achieve with their knowledge and a computer.
For someone who constantly rails against Government and "The Rich", this appears to be another of your disconnect areas. You scream and yell that we should be questioning those in authority, but if your labeled a "hacker" then you are supposed shut up and meekly follow all the rules. That doesn't make much sense, Once again, your consistency is lacking.
Re: Answer to question: WHENEVER POSSIBLE, The Rich and Gov't are totally amoral at best, with anti-moral the goal!
"I made it, therefore I own it, you do not" is fundamental morality, can not be reduced nor denied.
That is how physical property and intellectual property works up to a point, but you haven't carried that thought out far enough to discern the difference between the two.
For physical property it's: "I made it, therefore I own it, you do not. I have now sold it to you, therefore YOU own it and I do not."
That is completely different than how copyright works, which is: "I made it, therefore I own it. I have now sold it to you, but I STILL own it and you don't."
Are you really advocating for abolishing copyright? Because every time you conflate physical property with intellectual property in this manner, it seems like you are wanting intellectual property to be just like physical property, which would require the abolishment of copyright laws.
On the post: Should Rap Lyrics Be Admissable Evidence?
Re: Can't copyright be used to exclude this evidence? If not, what is copyright good for?
That only applies to you, Blue.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: All-time Funniest Mike-ism:
Like I said above - if you are looking for someone to give you an one-size-fits-all plan for success than you are a bona fide idiot.
The idea of Step 2 was never for Mike (or anyone) to fill in what YOUR Step 2 is, that's YOUR job, not anyone else's. It's simply a platform for kicking around ideas with like-minded individuals.
Not sure what your problem is with Step 2 really, if you don't like, don't use it. It's that simple. To use Step 2 as something to attack Mike with just demonstrates YOUR insecurities with new ideas and shows how weak your arguments against this site really are.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: All-time Funniest Mike-ism:
Step 2 cannot be a failure because it's not a black & white, win or lose kind of thing. It's a forum to kick around ideas. Nothing more, nothing less. If even one person used the information gleaned there to further their own success then it's most definitely not a failure by anyone's standard.
And if you are looking for someone to tell give you a one-size-fits-all plan to achieve success than you are a bona fide idiot. Every person, every business and every endeavor is unique and has it's own unique challenges. Step 2 provides a platform to discuss these challenges with other like-minded individuals.
I'm 100% positive in my belief that you, Blue, are the least most qualified person in the world to determine whether Step 2 is a success or not.
On the post: Copyright Week: If We Want To Get Copyright Right, It's Time To Go Back To Basics
Re:
Also not true. If you register a copyright prior to infringement you are entitled to statutory damages and attorney's fees. Without registration you are only entitled to actual damages, but you can still file a lawsuit for infringement.
Notice removed as requirement in 1995, but failure to use it forecloses certain remedies. One is that without such a notice you cannot cut off an innocent infringer d3fense.
Actually, the requirement was removed with the Copyright Act of 1976 and the 1988 Berne Convention Implementation Act. It's optional for any work created on and after March 1, 1989.
As for the innocent infringement defense, that doesn't negate a finding of infringement at all, although it may be effective for reducing the punishment for infringement, it's really an uphill battle for the defendant to prove regardless of whether is there is a copyright notice or not.
On the post: Copyright Week: If We Want To Get Copyright Right, It's Time To Go Back To Basics
Re: Re: Re:
That standard is the the work has to have a "minimum of creativity". Everything I listed would qualify. What wouldn't qualify would be a phone book or a list of ingredients for a recipe (ie: a database of facts, per the Feist ruling).
Moreover, no matter what the standard, a necessary condition of being able to prevent/limit the use of a work preserved under copyright is that of formal registration, and an optional one that enhances remedies pre-registration is the use of formal notices of copyright on each work.
Formal registration and/or copyright notices have not been required since the Copyright Act of 1976.
As I noted the standard is not a high bar, but in practical terms the vast majority of what some may wish to consider an original work of authorship (whether or not it really is) are of such a nature that enforcement is merely a theoretical possibility and nothing more.
It's not just a theoretical possibility - it's hard coded in copyright statutes and case law. Pretty much everything is copyrighted at the moment it's fixed to a tangible medium and that most certainly includes your daily emails and whatnot. Everyone IS a creator these days, there is no distinction between a "professional creator" and someone who creates stuff within the scope of their daily lives in the eyes of copyright law.
On the post: Copyright Week: If We Want To Get Copyright Right, It's Time To Go Back To Basics
Re:
That is not correct - at all.
From Nolo's Law Dictionary:
There is nothing in that definition that infers anything about the "significance" or "relevance" of a work.
The only requirements are:
- It's fixed in a tangible medium
- That it's original and not a copy
- That it's not a "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery"
That covers daily emails, doodles on a napkin, post-it notes on the fridge and the snowman your kids made on the front lawn. All covered by copyright the moment they created.
On the post: Copyright Week: Fair Use Is Not An 'Exception' But The Rule
Re: Re: "Copyright Week" is actually Piracy Week.
On the post: Alabama Court Shuts Blogger Up With Prior Restraint Court Order, Indefinite Jailing For Contempt Of Court
Re: Re: You are on thin AFTER any court order. Cut your losses and fight elsewhere.
In the last couple of weeks, as more and more people have been hitting the report button and simply ignoring Blue instead of replying to him (his comments usually get hidden within 10 or 15 minutes of being posted these days) I've also noticed a slight tone of underlying desperation in his comments. It's rather amusing really.
On the post: Copyright Week: How Copyright Is Being Use To Destroy Property Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re: It gets even better...
I'm pretty sure the comment you responded to is from a commenter who used to post with the screenname darryl, based on the style and poor writing skills.
He has never educated himself on any topic prior to commenting on it, as far as I know.
On the post: Empire State Building Supposedly Sues Photographer Over Photograph Of Topless Woman
Re: Re: Mike sez: "I've read nearly a dozen articles... [mmm...] breasts" --I just bet yoiu have.
And before anyone jumps on my shit for wanting to suppress Blue's Free Speech rights - he would still have the right to his speech, but I also have the right to ignore his crazy rants if I choose to.
On the post: Jury Finds Two Officers Charged In Beating Death Of Homeless Man Not Guilty
Re: Re: Re: THIS is "lack of due process", kids, not that Kim Dotcom doesn't have a US address to be served papers.
Yes, I know. I gave up on trying to engage Blue in any sort of meaningful conversation awhile ago.
I usually only reply to point out [his/her/it's] inconsistencies and hypocrisies, so that they are "on record", per se.
Although occasionally, I just can't seem to resist needling Blue a bit, mainly because [he/she/it] annoys me to no end.
On the post: Jury Finds Two Officers Charged In Beating Death Of Homeless Man Not Guilty
Re: THIS is "lack of due process", kids, not that Kim Dotcom doesn't have a US address to be served papers.
Once again your inconsistency is showing Blue. Earlier today you cheered for the French taxicab drivers who used violence against a Uber vehicle.
So basically your message is that violence is bad, unless it's against something you dislike. You are a hypocrite.
On the post: Detailed Study Suggests NSA Rarely Useful In Stopping Terrorism
Re: Guess posting more interesting links is all I can do to protest this re-hash.
Oh those crazy Frenchies! Parisian cabbies smash up Uber-booked rival ride
Votre app américain sale n'a pas été cherché ici, imbécile!
Are you really cheering the malicious destruction of private property owned by those who simply choose to compete in a previously monopolized business?
This is a new low, even for you, Blue. I guess the moral standards that you attempted to impart on the unwashed masses here are as hypocritical as the rest of your rhetoric.
On the post: USPTO: The Term 'Redskins' Is Offensive And Can't Be Trademarked
Re: Festive collection of Flowers for Brazil
On the post: Australian Teen Alerts Transit Department To Security Hole On Website... Gets Reported To Police
Re:
Fact: those don't attempt to find "vulnerabilities" on web-sites are unlikely to be reported to police. It's almost as though they're telling budding "hackers" not to make such attempts but try to find something useful to do with their time. This level of hacking requires almost zero knowledge or skill, no more than running a simple program. So why do it?
Why do it? I'll tell you why Blue. It's rather simple and I'm surprised you don't get it.
Hacking in this manner is a modern day version of questioning authority. These hackers are pushing the edge just to determine the limits of these systems. They are simply questioning the authority of those limiting what they can achieve with their knowledge and a computer.
For someone who constantly rails against Government and "The Rich", this appears to be another of your disconnect areas. You scream and yell that we should be questioning those in authority, but if your labeled a "hacker" then you are supposed shut up and meekly follow all the rules. That doesn't make much sense, Once again, your consistency is lacking.
On the post: Little Evidence Of 'Infringement Risk' For 'Copyright Intensive' Companies
Re: Re: Re: You kids are fighting the battles Hollywood wants you to!
Yes, Blue, you are a legend in your own mind for sure.
To everyone else you are the village idiot and you are too stoopid (to use your terminology) to even realize it.
But, keep it up anyways, Blue. The comic relief you provide is priceless.
On the post: Little Evidence Of 'Infringement Risk' For 'Copyright Intensive' Companies
Re: Re: Re: Re: So your stoopid trivial point is they're doing okay despite rampant piracy?
I guess it wasn't really irony, though. It's wasn't really for comic effect. We get enough of that reading your comments these days.
Hypocritical cognitive dissonance describes what you do here everyday better.
On the post: Little Evidence Of 'Infringement Risk' For 'Copyright Intensive' Companies
Re: Re: Re: So your stoopid trivial point is they're doing okay despite rampant piracy?
Too funny. You really need a decent mirror, Blue.
I took your comment at DannyB about empty yapping and applied it to your empty yapping.
I'm sorry that you are not intelligent enough to get the irony.
On the post: Little Evidence Of 'Infringement Risk' For 'Copyright Intensive' Companies
Re: So your stoopid trivial point is they're doing okay despite rampant piracy?
On the post: Huawei's Global Head Of Cyber Security Wants The Government 'To Have As Much Data As Possible'
Re: Answer to question: WHENEVER POSSIBLE, The Rich and Gov't are totally amoral at best, with anti-moral the goal!
That is how physical property and intellectual property works up to a point, but you haven't carried that thought out far enough to discern the difference between the two.
For physical property it's: "I made it, therefore I own it, you do not. I have now sold it to you, therefore YOU own it and I do not."
That is completely different than how copyright works, which is: "I made it, therefore I own it. I have now sold it to you, but I STILL own it and you don't."
Are you really advocating for abolishing copyright? Because every time you conflate physical property with intellectual property in this manner, it seems like you are wanting intellectual property to be just like physical property, which would require the abolishment of copyright laws.
Next >>