Re: Re: Suddenly you're with the "mainstream" press?
Can you imagine the crap storm that would ensue for the reps that voted for it?
Here's a bigger question... When they're voted out, would the next reps repeal it?
Leahy's out of touch reply that 40 Senators support this, while the rest of the world does not, says that these Senators need a dose of reality because they will still try to support bad legislation.
By stretching the law of Civil Procedures as well as USC 17 and USC 18. Until someone contests their authority, they can continue, but after 320 domains seized, I find it highly doubtful that they can continue on the same path without some form of secondary hearing.
In the case of the bills before both the House and the Senate, I have little doubt that they will undergo markups to address certain provisions that upon reflection may be unartfully presented. Even knowing this will result, I still believe it is important that persons making broad generalizations/assertions concerning the bills as they are currently structured should at the very least identify the relevant portions of the bills and what it is about the present text that underlies one's objections.
To which Karl as well as Mike have done in their postings. It seems others have commented and found your rebuttals lacking in substance. I can only inquire why you continue to obfuscate the issue rather than engage in debate.
Using dictionary.com for your verbal jousts is a sign of artificial intelligence. You might want to answer the questions plainly asked of you rather than persist in this charade.
I am not informed about what may be happening in those countries, but your comment does raise in my mind the question why is amending their laws (I presume any amendments are associated with copyright law) something that will make them worse off?
As I've studied copyright law, the fact is the USTR uses its 301 report to criminalize countries that don't use copyright law akin to what industry specialists in the US would want. This becomes a large problem when copyright law runs counter to what people in that country want. Brazil's copyright law has been "reinforced" for two decades now. However, it has not been taken off the 301 list and the copyright enforcement has had a very negative affect. There is now a large black market for entertainment, where movies that were once $10 USD are now $100 as an example. What copyright does is enforce monopolistic pricing, considering the price of the seller only, instead of the free market and what people would pay for a product.
As I've noted elsewhere, piracy seems to find the right price for goods and natural scarcities, whereas copyright brings an artificial scarcity into the market. By allowing the market to decide the prices for goods and services, we would be a lot better off with more goods and products to fit various people on different levels.
I am also not informed about the circumstances associated with the two names you mention, but the fact extradition is involved strongly suggests that there is much more to each of the stories than simply the US trying to enforce its laws through questionable means
The best place to look at Griffith's story. This is before the CFAA and it's rather ironic that he's charged with a crime and locked up in the US for 4 years without ever having been in the US to commit a crime.
Richard O' Dwyer was the head admin for TVShack.net. Basically he linked to copyrighted material on his site, and ICE is using Operation In Our Sites to extradite him. In a nutshell, the US is trying to use US copyright law to apply in the UK, similar to what SOPA and PIPA are supposed to do. If you need more info, Mike has a write up here. The UK discusses it here. And finally his mother writes about it here
Your stance is simple: upon creation, an innovation or work becomes the property of the collective.
No, your argument is intellectually dishonest and misleading.
Give me examples of you *not* believing in this communistic principle, as I can give thousands of examples of you complaining about the basic precepts that surround copyright/trademarks/patents and how they protect the rights of the innovator and creator
You're full of it... Copyright law has not protected innovators or creators in the last 100 years. I'll even argue that the public has gained little societal benefit from copyright enforcement, which is still a government mandated monopoly. Where is your proof that copyright has increased knowledge and learning or protected the innovators and/or creators?
US copyright law is not, and can not, be exported to foreign countries since US courts can only entertain actions where personal or in rem jurisdiction can be rightly established. This is a constitutional limitation on the powers of our courts.
Are you sure about that? Ok, then why is the MPAA using copyright issues in New Zealand, the UK, Sweden, and Brazil to change their laws into something that makes those countries worse off?
Why was the ACTA created over the TRIPS agreements with NO input from the public that should be benefitting?
Finally, why was Hew Raymond Griffiths prosecuted from Australia, having never visited the US? Better yet, why does the US use the Extradition Act for UK resident Richard O Dwyer in order to prosecute him for criminal copyright infringement?
It is generally proposed that, in the absence of private or public forms of exclusion, prices will tend to be driven down to the low or zero marginal costs and the original producer would be unable to recover the initial investment.
Part of the debate about copyright exists because it is still not clear whether state enforcement is necessary to enable owners to gain returns, or whether the producers of copyrightable products respond significantly to financial incentives. Producers of these public goods might still be able to appropriate returns without copyright laws or in the face of widespread infringement, through such strategies as encryption, cartelization, the provision of complementary products, private monitoring and enforcement, market segmentation, network externalities, first mover effects and product differentiation. Patronage, taxation, subsidies, or public provision, might also comprise alternatives to copyright protection. In some instances "authors" (broadly defined) might be more concerned about nonfinancial rewards such as enhanced reputations or more extensive diffusion.
Now, let's look at the US since we've gotten the introductions out of the way, shall we?
Effects of Copyright Piracy
The United States stood out in contrast to countries such as France, where Louis Napoleon's Decree of 1852 prohibited counterfeiting of both foreign and domestic works. Other countries which were affected by American piracy retaliated by refusing to recognize American copyrights. Despite the lobbying of numerous authors and celebrities on both sides of the Atlantic, the American copyright statutes did not allow for copyright protection of foreign works for fully one century. As a result, American publishers and producers freely pirated foreign literature, art, and drama.
...
What were the effects of piracy? First, did the American industry suffer from cheaper foreign books being dumped on the domestic market? This does not seem to have been the case. After controlling for the type of work, the cost of the work, and other variables, the prices of American books were lower than prices of foreign books. American book prices may have been lower to reflect lower perceived quality or other factors that caused imperfect substitutability between foreign and local products. As might be expected, prices were not exogenously and arbitrarily fixed, but varied in accordance with a publisher’s estimation of market factors such as the degree of competition and the responsiveness of demand to determinants. The reading public appears to have gained from the lack of copyright, which increased access to the superior products of more developed markets in Europe, and in the long run this likely improved both the demand and supply of domestic science and literature.
The GfK source says that the study shows “If you download films, you have an increased interest in the cinema”, which only highlights how stupid it would be for the authorities to carry out their implied threat of prosecuting Kino.to users.
HADOPI is betting that warnings will be enough to push the percentage of file sharers down–a view the survey says is also shared by 33% of filesharers. That’s not an illogical assumption, and time will tell if it’s right. But the evidence suggests that there are lots of ways this bet could go wrong, even if HADOPI survives the inevitable judicial scrutiny in France and at the EU level (and growing political opposition). If piracy is a sampling and discovery tool for high spenders, then suppressing piracy could depress legal sales. If–as I’ll argue at more length in a subsequent post–we’re in a mostly zero-sum market in which consumers are maxed out on discretionary media expenditures, then enforcement won’t significantly expand but at best just cannibalize one media sector for another.
"We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy," Newell said. "Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. For example, if a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24/7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country three months after the U.S. release and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable.
So, AC, you're not only wrong about past experience with piracy, but you're wrong about the service issue that piracy solves. Care to change your argument or do you stand thoroughly debunked based on just a smidgen of data that proves you wrong?
Those who study/work in the hard sciences have a way of thinking that makes it difficult to comprehend the details associated with law. I know this because before embarking on a legal career all of my prior studies and work were in engineering.
False. Analysis skills that are employed by engineers and scientists do not equate to a misunderstanding of law and the implications thereof.
In engineering you design a circuit, throw a switch, and the light either glows or it does not. In law there is no switch.
Yes, but Ohm's Law allows us to equate both sides of a circuit board and find the details of why a circuit is not functioning properly. In terms of law, the laws passed could be heavily one sided (in this case the DMCA), where the implications won't be felt until quite some time later (almost immediate takedowns, court challenges, and threats to innovative startups). Unless the people take efforts to balance the law, it can be passed based on who has the most money (as evidenced by the MPAA spending $94M so far this year).
This is not because they possess greater legal insight than one who has studied something in the liberal arts, but because they tend to be detail oriented and work that much harder to master the details associated with law.
That's good to know, but it's quite worrying. Why would I want an engineer as a lawyer instead of an engineer building new servers, technology, or figuring out new techniques in business that are more efficient?
Assertions are made throughout the article, but nowhere are those assertions backed up by reference to specific sections of the pending bills and an analysis of those sections.
I'm calling to question your "assertions". Please identify the parts that need to reference the bill as well as the supposed inaccuracies. From what I saw, the post is fairly accurate with respect to each section of the bill, culminating from posts from the last 2 weeks of stories.
The only issue that I have is with the post that the definitive post didn't tackle the end of the bill, where the US government attempts to export their copyright law to other countries.
I believe, I believe the AC above me over your attempts to wrap your argument in details unnecessary to your points (which are seemingly nonexistent currently).
Whether it is shark tank or any other entrepreneurial scenario, how can you pretend copyright/patents/trademarks are not crucial tools for profitable business ventures
Because they're not crucial tools that businesses need. They exist as myths that gatekeepers use to hinder a business from being profitable in the long run.
.. You know what? I'm just going to leave this here while you discuss Communism, where the government decides to interfere with the market (gee, wonder what happens...):
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. - Gerald Ford
On the post: WSJ The Latest Mainstream Press To Run Anti-SOPA/PIPA Opinion Piece
Re: Re: Suddenly you're with the "mainstream" press?
Here's a bigger question... When they're voted out, would the next reps repeal it?
Leahy's out of touch reply that 40 Senators support this, while the rest of the world does not, says that these Senators need a dose of reality because they will still try to support bad legislation.
On the post: ICE Seizes Another 150 Domains As SOPA/PIPA Debate Heats Up
Re:
By stretching the law of Civil Procedures as well as USC 17 and USC 18. Until someone contests their authority, they can continue, but after 320 domains seized, I find it highly doubtful that they can continue on the same path without some form of secondary hearing.
On the post: Ex-RIAA Boss Ignores All Criticisim Of SOPA/PIPA, Claims Any Complaints Are Trying To Justify Stealing
Re: Re: Re: Re: At least a decade after widespread broadband, YET NO SOLUTION!
On the post: ICE Seizes Another 150 Domains As SOPA/PIPA Debate Heats Up
Small question
It makes no sense that ICE is allowed to get away with this.
On the post: Sen. Joe Lieberman Asks Google For A 'Report Blog As Terrorist' Button
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
Here's where Rikuo started. You have yet to explain why you're spending $100 million on a movie.
You sound like a Viacom employee at this point.
On the post: A Message For Congress Over Thanksgiving
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To which Karl as well as Mike have done in their postings. It seems others have commented and found your rebuttals lacking in substance. I can only inquire why you continue to obfuscate the issue rather than engage in debate.
On the post: A Message For Congress Over Thanksgiving
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Mike Masnick's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: A Message For Congress Over Thanksgiving
Re: Re: Re:
As I've studied copyright law, the fact is the USTR uses its 301 report to criminalize countries that don't use copyright law akin to what industry specialists in the US would want. This becomes a large problem when copyright law runs counter to what people in that country want. Brazil's copyright law has been "reinforced" for two decades now. However, it has not been taken off the 301 list and the copyright enforcement has had a very negative affect. There is now a large black market for entertainment, where movies that were once $10 USD are now $100 as an example. What copyright does is enforce monopolistic pricing, considering the price of the seller only, instead of the free market and what people would pay for a product.
As I've noted elsewhere, piracy seems to find the right price for goods and natural scarcities, whereas copyright brings an artificial scarcity into the market. By allowing the market to decide the prices for goods and services, we would be a lot better off with more goods and products to fit various people on different levels.
I am also not informed about the circumstances associated with the two names you mention, but the fact extradition is involved strongly suggests that there is much more to each of the stories than simply the US trying to enforce its laws through questionable means
The best place to look at Griffith's story. This is before the CFAA and it's rather ironic that he's charged with a crime and locked up in the US for 4 years without ever having been in the US to commit a crime.
Richard O' Dwyer was the head admin for TVShack.net. Basically he linked to copyrighted material on his site, and ICE is using Operation In Our Sites to extradite him. In a nutshell, the US is trying to use US copyright law to apply in the UK, similar to what SOPA and PIPA are supposed to do. If you need more info, Mike has a write up here. The UK discusses it here. And finally his mother writes about it here
On the post: A Message For Congress Over Thanksgiving
Re:
On the post: Mike Masnick's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, your argument is intellectually dishonest and misleading.
Give me examples of you *not* believing in this communistic principle, as I can give thousands of examples of you complaining about the basic precepts that surround copyright/trademarks/patents and how they protect the rights of the innovator and creator
You're full of it... Copyright law has not protected innovators or creators in the last 100 years. I'll even argue that the public has gained little societal benefit from copyright enforcement, which is still a government mandated monopoly. Where is your proof that copyright has increased knowledge and learning or protected the innovators and/or creators?
On the post: Mike Masnick's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: WTF?
On the post: A Message For Congress Over Thanksgiving
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you sure about that? Ok, then why is the MPAA using copyright issues in New Zealand, the UK, Sweden, and Brazil to change their laws into something that makes those countries worse off?
Why was the ACTA created over the TRIPS agreements with NO input from the public that should be benefitting?
Finally, why was Hew Raymond Griffiths prosecuted from Australia, having never visited the US? Better yet, why does the US use the Extradition Act for UK resident Richard O Dwyer in order to prosecute him for criminal copyright infringement?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Woo!
Woo!
Woo!
On the post: Mike Masnick's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've been warned.
*cracks knuckles*
5 filesharing panics before the internet
Books - Economic history of copyright in Europe and the US:
Now, let's look at the US since we've gotten the introductions out of the way, shall we?
Effects of Copyright Piracy
Music - Hadopi cuts off nose to spite face
Games - Gabe Newell's consistent stance:
So, AC, you're not only wrong about past experience with piracy, but you're wrong about the service issue that piracy solves. Care to change your argument or do you stand thoroughly debunked based on just a smidgen of data that proves you wrong?
On the post: A Message For Congress Over Thanksgiving
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
False. Analysis skills that are employed by engineers and scientists do not equate to a misunderstanding of law and the implications thereof.
In engineering you design a circuit, throw a switch, and the light either glows or it does not. In law there is no switch.
Yes, but Ohm's Law allows us to equate both sides of a circuit board and find the details of why a circuit is not functioning properly. In terms of law, the laws passed could be heavily one sided (in this case the DMCA), where the implications won't be felt until quite some time later (almost immediate takedowns, court challenges, and threats to innovative startups). Unless the people take efforts to balance the law, it can be passed based on who has the most money (as evidenced by the MPAA spending $94M so far this year).
This is not because they possess greater legal insight than one who has studied something in the liberal arts, but because they tend to be detail oriented and work that much harder to master the details associated with law.
That's good to know, but it's quite worrying. Why would I want an engineer as a lawyer instead of an engineer building new servers, technology, or figuring out new techniques in business that are more efficient?
Assertions are made throughout the article, but nowhere are those assertions backed up by reference to specific sections of the pending bills and an analysis of those sections.
I'm calling to question your "assertions". Please identify the parts that need to reference the bill as well as the supposed inaccuracies. From what I saw, the post is fairly accurate with respect to each section of the bill, culminating from posts from the last 2 weeks of stories.
The only issue that I have is with the post that the definitive post didn't tackle the end of the bill, where the US government attempts to export their copyright law to other countries.
On the post: A Message For Congress Over Thanksgiving
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Mike Masnick's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
Because they're not crucial tools that businesses need. They exist as myths that gatekeepers use to hinder a business from being profitable in the long run.
On the post: Mike Masnick's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. - Gerald Ford
I wonder what others feel about copyright...
On the post: When Even The Strongest Copyright Defenders Recognize That SOPA Goes Too Far...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For the record, /I'm/ not "comfortable" with SOPA, either.
apropos
" There's no point in answering, you know the answers, you choose to ignore them."
When people respond with fact, you fail to respond and engage.
Next >>