"Protecting copyright" may be the stated purpose of DRM, but it is not the intended purpose (that would be control, not protection) nor is is the real-world result. As a protection measure it's proven to be completely ineffective.
"And are you admitting that this does weaken copyright holders rights?"
Let's play your silly game. YES, it would (not "does") weaken copyright holders rights, by taking away legal rights they absolutely should not have. These rights contradict the true purpose of copyright (encouraging creativity) so removing them does not weaken copyright one bit.
"Yet, you only hyper-focus on the outliers. What's the matter with a little perspective on things, Mike?"
What perspective is required for a story about four film studios all trying to illegally suppress a film about a website they hate, and which is (probably) critical of their actions? This isn't just just an "outlier", this is an egregious example of copyright abuse as censorship, an act that is the complete antithesis of the stated supposed of copyright, i.e. encouraging creativity.
"Mike wants to separate the means from the ends. He wants to promote the progress so long as we don't do it by granting to authors exclusive rights."
Mike has never claimed such a thing. And your imagination does not count as evidence that he has.
"It's important to pretend like the two aren't interrelated since he hates the means so much."
No, its pretty clear that Mike and many others hate the damage those means, in their current form, are causing. Whatever the desired results from copyright, when the current downsides are considered it's hard to justify keeping the system unless it's massively reformed.
"That's why he always and only focuses on the negatives, or his version of the negatives anyway, of copyright. He'll never put things into perspective or acknowledge that there are even positives."
To be fair, it's pretty hard to see the positives. Feel free to present evidence of modern copyright producing the results intended when it was enacted. In fact, why don't you start your own 'Great Things About Copyright' blog so we can all see how awesome you think things really are!
"His mantra is that it's completely broken..."
That's pretty much the case...
"...and his dream is to see the day when authors have no exclusive rights whatsoever."
... but this claim is the product of your imagination and is not backed up by any evidence you've ever shared here.
"No matter who your friends are, your viewpoints support infringement lawsuits and the lawyers who benefit from them. And nothing else."
This can't be emphasised enough. AJ is just like so many other copyright maximilists who claim to be all about supporting artists, but on closer inspection their arguments are clearly in support of a system that makes a lot of money from artists (via recored companies) but offers nothing in return.
He will never name them. Chances are he's simply making them up to bolster his weak arguments, but if not, I imagine they'd be horribly embarrassed to be publicly linked to someone like AJ.
...as soon as he sets foot anywhere with an extradition treaty with the US, he will get bagged, gagged, and tagged with a one way ticket to the US.
Anywhere with an extradition treaty with the US, just like NZ. What makes you think things would happen any differently in another country. The US's case isn't going to suddenly change from laughably weak to extradition-worthy overnight.
"I didn't claim that, so I am not sure what you feel you corrected. I stated only that "512(f) is there specifically to handle people claiming to hold copyright on something they do not own", but that does not limit to ONLY that purpose."
Actually that's exactly how your comment reads. If that's not what you meant you shouldn't have used the word 'specifically'. In this context it is indeed a limiting statement.
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Protecting copyright" may be the stated purpose of DRM, but it is not the intended purpose (that would be control, not protection) nor is is the real-world result. As a protection measure it's proven to be completely ineffective.
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re:
Let's play your silly game. YES, it would (not "does") weaken copyright holders rights, by taking away legal rights they absolutely should not have. These rights contradict the true purpose of copyright (encouraging creativity) so removing them does not weaken copyright one bit.
On the post: Major Hollywood Studios All Sent Bogus DMCA Takedowns Concerning The Pirate Bay Documentary
Re:
What perspective is required for a story about four film studios all trying to illegally suppress a film about a website they hate, and which is (probably) critical of their actions? This isn't just just an "outlier", this is an egregious example of copyright abuse as censorship, an act that is the complete antithesis of the stated supposed of copyright, i.e. encouraging creativity.
On the post: Court Finds Fantasy Stories Obscene
Re: Yet again, Mike can't find a lower bound.
[blah, blah]
Mike is constantly...
[blah, blah]
Mike expects...
[blah, blah]
Mike refuses...
[blah, blah]"
So no logical or meaningful response to the article, just a series of personal attacks. Your contributions couldn't be more worthless if you tried.
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
Liar.
Liar.
Liar.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/02490722336/how-hollywoods -own-pirates-must-inform-future-copyright.shtml#c1524
On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform
Re: Re: A sad misunderstanding
Mike has never claimed such a thing. And your imagination does not count as evidence that he has.
"It's important to pretend like the two aren't interrelated since he hates the means so much."
No, its pretty clear that Mike and many others hate the damage those means, in their current form, are causing. Whatever the desired results from copyright, when the current downsides are considered it's hard to justify keeping the system unless it's massively reformed.
"That's why he always and only focuses on the negatives, or his version of the negatives anyway, of copyright. He'll never put things into perspective or acknowledge that there are even positives."
To be fair, it's pretty hard to see the positives. Feel free to present evidence of modern copyright producing the results intended when it was enacted. In fact, why don't you start your own 'Great Things About Copyright' blog so we can all see how awesome you think things really are!
"His mantra is that it's completely broken..."
That's pretty much the case...
"...and his dream is to see the day when authors have no exclusive rights whatsoever."
... but this claim is the product of your imagination and is not backed up by any evidence you've ever shared here.
On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform
Re: The Mike Masnick Copyright Reform Plan
We're sorry you're too stupid to understand this, even though it's not that complicated.
On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform
Re: Re: Re:
You are many things Joe, but scary definitely isn't one of them.
And what the hell is "high-level" about any of this? It certainly ain't rocket science.
On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This can't be emphasised enough. AJ is just like so many other copyright maximilists who claim to be all about supporting artists, but on closer inspection their arguments are clearly in support of a system that makes a lot of money from artists (via recored companies) but offers nothing in return.
On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform
Re: Re:
Of course I'm happy to be proven wrong on this...
On the post: Saudi Religious Police: Anyone Using Twitter 'Has Lost This World And His Afterlife'
Re: Re:
Really? Half of humanity believes we should be under the control of religious police? You sure about that?
On the post: Saudi Religious Police: Anyone Using Twitter 'Has Lost This World And His Afterlife'
Re: Re: Saudi Religious Police
...people are the problem."
Religion is people. The problem is religious people.
On the post: NZ Supreme Court Will Review Kim Dotcom's Extradition Case
Re: Too bad for Him
Anywhere with an extradition treaty with the US, just like NZ. What makes you think things would happen any differently in another country. The US's case isn't going to suddenly change from laughably weak to extradition-worthy overnight.
On the post: Eric Holder Claims Terrorists Are Involved In 'IP Theft'
Re: Re: Re:
Does this mean his training as a lawyer is complete?
On the post: Did Paul Duffy's Wife Admit That He Was Engaged In Interstate Extortion On Facebook?
Re: Mike admitz what we knowz: "I'm no expert on extortion law".
There is nothing funnier than watching someone, you in particular, trying and failing to burn someone with completely incorrect info.
I wonder what your definition of schadenfreude is?
On the post: Once Again Top Downloaders Are Top Spenders, According To UK Gov't Study
Re: Re:
On the post: Key Legal Fight Shaping Up Over The Legality Of DMCA Abuses
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting fight, but...
Actually that's exactly how your comment reads. If that's not what you meant you shouldn't have used the word 'specifically'. In this context it is indeed a limiting statement.
On the post: Blogger Issues DMCA Notice To Take Down Posts Infringing His 'How To Infringe' Post
Re: You just admitted the basis of copyright:
Ghosh's post is covered automatically by copyright. Everyone knows that. It's not an endorsement or criticism of copyright, it's a statement of fact.
No surprise you see humour where there is none. 'Crazy person laughs out loud at nothing' is hardly newsworthy.
On the post: Silliest Argument Ever: Just Because A YouTube Paywall Launches It Means More Money Is Made
Re: "where I play the role of the lone dissenter"???
No, you're the only one around here stupid enough to take an obviously humorous phrase literally.
Next >>