Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 8:55pm
Re: Re: Cake
I get the feeling that every copyright defender AC views himself or herself as a "Lord", and the rest of us are serf scum.
Of course they do. Many of them are lawyers (even if they really have some other job, like a lobbyist, they're still lawyers). And what's pretty much the only socio-economic class title still in use in the US? Esquire. Used by lawyers.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Oct 2011 @ 5:40am
Re:
Both. Definitely both.
The school claims that it would cost that much because they'd have to spend $5,250 to contract with an outside agency for 25 hours of work to get the emails.
$210 per hour? Seriously? For standard email admin duties?
That's over 5 times what I make per hour in information security at a major bank.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Oct 2011 @ 8:44pm
Re:
The idea of the screening was to identify the truly orphaned works. The fact is that HathiTrust put their best candidates on this list as representative of how great their screening process was. With a little due diligence, several of these orphaned works were shown not to be orphaned after all.
So HathiTrust has some holes in their process. Please name one thing in the entire history of the planet that worked perfectly the very first time?
I have an idea. Why doesn't the Author's Guild and the rest of the publishing industry do something useful and help them make it better?
That was the only useful part of your post. As to the rest, I'll respond in kind:
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Oct 2011 @ 10:33am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By focusing solely on this amorphous thing known as the "public domain"
That's what this case is about. That's all this is about - the removal of works from the public domain. Maybe you need to read the relevant law.
17 USC 104a:
"Any work in which copyright is restored under this section shall subsist for the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted in the United States if the work never entered the public domain in the United States."
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Oct 2011 @ 10:22am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your argument (if I understand it correctly) seems to assume that since this Act cannot incentivize the creation of works that have already been created (itself an obvious impossibility), then the Act is per se unreasonable.
Again with the dissonance. Your first start out saying that I am assuming, with all the negative connotation thereof, something which you then agree with is true. You agree that it is impossible to incentivize the creation of an already existing work.
By definition, a law which tries to do something that is impossible is not reasonable.
there are other incentives created by the Act that can be said "to promote the progress."
I thought we agreed it was impossible to incentivize the creation of already existing works?
Are saying that it is possible to "promote the progress" in regards to future works being created by the government seizing these existing works from the public and then giving them to private interests? If so, might I remind you of the Fifth amendment?
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
So where's my just compensation?
I realize it says private property. In this context, in simple terms, "public" was something which was owned by the government, while "private" was something owned by citizens. Since the case we're talking about is certainly the government taking something away from all citizens to be given to a private interest and no longer usable by the citizens, the Fifth applies.
If that's not your argument, then please be clearer.
As long as the government can point to one way that it "promotes the progress,"
Ok, so point to it. Be specific. Evidence is preferred. And if you can, show how it would not have happened without this act.
You can keep saying "policy" all you want, but policies are created by laws, which are subject to the Constitution.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Oct 2011 @ 8:23am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
but that doesn't make it a constitutional issue.
That's one argument for your side,
Unbelievable. How can you have such blatant cognitive dissonance?
You say there's no Constitutional issue, than 2 seconds later say that I have an argument based on an obvious conflict between the Constitution and this law.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Oct 2011 @ 8:17pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But it wasn't for "no reason." It was to harmonize U.S. with foreign law.
Insert parental comment about friends jumping off bridges.
Just because some other country makes some stupid law doesn't mean we need to harmonize our laws to be just as stupid as them.
All Congress is doing is giving works the remainder of the very copyright term that these works would have had but for the absence of a treaty with certain countries. If there had been a treaty at the time these works were created, they would have gotten this same copyright protection.
Since you seem to have forgotten, and never responded to that part, I already addressed that. I'll repeat:
The works we are referring to had no need of an exclusive right in the US to be created. If they needed an exclusive right, they would've been registered with the Copyright Office, since that was required pre-1976. There is no possible argument you can make to avoid that fact.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Oct 2011 @ 8:01pm
Re: Re: Re:
out of the way so we don't have to deal with his crap anymore.
Just who is this mystical "we"? You and a couple other ACs? Paid lobbyists, shills, and IP lawyers for the dying content industries?
The reason he keeps getting voted up is a ton of people in the TechDirt community like his comments, so you're obviously not talking for any noticeable fraction of the community.
And is Marcus, just posting amusing and insightful comments on a blog, causing your corporate overlords so much trouble that it has driven you to beg for help from Mike Masnick, who you also seem to have the same hate/oppression complex with?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:43pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Court is not going to second guess Congress's policy decision. That's not what courts are for.
Also, that is complete crap.
One of the primary roles of the Court is to slap Congress down when it over-extends itself beyond the powers it has been granted in the Constitution.
I'm not quite sure what could be held up as a better example of Congressional overreach (not to mention corruption) as taking tens of thousands of works of art from the public and granting monopoly privileges over them to some random group of people and companies for no reason other than that random group wants to make money.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 1:27pm
Re: Re: Re:
But how is that difference constitutionally relevant?
You always ignore the first part of the clause. Let's all say it together:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..."
The works we are referring to had no need of an exclusive right in the US to be created. If they needed an exclusive right, they would've been registered with the Copyright Office, since that was required pre-1976. There is no possible argument you can make to avoid that fact.
Granting an heir (that was not involved in the creation of the work) an exclusive right does not promote the progress of the arts either in respect to the previously created works, nor any new ones.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Oct 2011 @ 1:10pm
Re:
Please give the legal foundation for this claim.
I know it's a great shock to you, but in this country, you're (theoretically) supposed to be proven guilty with evidence before you can be convicted of criminal charges.
If you can't show any evidence, then this guy and his lawyer should be able to sit in court with their feet up asleep and still be found innocent of criminal copyright infringement.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Oct 2011 @ 1:01pm
Re: Re: Re:
There is a legitimate alternative, home games are blacked out to 'encourage' fans to attend home games in person.
Legitimate =/= reasonable, nor convenient.
Let's just compare the time commitment between the options.
Watching a hockey game on TV or online takes about 2 hours? Maybe less?
With a quick look at Wikipedia, it appears that the Dallas Stars are the only NHL team in Texas, or practically the entire south central part of the US. But to be fair, we'll choose somewhere in the same metropolitan area. We'll say Fort Worth. Quickest Google maps directions says 38 minutes, one way. So 76 minutes round trip travel time. Assuming zero traffic.
Now, you definitely need to get there ahead of time to find a parking spot, get through the gate, find your seat, and such. We'll call that 30 minutes.
Then 2 hours for the game.
Then its time to leave. Yeah, get out the exit, get to your car, and get through the mess of the parking lot. I'll be generous and give you 20 minutes, apparently every other driver just gets out of your way.
If I'm mistaken about the 2 hours it normally takes a game to be played, and its shorter, this is even worse in our comparison. How about if you're in another city. Next large city I see nearby would by Tyler - that's a 2 hour drive each way.
Now, I did not even touch on monetary commitment. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Bottom line: if the content producers (in this case, the NHL), don't offer an experience that is both reasonable and convenient to their customer's wishes, then their customers will not be reasonable to the content producers wishes (getting their money).
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 5 Oct 2011 @ 1:18pm
Re:
^This.
How about all those artists complaints about the record labels screwing them out of their royalties. Sounds like every single financial record should be seized and searched.
How about the DEA start searching everything at Universal and its subsidiaries without warrants. They're drug traffickers, remember?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 7:19am
Re:
Computers have the bias that the programmers built into them. If it's some sort of pseudo-neural network learning system (ie Watson), then it's biased by the previous data it incorporated, plus any bias that was built in.
Second rule of tech support: computers always do exactly what you tell them to do, not what you mean for them to do.
On the post: Different Treatment For Tech Related Law-Breaking Depending On Whether Or Not You Have Power
Re: Re: Cake
Of course they do. Many of them are lawyers (even if they really have some other job, like a lobbyist, they're still lawyers). And what's pretty much the only socio-economic class title still in use in the US? Esquire. Used by lawyers.
On the post: Student Journalists Sue Community College For Ridiculously High Fees On Open Records Request
Re:
The school claims that it would cost that much because they'd have to spend $5,250 to contract with an outside agency for 25 hours of work to get the emails.
$210 per hour? Seriously? For standard email admin duties?
That's over 5 times what I make per hour in information security at a major bank.
On the post: Unfortunate: Novelist Joins Lawsuit Against Libraries; Would Apparently Prefer His Book Rot In Obscurity
Re:
So HathiTrust has some holes in their process. Please name one thing in the entire history of the planet that worked perfectly the very first time?
I have an idea. Why doesn't the Author's Guild and the rest of the publishing industry do something useful and help them make it better?
That was the only useful part of your post. As to the rest, I'll respond in kind:
Hey asshole, go die in a fire.
On the post: Did ICE 'Pirate' Its Anti-Piracy PSA?
Re:
Can I use this argument when someone accuses me of pirating something and tries to get my internet connection shutdown?
On the post: Lawrence Golan Speaks About Golan V. Holder And His Fight To Protect The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's what this case is about. That's all this is about - the removal of works from the public domain. Maybe you need to read the relevant law.
17 USC 104a:
"Any work in which copyright is restored under this section shall subsist for the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted in the United States if the work never entered the public domain in the United States."
On the post: Lawrence Golan Speaks About Golan V. Holder And His Fight To Protect The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again with the dissonance. Your first start out saying that I am assuming, with all the negative connotation thereof, something which you then agree with is true. You agree that it is impossible to incentivize the creation of an already existing work.
By definition, a law which tries to do something that is impossible is not reasonable.
there are other incentives created by the Act that can be said "to promote the progress."
I thought we agreed it was impossible to incentivize the creation of already existing works?
Are saying that it is possible to "promote the progress" in regards to future works being created by the government seizing these existing works from the public and then giving them to private interests? If so, might I remind you of the Fifth amendment?
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
So where's my just compensation?
I realize it says private property. In this context, in simple terms, "public" was something which was owned by the government, while "private" was something owned by citizens. Since the case we're talking about is certainly the government taking something away from all citizens to be given to a private interest and no longer usable by the citizens, the Fifth applies.
If that's not your argument, then please be clearer.
As long as the government can point to one way that it "promotes the progress,"
Ok, so point to it. Be specific. Evidence is preferred. And if you can, show how it would not have happened without this act.
You can keep saying "policy" all you want, but policies are created by laws, which are subject to the Constitution.
On the post: Lawrence Golan Speaks About Golan V. Holder And His Fight To Protect The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's one argument for your side,
Unbelievable. How can you have such blatant cognitive dissonance?
You say there's no Constitutional issue, than 2 seconds later say that I have an argument based on an obvious conflict between the Constitution and this law.
On the post: Lawrence Golan Speaks About Golan V. Holder And His Fight To Protect The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Insert parental comment about friends jumping off bridges.
Just because some other country makes some stupid law doesn't mean we need to harmonize our laws to be just as stupid as them.
All Congress is doing is giving works the remainder of the very copyright term that these works would have had but for the absence of a treaty with certain countries. If there had been a treaty at the time these works were created, they would have gotten this same copyright protection.
Since you seem to have forgotten, and never responded to that part, I already addressed that. I'll repeat:
The works we are referring to had no need of an exclusive right in the US to be created. If they needed an exclusive right, they would've been registered with the Copyright Office, since that was required pre-1976. There is no possible argument you can make to avoid that fact.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
Just who is this mystical "we"? You and a couple other ACs? Paid lobbyists, shills, and IP lawyers for the dying content industries?
The reason he keeps getting voted up is a ton of people in the TechDirt community like his comments, so you're obviously not talking for any noticeable fraction of the community.
And is Marcus, just posting amusing and insightful comments on a blog, causing your corporate overlords so much trouble that it has driven you to beg for help from Mike Masnick, who you also seem to have the same hate/oppression complex with?
On the post: Lawrence Golan Speaks About Golan V. Holder And His Fight To Protect The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, that is complete crap.
One of the primary roles of the Court is to slap Congress down when it over-extends itself beyond the powers it has been granted in the Constitution.
I'm not quite sure what could be held up as a better example of Congressional overreach (not to mention corruption) as taking tens of thousands of works of art from the public and granting monopoly privileges over them to some random group of people and companies for no reason other than that random group wants to make money.
On the post: Lawrence Golan Speaks About Golan V. Holder And His Fight To Protect The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think I see the problem.
On the post: Lawrence Golan Speaks About Golan V. Holder And His Fight To Protect The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re:
You always ignore the first part of the clause. Let's all say it together:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..."
The works we are referring to had no need of an exclusive right in the US to be created. If they needed an exclusive right, they would've been registered with the Copyright Office, since that was required pre-1976. There is no possible argument you can make to avoid that fact.
Granting an heir (that was not involved in the creation of the work) an exclusive right does not promote the progress of the arts either in respect to the previously created works, nor any new ones.
On the post: Justice Department Threatening US Sports Blogs Because Commenters Linked To Streaming Content
Re:
I know it's a great shock to you, but in this country, you're (theoretically) supposed to be proven guilty with evidence before you can be convicted of criminal charges.
If you can't show any evidence, then this guy and his lawyer should be able to sit in court with their feet up asleep and still be found innocent of criminal copyright infringement.
On the post: Justice Department Threatening US Sports Blogs Because Commenters Linked To Streaming Content
Re: Re: Re:
Legitimate =/= reasonable, nor convenient.
Let's just compare the time commitment between the options.
Watching a hockey game on TV or online takes about 2 hours? Maybe less?
With a quick look at Wikipedia, it appears that the Dallas Stars are the only NHL team in Texas, or practically the entire south central part of the US. But to be fair, we'll choose somewhere in the same metropolitan area. We'll say Fort Worth. Quickest Google maps directions says 38 minutes, one way. So 76 minutes round trip travel time. Assuming zero traffic.
Now, you definitely need to get there ahead of time to find a parking spot, get through the gate, find your seat, and such. We'll call that 30 minutes.
Then 2 hours for the game.
Then its time to leave. Yeah, get out the exit, get to your car, and get through the mess of the parking lot. I'll be generous and give you 20 minutes, apparently every other driver just gets out of your way.
2 hours + 76 minutes + 30 minutes + 20 minutes = over 4 hours
That's double the time commitment.
If I'm mistaken about the 2 hours it normally takes a game to be played, and its shorter, this is even worse in our comparison. How about if you're in another city. Next large city I see nearby would by Tyler - that's a 2 hour drive each way.
Now, I did not even touch on monetary commitment. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Bottom line: if the content producers (in this case, the NHL), don't offer an experience that is both reasonable and convenient to their customer's wishes, then their customers will not be reasonable to the content producers wishes (getting their money).
On the post: Monster Cable Claims EBay, Craigslist, Costco & Sears Are 'Rogue Sites'
Re: Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
On the post: RIAA Law Lets Law Enforcement Ignore 4th Amendment, Search Private Property With No Warrants
Re:
How about all those artists complaints about the record labels screwing them out of their royalties. Sounds like every single financial record should be seized and searched.
How about the DEA start searching everything at Universal and its subsidiaries without warrants. They're drug traffickers, remember?
On the post: France Continues Mass Processing Of Infringement Accusations: 60 People Get Third Strike Notice... 650,000 Get First Strike
Re: Re:
Only if you run a for-profit out-of-France proxy service.
On the post: France Continues Mass Processing Of Infringement Accusations: 60 People Get Third Strike Notice... 650,000 Get First Strike
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only when they're "recouped" - which we all know with RIAA/MPAA accounting practices, is somewhere between heat-death-of-the-universe and never.
Are you suggesting that stealing from one group instead of another is justifiable?
Question - how do you justify stealing from the public when previously public domain content is forced back under copyright?
On the post: As Countries Sign ACTA, Many Finally Admit Their Copyright Laws Will Need To Change
Re:
All the lobbyists, all the time and negotiating, all the influence and goodwill used, it's all a complete waste.
ACTA won't solve "the problem." It won't dent or slow down piracy. It won't make the entertainment industry even a cent more money.
On the post: Could Computers Predict Political Unrest Like They Predict The Weather?
Re:
Second rule of tech support: computers always do exactly what you tell them to do, not what you mean for them to do.
Next >>