In the meantime, is anyone a constituent of any of those four elected officials, who apparently make up the "Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus" (don't laugh -- perhaps they're just uninformed)?
I'm glad someone is doing something about the Somali pirates. It wasn't long ago that the pirates killed 4 people on board a Yacht near Somalia. Maybe someone will push for more patrols and maybe even armed incursions into Somalia to take out suspected pirate strongholds.
Certainly, I'd love to see business patents and software patents disappear entirely, as well as a majority of the rules for trademarks (trademarks should be limited to the actual trade logo, and nobody should be able to trademark a color or a common phrase.) Copyrights should go back to the 17-years plus one extension, and patents should be limited to actual inventions, not the wide speculative non-inventive patents that the patent trolls love. And all laws should be limited to just the production for sale (a private party who buys something should be allowed to copy that something as many times as he/she wants for his/her private consumption.)
2. Uninformed? Ha! Someone who is either in a bind or actually thinks 8 bucks is okay to pay for whatever reason. The person is a paying customer, though, and should be respected as such no matter what. S/he shouldn't be burdened by any post-purchase shenanigans like the gas will only work for 3 miles and then s/he needs to call the station owner for permission to drive one more mile on his/her own gas. Or s/he can't siphon off a gallon for a stranded motorist unless she wants to get a legal threat letter demanding a couple thousand bucks, or anything like that.
Real world application, which also involves a gas station.
Here in San Diego, CA, gasoline is an average of $3.85 a gallon. Down the street from where I work, there are three gas stations. A Thrifty gas station with a price of $3.91/gallon, a 76-station with a price of $4.29/gallon, and an Arco with the price of $3.85/gallon. These gas stations are a block or two away from each other, and their prices are clearly marked on the road (I can see the prices for all three stations while driving down the street.)
I stop at the Arco station that sells gas for $3.85/gallon, and fill up my tank. The gas station is busy, and there is usually a line, but it has 12 pumps, so people usually get out in about 10-15 minutes. The Thrifty station has 8 pumps, and there is sometimes a line, but usually people can get out of there in 10 minutes. The 76-station has 6 pumps, and every single time I drive by there is someone at 4 or 5 of those pumps, and the people there can get out in 5 minutes.
Sure, any economics major can point to this being laws of capitalism in action, the guy with the cheapest gas is going to have the most users, but in your example, no one in their right mind would ever go to the expensive place. However, that is because you value money more than you value time, and those who are going to the expensive gas station value their time more than they value money.
Likewise, if gasoline was an infinite resource, you'd still find people paying $8 for it, because they wouldn't have to wait in a long line to get the free gas. To them, the time wasted in waiting for the free gas is more expensive than paying for it. The copyright maximalists view this as an argument against giving a product away for free, because nobody would ever buy it, but in reality, where the rest of us live, plenty of people would buy it even if there are free alternatives available, and usually for reasons that "freetards" (I cannot stand that term, but it is all the copyright maximalists understand) and copyright maximalists cannot fathem.
Appreciate the response. I read through those links and have to say that either I misunderstood the intent of your previous post (possible), or you're equating two completely different concepts (also possible).
I am not the original responder. I realize we all look the same, but it is always a good idea to identify who is talking before responding. Zauber Paracelsus wrote the comment, you responded asking for evidence, and I provided them.
But, by all means, if you *are* attempting to equate the two, do share!
First of all, the first link had nothing to do with DHS. The first link was a report about the Viacom/Google suit where Viacom was accusing Google of copyright infringement for displaying videos without paying Viacom for videos that Viacom or its child-companies uploaded to YouTube. Talk about unclean hands. While I personally believe that there was no maliciousness on the hands of Viacom (left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing and all,) it could be argued that Viacom planted the evidence on YouTube, and then sued Google for having the planted evidence. Exactly what Zauber was saying.
On the second link, the DHS shut down a bunch of websites, including two websites where they said illegal music was being made available to the public against the wishes of the artists/publishers when, come to find out, the artists/publishers uploaded said material to the website. So the website was shut down because the industry complained that the website was distributing material that they provided to the website.
TL;DR: In both cases, Zauber could argue, were perfect examples of what you asked for, examples that the industry was planting evidence.
Actually if you read my reply to the actual comment you will notice that I flagged it quite specifically for infringing on the University of Washington's Guideline for Students.
True, but even if it was copied verbatim from UoW's website, it is still speech. If I copy someone's website verbatim for a point I am trying to make (although I'd personally consider that to be extremely lazy, and thus wouldn't do such a thing,) I am still trying to make a point and that should be discounted on its merits, not hidden by a flag which means we have to click on the link in order to see it.
Think of it this way...we don't report all the Anonymous Coward shills here specifically because even though they rarely say anything worth saying, and tend to push the attitude that "Mike is Evol", they still are contributing, albeit very poorly, to the overall discussion. They should be allowed to be seen, so everyone can realize that they are idiots, and not hidden so only a few who press the link discover it. That way, we can make up our own minds quickly about whether their hundredth post to the website is worth a read based on their 99 other posts that were childish rants on why Mike is the anti-christ and the rest of us are just minions to his cult. Hiding the other 99 posts because you don't like their message lessens the whole because all the sudden they come along with the perfect troll and we all get hit by it.
Censoring any speech (except commercial speech that is not apropos to the discussion,) hurts us all. Freedom of speech isn't just a good idea because it allows everyone to be heard, but because it allows everyone to equally make a fool of themselves, and making a fool of yourself makes you human.
Why is this being flagged as SPAM? It may or may not be factually accurate (though I tend to agree that people sharing files online tend to not check their settings and may allow files to be uploaded to their system as much as they download them from others,) it certainly shouldn't have been flagged.
People, use the report option to flag comments that are obviously spam, not comments that you don't agree with.
I t was a small sub-set of the real estate tech community that was
Lones was bullied by subset.
Not sure how to take this. From everything I read, Lones is the one bullying Rothamel. How you can say that Lones was bullied by anyone relies on facts not in evidence. Denise Lones decided to sue Rothamel without first even contacting him in person.... And over a trademark which may not even be valid in the first place.
you have a product that nobody is going to pay to see anymore because they all saw it already online for free.
I have several copies of Freedom Downtime that I bought from 2600. This is despite the fact that they made the entire video available free online, and even have a statement on the video saying that they welcomed people to copy and distribute the video. I've purchased many products that were available for free, and I know I am not alone in doing so (2600 has sold a lot of copies of Freedom Downtime.) So, your "nobody will buy because it is available for free" just doesn't seem to really work.
Those that have weaker restrictions (like most of USA) generally have more gun murders than those with strong restrictions (eg UK).
If this is true, which I do not at all believe, I'd like for you to explain how Mexico (which has outlawed all guns, can't get more restrictive than that) has more gun violence than in the US. And California is one of the most restrictive gun states in the Union, and yet drug/gang gun violence is quite common despite these rules. While you can show that the US has more gun violence than Western European countries...I think it is more because of culture than because of the availability of guns. I think the prevalence of violent television/movie programming and the common belief that might makes right built into the culture has more to do with the problem than gun restrictions, which only effect the lawful/honest folks. I still believe that an armed society is a polite society.
Never-the-less, I still agree with you that a balance has to be struck. I think the best balance is to return copyright to the original 17-year time limit with one extension for active copyrights, and remove all patents for software procedures/business processes.
IP-maximalism sucks, but anti-trust laws suck worse.
While I'd certainly agree in other industries...I have a hard time believing that anti-trust laws are evil here. Especially when there is plenty of evidence that shows that the industry was fixing the prices of CDs and downloads.
The companies colluded to create artificial price floors and to remove vendors who dropped their prices below the floor. They subsidized advertising costs in exchange for promises from vendors to not allow their CDs to go for a price lower than a set price. Even looking at laws of supply and demand (even though in this case, supply is nearly infinite with downloads,) things didn't make sense when CDs from artists in low demand were being sold for the same price as those of high demand artists.
We did (Strike One, Strike Two). You didn't get your check from the music industry when they were convicted of price fixing?
There is still an outstanding case against the big four for price-fixing in the US based on PressPlay and MusicNet. But that got set back in 2008 when the courts ruled that there wasn't enough evidence to move forward. However, the decision was appealed and the big four lost on appeal, so the case was back before the courts. The labels appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court rejected it, so we might see some additional results from this case.
Why are you opposed to servicing paying customers?
Its TAM, he doesn't oppose servicing paying customers...he opposes anything that Mike Masnick says just because it makes him cool among his pre-school brethren. Some day he will grow up and join the real world as a productive member of society, but for now he is trollin' for the lulz on Techdirt.
I loved Chem class in high school, and even more in college. Then again, I did some stuff in high school chemistry that would likely have gotten me expelled and the teacher fired (some on accident, others on purpose.)
My most favorite was making hydrogen, then lighting it on fire. Of course, I also accidentally mixed Silver Nitrate with Nitric Acid, and the teacher evacuated the classroom (since I didn't do it under the fume hood.) Cannot remember exactly what I was trying to do, but I had never made Nitrous Oxide (NO) before that.
And yes, when the Supreme Court says something is not your right, then legally speaking, that is not your right.
When has the Supreme Court said such a thing? I could not find any court case before the Supreme Court where the Court said that Jury Nullification was not a right, though I found two from the 1800's where they specifically said it was a right.
I've found three Appellate court decisions (U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (4th Cir.1969), United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113 (6th Cir.1972), and U.S. v. Krzyske 857 F.2d 1089 (2nd Cir. 1988)) but no Supreme Court decisions. Please, enlighten us.
They essentially say the same thing...driver inattention and "surprise" cause lots of accidents.
I know, because I've been professionally trained to drive, at speed, in an emergency vehicle. And I've been around long enough to see the results of other people's mistakes (as well as a few of my own, before I received the training.) A driver which is looking down the road, maintaining a safe distance around them, has a plan of escape, and is attentive on the road and traffic conditions is far less likely to cause a collision, even at speeds greater than the speed limit than those who are playing perpetual motion machine on the freeway while yakking on the phone and putting on makeup going 20 mph under the speed limit.
It is until there starts to be a market to pirate the e-book, then it's 7 sales and 10,000 pirated copies and the fun is over.
There already is a market, and always has been. Next you are going to tell me that letting my friend borrow a physical copy of my book is piracy too (it isn't.) Most of these books are poorly protected, if protected at all, and yet there is a huge market. I doubt the numbers will go to 7/10,000 over-night, because they haven't done so at any time in the past. Many of the authors I now spend lots of money scooping up their entire collections of written works from, I first read via a friend loaning me a copy of their book. I've spent hundreds of dollars buying books by Koontz, Anthony, Vinge, Asimov, and Bradbury just because someone let me borrow one of their books to read first.
I don't advocate copyright infringement of anyone's works, but the simple truth is, most people out there will happily pay to use an author's work, if they feel the pay is warranted. And many authors are now realizing that this is how marketing truly works...a groundswell of people interested in your work just because someone let them borrow your book. The traditional publishers can continue to crack down on their customers, but all they are doing is slitting their own throats by denying the true source of marketing.
On the post: Our Elected Officials Never Learn: Ask Biden To Get Russia To Increase Censorship Via Copyright
I'm glad someone is doing something about the Somali pirates. It wasn't long ago that the pirates killed 4 people on board a Yacht near Somalia. Maybe someone will push for more patrols and maybe even armed incursions into Somalia to take out suspected pirate strongholds.
Oh, wrong piracy. Sorry.
On the post: Feds Really Do Seem To Think That Linking To Infringing Content Can Be A Jailable Offense
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And, for the most part, me too.
Certainly, I'd love to see business patents and software patents disappear entirely, as well as a majority of the rules for trademarks (trademarks should be limited to the actual trade logo, and nobody should be able to trademark a color or a common phrase.) Copyrights should go back to the 17-years plus one extension, and patents should be limited to actual inventions, not the wide speculative non-inventive patents that the patent trolls love. And all laws should be limited to just the production for sale (a private party who buys something should be allowed to copy that something as many times as he/she wants for his/her private consumption.)
On the post: Massive Research Report On 'Piracy' In Emerging Economies Released; Debunks Entire Foundation Of US Foreign IP Policy
Re:
I was reading this and going, damn, one of these guys. Then I got to this line. You sir, are a god among men. You are a true troll worth worshiping.
I think Dark Helmet may have met his match.
On the post: Massive Research Report On 'Piracy' In Emerging Economies Released; Debunks Entire Foundation Of US Foreign IP Policy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Consumer's Dilemma
Real world application, which also involves a gas station.
Here in San Diego, CA, gasoline is an average of $3.85 a gallon. Down the street from where I work, there are three gas stations. A Thrifty gas station with a price of $3.91/gallon, a 76-station with a price of $4.29/gallon, and an Arco with the price of $3.85/gallon. These gas stations are a block or two away from each other, and their prices are clearly marked on the road (I can see the prices for all three stations while driving down the street.)
I stop at the Arco station that sells gas for $3.85/gallon, and fill up my tank. The gas station is busy, and there is usually a line, but it has 12 pumps, so people usually get out in about 10-15 minutes. The Thrifty station has 8 pumps, and there is sometimes a line, but usually people can get out of there in 10 minutes. The 76-station has 6 pumps, and every single time I drive by there is someone at 4 or 5 of those pumps, and the people there can get out in 5 minutes.
Sure, any economics major can point to this being laws of capitalism in action, the guy with the cheapest gas is going to have the most users, but in your example, no one in their right mind would ever go to the expensive place. However, that is because you value money more than you value time, and those who are going to the expensive gas station value their time more than they value money.
Likewise, if gasoline was an infinite resource, you'd still find people paying $8 for it, because they wouldn't have to wait in a long line to get the free gas. To them, the time wasted in waiting for the free gas is more expensive than paying for it. The copyright maximalists view this as an argument against giving a product away for free, because nobody would ever buy it, but in reality, where the rest of us live, plenty of people would buy it even if there are free alternatives available, and usually for reasons that "freetards" (I cannot stand that term, but it is all the copyright maximalists understand) and copyright maximalists cannot fathem.
On the post: Copyright Pre-Settlement Virus A Lucrative Scam
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not the original responder. I realize we all look the same, but it is always a good idea to identify who is talking before responding. Zauber Paracelsus wrote the comment, you responded asking for evidence, and I provided them.
But, by all means, if you *are* attempting to equate the two, do share!
First of all, the first link had nothing to do with DHS. The first link was a report about the Viacom/Google suit where Viacom was accusing Google of copyright infringement for displaying videos without paying Viacom for videos that Viacom or its child-companies uploaded to YouTube. Talk about unclean hands. While I personally believe that there was no maliciousness on the hands of Viacom (left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing and all,) it could be argued that Viacom planted the evidence on YouTube, and then sued Google for having the planted evidence. Exactly what Zauber was saying.
On the second link, the DHS shut down a bunch of websites, including two websites where they said illegal music was being made available to the public against the wishes of the artists/publishers when, come to find out, the artists/publishers uploaded said material to the website. So the website was shut down because the industry complained that the website was distributing material that they provided to the website.
TL;DR: In both cases, Zauber could argue, were perfect examples of what you asked for, examples that the industry was planting evidence.
On the post: Copyright Pre-Settlement Virus A Lucrative Scam
Re: Re: Re: Re: Similar story
True, but even if it was copied verbatim from UoW's website, it is still speech. If I copy someone's website verbatim for a point I am trying to make (although I'd personally consider that to be extremely lazy, and thus wouldn't do such a thing,) I am still trying to make a point and that should be discounted on its merits, not hidden by a flag which means we have to click on the link in order to see it.
Think of it this way...we don't report all the Anonymous Coward shills here specifically because even though they rarely say anything worth saying, and tend to push the attitude that "Mike is Evol", they still are contributing, albeit very poorly, to the overall discussion. They should be allowed to be seen, so everyone can realize that they are idiots, and not hidden so only a few who press the link discover it. That way, we can make up our own minds quickly about whether their hundredth post to the website is worth a read based on their 99 other posts that were childish rants on why Mike is the anti-christ and the rest of us are just minions to his cult. Hiding the other 99 posts because you don't like their message lessens the whole because all the sudden they come along with the perfect troll and we all get hit by it.
Censoring any speech (except commercial speech that is not apropos to the discussion,) hurts us all. Freedom of speech isn't just a good idea because it allows everyone to be heard, but because it allows everyone to equally make a fool of themselves, and making a fool of yourself makes you human.
On the post: GAO Suggests It's Time To Ditch Dollar Bills For Coins
Re: Re: Re: Other Mints
Um, $0.79?
.50 + .20 + .10 + "Keep the change" = .79
On the post: Copyright Pre-Settlement Virus A Lucrative Scam
Re: Similar story
People, use the report option to flag comments that are obviously spam, not comments that you don't agree with.
On the post: Copyright Pre-Settlement Virus A Lucrative Scam
Re: Re: Re:
Is this sufficient?
Evidence Suggests Major Film Studios Uploading Movie Clips to Youtube Pretending to be Pirated or
More Bigger Mistakes Discovered in Homeland Security's Domain Seizures.
On the post: Which Does More Damage To Your Reputation: A Non-Competitor Using A Similar Name, Or Filing A Lawsuit That Pisses Off Many Potential Clients?
Re:
Lones was bullied by subset.
Not sure how to take this. From everything I read, Lones is the one bullying Rothamel. How you can say that Lones was bullied by anyone relies on facts not in evidence. Denise Lones decided to sue Rothamel without first even contacting him in person.... And over a trademark which may not even be valid in the first place.
On the post: Judge Censors Popular Mexican Documentary, Which Critiques Judiciary; Director Then Complains About 'Piracy'
Re:
I have several copies of Freedom Downtime that I bought from 2600. This is despite the fact that they made the entire video available free online, and even have a statement on the video saying that they welcomed people to copy and distribute the video. I've purchased many products that were available for free, and I know I am not alone in doing so (2600 has sold a lot of copies of Freedom Downtime.) So, your "nobody will buy because it is available for free" just doesn't seem to really work.
On the post: Just Because You Don't Like Something Online, Doesn't Mean We Should Blame Third Parties
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If this is true, which I do not at all believe, I'd like for you to explain how Mexico (which has outlawed all guns, can't get more restrictive than that) has more gun violence than in the US. And California is one of the most restrictive gun states in the Union, and yet drug/gang gun violence is quite common despite these rules. While you can show that the US has more gun violence than Western European countries...I think it is more because of culture than because of the availability of guns. I think the prevalence of violent television/movie programming and the common belief that might makes right built into the culture has more to do with the problem than gun restrictions, which only effect the lawful/honest folks. I still believe that an armed society is a polite society.
Never-the-less, I still agree with you that a balance has to be struck. I think the best balance is to return copyright to the original 17-year time limit with one extension for active copyrights, and remove all patents for software procedures/business processes.
On the post: Music Companies In Korea Guilty Of Price Fixing, Collusion For Boycotting DRM-Free Music Retailers
Re: Ugh
While I'd certainly agree in other industries...I have a hard time believing that anti-trust laws are evil here. Especially when there is plenty of evidence that shows that the industry was fixing the prices of CDs and downloads.
The companies colluded to create artificial price floors and to remove vendors who dropped their prices below the floor. They subsidized advertising costs in exchange for promises from vendors to not allow their CDs to go for a price lower than a set price. Even looking at laws of supply and demand (even though in this case, supply is nearly infinite with downloads,) things didn't make sense when CDs from artists in low demand were being sold for the same price as those of high demand artists.
On the post: Music Companies In Korea Guilty Of Price Fixing, Collusion For Boycotting DRM-Free Music Retailers
Re: first
We did (Strike One, Strike Two). You didn't get your check from the music industry when they were convicted of price fixing?
There is still an outstanding case against the big four for price-fixing in the US based on PressPlay and MusicNet. But that got set back in 2008 when the courts ruled that there wasn't enough evidence to move forward. However, the decision was appealed and the big four lost on appeal, so the case was back before the courts. The labels appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court rejected it, so we might see some additional results from this case.
On the post: Why Is A Treaty For Letting The Blind Have Access To Books Too Difficult, But ACTA Is Fine?
Re: Re:
Its TAM, he doesn't oppose servicing paying customers...he opposes anything that Mike Masnick says just because it makes him cool among his pre-school brethren. Some day he will grow up and join the real world as a productive member of society, but for now he is trollin' for the lulz on Techdirt.
On the post: DailyDirt: Chemistry Isn't Just A Class Everyone Hated In High School....
My most favorite was making hydrogen, then lighting it on fire. Of course, I also accidentally mixed Silver Nitrate with Nitric Acid, and the teacher evacuated the classroom (since I didn't do it under the fume hood.) Cannot remember exactly what I was trying to do, but I had never made Nitrous Oxide (NO) before that.
On the post: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When has the Supreme Court said such a thing? I could not find any court case before the Supreme Court where the Court said that Jury Nullification was not a right, though I found two from the 1800's where they specifically said it was a right.
I've found three Appellate court decisions (U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (4th Cir.1969), United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113 (6th Cir.1972), and U.S. v. Krzyske 857 F.2d 1089 (2nd Cir. 1988)) but no Supreme Court decisions. Please, enlighten us.
On the post: Guy Passing Out Pamphlets In Front Of Court Indicted For 'Jury Tampering'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It causes a divide by zero error in mine too. I guess only lawyers can really understand it.
On the post: New Study: 70% Of People Find 'Piracy' Socially Acceptable [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes Sense...
They essentially say the same thing...driver inattention and "surprise" cause lots of accidents.
I know, because I've been professionally trained to drive, at speed, in an emergency vehicle. And I've been around long enough to see the results of other people's mistakes (as well as a few of my own, before I received the training.) A driver which is looking down the road, maintaining a safe distance around them, has a plan of escape, and is attentive on the road and traffic conditions is far less likely to cause a collision, even at speeds greater than the speed limit than those who are playing perpetual motion machine on the freeway while yakking on the phone and putting on makeup going 20 mph under the speed limit.
On the post: More Authors Realizing They Can Make A Damn Good Living Self-Releasing Super Cheap eBooks
Re: Re: Re: Amanda Hockling
There already is a market, and always has been. Next you are going to tell me that letting my friend borrow a physical copy of my book is piracy too (it isn't.) Most of these books are poorly protected, if protected at all, and yet there is a huge market. I doubt the numbers will go to 7/10,000 over-night, because they haven't done so at any time in the past. Many of the authors I now spend lots of money scooping up their entire collections of written works from, I first read via a friend loaning me a copy of their book. I've spent hundreds of dollars buying books by Koontz, Anthony, Vinge, Asimov, and Bradbury just because someone let me borrow one of their books to read first.
I don't advocate copyright infringement of anyone's works, but the simple truth is, most people out there will happily pay to use an author's work, if they feel the pay is warranted. And many authors are now realizing that this is how marketing truly works...a groundswell of people interested in your work just because someone let them borrow your book. The traditional publishers can continue to crack down on their customers, but all they are doing is slitting their own throats by denying the true source of marketing.
Next >>