"I don't use regular dictionaries when looking up legal terms."
Eric Holder is not using "theft" as a legal term, otherwise he'd be charging MU with theft. He's using it as a copyright maximalist's scare term based entirely on the commonly understood dictionary definition.
"You inject your moral judgment into this. Drugs, weapons, child porn, money laundering and digital theft are all crimes and each harm a segment of society."
And the harm to society caused by drugs, weapons, child porn and money laundering and all far, far worse than the harm supposedly caused by "digital theft", i.e. copyright infringement. It's extraordinary that your own moral compass is so misguided that you would think these things are on the same level of harm. I'm not sure which possibility is worse; that you think copyright infringement is just as bad or if the others are not really all that harmful.
" Why won't Mike Masnick disclose which companies are paying him to lobby against creator's protections?"
Why don't you go first? Comments like yours don't come from people who don't have vested interests. Are you an actual creator? Or are you just part of the industry that leeches off creators?
Besides, copyright's primary purpose is supposed to be to benefit society as a whole, not simply as "creator's protections". So if there's evidence that the harm to society is greater than the benefit (and there demonstrably is), then everyone should be speaking out against it.
"The reason for patents is without them cos will not invest in R&D becasue if a product is successful in teh mktplace others will copy it. Then there would be no such drugs."
Heard of proofreading...?
There is ample evidence of drug development working just fine without patent protection. There is also ample evidence of big drug manufacturers using patent protection to limit supply and massively increase prices beyond the cost to develop and manufacture with a reasonable profit, not to mention trying to extend protection beyond when the patent was supposed to end. It's extraordinary that you can defend a system that actively works against the supposed purpose of drugs: saving lives.
Re: Price: value, plus a sum for the wear and tear...
"A Techdirt notion is that price depends on value."
I didn't bother reading past this, because when you start your rant by completely misrepresenting one of TD's core positions, I know I'd just be wasting my time.
"If Aereo isn't paying, everyone else who is will wonder why they're still paying."
They should've been wondering that a long time ago. Their stupidity is not our fault, but they make it everyone's problem.
"Simple stuff. Glad you're seeing it now."
Seeing it now? What condescending nonsense. Like you say, it's simple stuff and I doubt there are many regular TD readers who haven't known this for a long time. What's amazing is that you don't know that.
How about instead of making the same lame points over and over and over again, why don't you just discuss the actual topic of the article? I know you're incapable of agreeing with anything on TD, so why don't you lay out your case for why this article is wrong. You can do that, can't you?
Yeah, those terrible people who want to write books or make documentaries about music, television and film should go and make their own music, television and film first, and not leech of others' work!
"Yet copyright brings us the good stuff that everybody wants..."
Copyright doesn't "bring" anything. The fact that content is being produced on a greater scale than ever before despite copyright infringement occurring on a greater scale than ever before is proof of that.
On the post: Silliest Argument Ever: Just Because A YouTube Paywall Launches It Means More Money Is Made
Re: Re: "where I play the role of the lone dissenter"???
He's already switched sides to celebrate Louis CK, the great paywaller...
It will happen."
You must be an absolute hit in moon landing denial discussion groups.
On the post: Eric Holder Answers Question About Kim Dotcom Prosecution
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Eric Holder is not using "theft" as a legal term, otherwise he'd be charging MU with theft. He's using it as a copyright maximalist's scare term based entirely on the commonly understood dictionary definition.
On the post: Streetlight Manifesto Can't Fulfill Pre-Orders Because Label Refuses To Give Them Their Own Records
Re: Re: Re:
No, no one cares when it's all positives, because that's what's supposed to happen.
Sign a contract to get paid for your work, get paid, no story.
Sign a contract to get paid for your work, don't get paid, STORY.
On the post: Royalty Collection Agency SABAM Sues Belgian ISPs In Pursuit Of Its Fantasy 'Piracy License'
Re: Re: Re:
And the harm to society caused by drugs, weapons, child porn and money laundering and all far, far worse than the harm supposedly caused by "digital theft", i.e. copyright infringement. It's extraordinary that your own moral compass is so misguided that you would think these things are on the same level of harm. I'm not sure which possibility is worse; that you think copyright infringement is just as bad or if the others are not really all that harmful.
On the post: Over 90% Of The Most Innovative Products From The Past Few Decades Were NOT Patented
Re: HDTV?
On the post: Broad Coalition Of Public And Private Interests Call For Objective Data & Research Concerning Copyright Reform
Re: Paper "doesn't have any answers yet", eh?
I imagine Mike refuses to acknowledge the existence of Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny too, for much the same reason.
On the post: Mike Masnick's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
Why don't you go first? Comments like yours don't come from people who don't have vested interests. Are you an actual creator? Or are you just part of the industry that leeches off creators?
Besides, copyright's primary purpose is supposed to be to benefit society as a whole, not simply as "creator's protections". So if there's evidence that the harm to society is greater than the benefit (and there demonstrably is), then everyone should be speaking out against it.
On the post: Doctors Call Out Novartis For Insane Pricing On Cancer Drug
Re: yet another bad idea
Heard of proofreading...?
There is ample evidence of drug development working just fine without patent protection. There is also ample evidence of big drug manufacturers using patent protection to limit supply and massively increase prices beyond the cost to develop and manufacture with a reasonable profit, not to mention trying to extend protection beyond when the patent was supposed to end. It's extraordinary that you can defend a system that actively works against the supposed purpose of drugs: saving lives.
On the post: Alice In Chains: We Hate The Internet, Twitter & Dancing
Re: Price: value, plus a sum for the wear and tear...
I didn't bother reading past this, because when you start your rant by completely misrepresenting one of TD's core positions, I know I'd just be wasting my time.
On the post: Hyundai Tries, And Fails, To Make Its Awful Suicide Ad Disappear From The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why The Networks Are Really Afraid Of Aereo: Time Warner Cable Says It Might Offer Aereo-Like Service
Re:
They should've been wondering that a long time ago. Their stupidity is not our fault, but they make it everyone's problem.
"Simple stuff. Glad you're seeing it now."
Seeing it now? What condescending nonsense. Like you say, it's simple stuff and I doubt there are many regular TD readers who haven't known this for a long time. What's amazing is that you don't know that.
On the post: Why The Networks Are Really Afraid Of Aereo: Time Warner Cable Says It Might Offer Aereo-Like Service
Re: Re:
Why are you repeating something I've already read? It was dumb the first time and it was just plain annoying the second.
Ya moron...
On the post: Universal Responds To Lawsuit About Its Hollywood Accounting Tricks By Claiming That It Actually Overpaid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Fair Use Protects Some Uses, But It Is Still Way Too Weak To Be Effective For Many
Re: Re: Re:
"I know this is copyrighted, but I used it anyway because the use was fair' and therefore not infringing."
On the post: Fair Use Protects Some Uses, But It Is Still Way Too Weak To Be Effective For Many
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Fair Use Protects Some Uses, But It Is Still Way Too Weak To Be Effective For Many
Re:
Dumbass...
On the post: Ridiculous: Short-Sighted, Anonymous Hollywood Exec Flips Out Over Using BitTorrent For Promotions
Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: U.S. Ambassador To Australia Takes On #1 Issue Of The Day: Game Of Thrones Piracy
Re: Re: Re: The biggest shock
I fail to see how one throwaway line completely unrelated to the main topic of the article makes any difference at all.
On the post: Celebrate The Right To Share On 'World Intellectual Property Day'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright doesn't "bring" anything. The fact that content is being produced on a greater scale than ever before despite copyright infringement occurring on a greater scale than ever before is proof of that.
Next >>