Sad? No, not really. I've written tons of programs and they're "out there" (perhaps not preceisely in the public domain, as I license them under the GNU Public License, but for all intents and purposes other than strict legality...)
Those programs are of interest to only a very small audience. The transaction costs prevent me from selling it to the 20 or 30 people worldwide who care.
But the fact remains that the programs are out there, people who care can find them and use them. That's of value to me, personally.
Your strict-control, "intellectual property" regime would essentially prevent me from giving my programs for free to the 30 people who are interested. That would be a tragedy in my view. Now, multiply that times however many 10s of thousands of people in my category (http://sourceforge.net, http://belios.de, and many others), and your strict control would be an intellectual tragedy.
I think that was The Anti-Mike, possibly with a new IP address. Same decent writing, same condescending attitude, same argument from authority, same ability to overlook substantial points to criticism small flaws.
Is this guy serious? I expect so, and he's correct. NOBODY had "copyright" for most of the existence of humans. Have you read about the history of copyright? It's pretty modern, dating only to 1709.
Wait a minnit! You're censoring stuff without prior judicial review? That's damnably un-American. Here in Real America, we respect Freedom of Speech. Even if we don't like what's being said, that respect is what sets us, Real America, apart from kingdoms, emirates and sultanates.
I won't stand for this un-American sleaze being bandied about.
I don't know, how do I look at Wikileaks' content and determine infringement?
What's that? Nobody determines "infringement" except by a trial with a judge and jury? How quaint! Now do I program that algorithm into a COICA blacklist? You've got to be specific, I'm just a big ol' dumb programmer, almost a tradesman, not in management at all, and cetainly not lawyer caliber.
Also, what about independent creation? Like Roy Lichtenstein and that other artist recently, who had both done pretty much the same thing, I guess based on "remixin" the same comic book panel, but still, independent invention.
I think they're paid. But I'm waiting for someone to drunkenly spill the beans about the whole sleazy "web forum comment for hire" business.
The Linux crowd fervently believes that Microsoft (and or Wag-Edd) pays large numbers of people to troll linux-related websites, but nobody's come forward with a confession on that one, either.
There's this little problem with "Intellectual Property": independent invention.
For example, a long time ago, I noticed that certain plastic coffee mugs I'd purchased at various truck stops across the midwest made excellent windsheild scrapers. The lip of the mug was flexible, yet strong, and the circular shape allowed scraping during the backstroke as well as the forward stroke. I've used a Tupperware mug for years as a scraper. It's just right, as is a cheap "Koolaid" mug I obtained for several box tops.
It turns out that someone else patented circular windsheild scrapers and therefore owns the "Intellectual Property". Yet I invented it too. Shouldn't that idea be mine as well? I know, according to The Law, that patent indicates the ownership. I know, you don't have to believe me, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
But still, what about independent invention? doesn't the existence of this, which occurs quite often (Elisha Grey vs Alexander Bell, eh?) really, really mess up the philosophical underpinnings of "intellectual property"?
In this case, got any citations that non-compete agreements make states more competitive?
Or maybe I should put it this way:
That's just standard Anti-Mike stupid logic: any claim that contradicts Mike's position is "evidence", and The Anti-Mike doesn't have to cite references at all, just shill some big company position.
That video appears to confirm the "Pinky and The Brain are Running A Country" hypothesis, but since it's the Japanese Coast Guard, maybe they're not in charge in S. Korea.
I wondered if this sort of thing wasn't the purpose of copyrighting/patenting uniforms: "Those evil, sub-human X.Y's! Not only have they performed Evil Act X, but they've also downloaded child porn *and* stolen our ideas!"
Sort of like how every high profile criminal now has a "19 Images of Child Pornography" charge in addition to the drugs, drug paraphenalia, illegal firearms, contraband cigarettes and armor piercing bullets changes.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In practice it already is the default
But you just told me that it wasn't, one or two replies up. You told me that it was an affirmative defense that someone had to have their lawyers prove, as a matter of fact. That's not presumption, except in some narrow legalistic sense.
That's not a common-sense presumption, that's the legal presumption. I don't care for all this lawyerly word-twisting.
Re: Re: Re: Re: In practice it already is the default
As I see it, Mike's point was that at least until recently, upholding freedom of speech was a pretty important US principle. Freedom of speech, particularly unpopular political speech was allowed and even encouraged. Think of the Skokie, Illinois, National Socialist rallies in the 70s, for example.
If we wish to uphold that same kind of freedom of speech, fair use should be presumed, rather than made into a defense. Making fair use into a defense rather than a presumption results in severely diminished freedom of speech.
You seem to be advocating that the status quo works well, and that maybe we should move further in the direction of eliminating fair use.
Having the defendant bear the burden of proving that their use was fair once it's been determined that they in fact did infringe makes sense to me.
It seems like a truism, or a logically circular statement, or a backhand way of saying that infringement should be a finding of fact, something that has to be proved.
But I do like raising the strawman equating infringement with murder. "Theft" isn't quite strong enough, eh?
And then you go on with: I like boring technical talk about burdens and standards of review. You are a lawyer, aren't you?
Clearly, one man's free speech via fair use is another man's theft.
Except that infringement isn't really theft, in that the person infringed upon still has the stuff, which in the case of theft, he or she doesn't. We shouldn't do lawerly debate and use sloppy definitions.
But back to the point. One man's fair use is clearly other folk's infringement. Hence all the lawsuits and threats of lawsuits, and the growing, lobbyist-induced crazy harshness of copyright law. Masnick appears to want us to deal with the contradiction between free speech via fair use, and the legal system's apparent bias in favor of copyright protection, limiting free speech.
And given all the so-called "copyfraud" floating around (I've personally seen the US Constition's Bill of Rights with a (C) on it), this becomes an even bigger issue.
On the post: Imagine If The NY Times Had Ignored Wikileaks Cables
NYT would like like they did on the NSA wiretaps
They would look like servile lapdogs of authority.
On the post: EU Parliament Rubber Stamps ACTA Approval
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.stratigery.com/source.html
Those programs are of interest to only a very small audience. The transaction costs prevent me from selling it to the 20 or 30 people worldwide who care.
But the fact remains that the programs are out there, people who care can find them and use them. That's of value to me, personally.
Your strict-control, "intellectual property" regime would essentially prevent me from giving my programs for free to the 30 people who are interested. That would be a tragedy in my view. Now, multiply that times however many 10s of thousands of people in my category (http://sourceforge.net, http://belios.de, and many others), and your strict control would be an intellectual tragedy.
On the post: EU Parliament Rubber Stamps ACTA Approval
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He'll be back.
On the post: EU Parliament Rubber Stamps ACTA Approval
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re: Re: What about this
I won't stand for this un-American sleaze being bandied about.
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re: Re:
I don't know, how do I look at Wikileaks' content and determine infringement?
What's that? Nobody determines "infringement" except by a trial with a judge and jury? How quaint! Now do I program that algorithm into a COICA blacklist? You've got to be specific, I'm just a big ol' dumb programmer, almost a tradesman, not in management at all, and cetainly not lawyer caliber.
On the post: Jay-Z Explains He Is 'Honored' To Have His Work Remixed By Others
Re: Re:
Also, what about independent creation? Like Roy Lichtenstein and that other artist recently, who had both done pretty much the same thing, I guess based on "remixin" the same comic book panel, but still, independent invention.
On the post: Jay-Z Explains He Is 'Honored' To Have His Work Remixed By Others
Re: Re: I got no talent...
I have no remix here, I just want to pay tribute to this great line:
Drawing a line in the sand serves no purpose other than to claim entitlement for the sake of greed.
On the post: MPAA Boss Defends Censorships With Blatantly False Claims
Re: Re:
The Linux crowd fervently believes that Microsoft (and or Wag-Edd) pays large numbers of people to troll linux-related websites, but nobody's come forward with a confession on that one, either.
On the post: MPAA Boss Defends Censorships With Blatantly False Claims
Re:
"Illegal" doesn't mean "theft". Just like "infringement" doesn't mean "theft".
Physically taking the CD: "theft".
Copying the CD's contents: "infringement".
Not the same thing.
On the post: MPAA Boss Defends Censorships With Blatantly False Claims
Independent Invention
For example, a long time ago, I noticed that certain plastic coffee mugs I'd purchased at various truck stops across the midwest made excellent windsheild scrapers. The lip of the mug was flexible, yet strong, and the circular shape allowed scraping during the backstroke as well as the forward stroke. I've used a Tupperware mug for years as a scraper. It's just right, as is a cheap "Koolaid" mug I obtained for several box tops.
It turns out that someone else patented circular windsheild scrapers and therefore owns the "Intellectual Property". Yet I invented it too. Shouldn't that idea be mine as well? I know, according to The Law, that patent indicates the ownership. I know, you don't have to believe me, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
But still, what about independent invention? doesn't the existence of this, which occurs quite often (Elisha Grey vs Alexander Bell, eh?) really, really mess up the philosophical underpinnings of "intellectual property"?
On the post: Georgia Voters Agree To Allow Human DRM: Non-Competes Made Enforceable
Re:
In this case, got any citations that non-compete agreements make states more competitive?
Or maybe I should put it this way:
That's just standard Anti-Mike stupid logic: any claim that contradicts Mike's position is "evidence", and The Anti-Mike doesn't have to cite references at all, just shill some big company position.
On the post: India The Latest To Think About Kicking People Off The Internet Based On Accusations Of File Sharing
Another article about those film industries
Here's another article, with some anecdotal data, about the film industries in areas with heavy piracy:
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2010/04/how_to_thrive_a.php
On the post: India The Latest To Think About Kicking People Off The Internet Based On Accusations Of File Sharing
Another article about those film industries
On the post: South Korea Tries To Patent Military Uniforms To Prevent North Korean's Dressing Like Them
Re: Re: Welcome to Warner Bros...East
On the post: South Korea Tries To Patent Military Uniforms To Prevent North Korean's Dressing Like Them
Re: add on
Sort of like how every high profile criminal now has a "19 Images of Child Pornography" charge in addition to the drugs, drug paraphenalia, illegal firearms, contraband cigarettes and armor piercing bullets changes.
On the post: If Fair Use Protects Free Speech, Shouldn't It Be Seen As Default Until Proven Otherwise?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In practice it already is the default
That's not a common-sense presumption, that's the legal presumption. I don't care for all this lawyerly word-twisting.
On the post: If Fair Use Protects Free Speech, Shouldn't It Be Seen As Default Until Proven Otherwise?
Re: Re: Re: Re: In practice it already is the default
If we wish to uphold that same kind of freedom of speech, fair use should be presumed, rather than made into a defense. Making fair use into a defense rather than a presumption results in severely diminished freedom of speech.
You seem to be advocating that the status quo works well, and that maybe we should move further in the direction of eliminating fair use.
On the post: If Fair Use Protects Free Speech, Shouldn't It Be Seen As Default Until Proven Otherwise?
Re: Re: In practice it already is the default
I'm sorry, I don't understand why you wrote this:
Having the defendant bear the burden of proving that their use was fair once it's been determined that they in fact did infringe makes sense to me.
It seems like a truism, or a logically circular statement, or a backhand way of saying that infringement should be a finding of fact, something that has to be proved.
But I do like raising the strawman equating infringement with murder. "Theft" isn't quite strong enough, eh?
And then you go on with: I like boring technical talk about burdens and standards of review. You are a lawyer, aren't you?
On the post: If Fair Use Protects Free Speech, Shouldn't It Be Seen As Default Until Proven Otherwise?
Re: In practice it already is the default
Except that infringement isn't really theft, in that the person infringed upon still has the stuff, which in the case of theft, he or she doesn't. We shouldn't do lawerly debate and use sloppy definitions.
But back to the point. One man's fair use is clearly other folk's infringement. Hence all the lawsuits and threats of lawsuits, and the growing, lobbyist-induced crazy harshness of copyright law. Masnick appears to want us to deal with the contradiction between free speech via fair use, and the legal system's apparent bias in favor of copyright protection, limiting free speech.
And given all the so-called "copyfraud" floating around (I've personally seen the US Constition's Bill of Rights with a (C) on it), this becomes an even bigger issue.
Next >>