I can't tell if this was for me, since threaded view is currently pooping all over itself, but if it was, then you sir are an argumentative genius and I bow to your impressive debate skills.
It wasn't to you. It was to an AC. The AC is saying I contradicted myself. I didn't. When I said non-competes are bad, I meant that that's the theory of why they aren't allowed in some jurisdictions. Personally, I don't think non-competes in general are good or bad. It depends on the circumstances.
Ok, seriously, stop pretending you're stupid because I know you aren't. There was a suggestion that you make it so compulsory licenses generate income directly to the creators and no one else. That takes away an INCENTIVE for a 3rd party to contract copyright away from the creator, but does not PREVENT THEM or LIMIT THEIR FREEDOM to do so. They can still gain plenty of revenue through such a contract, just not through the compulsory license (such as marketing fees, advising fees, etc.).
I did NOT EVER SAY anything about taking away someone's contracting freedom....
So the creator would not be able to transfer away his right to the compulsory licensing fee. That limits his ability to contract as he pleases. Why not let the creator decide what they want and what they don't want?
You're right. The whole point of limiting the freedom of contract is that it's done so only when not to do so is bad for society at large. But your problem appears to be with copyright rights themselves, not their transferability. If you're against copyright in general, I think you're focusing on the wrong issue here.
Even worse. The government leveraged the statutorily-granted, limited monopoly of copyright to seize innocent materials without even a colorable claim that those materials infringed.
But that's been said before. Here, the main reason I brought up Feist was to emphasize that phone books and DNS records cannot be analyzed strictly as property.
If any "innocent materials" were affected in the seizure, that effect was incidental. The judge who signed off on the warrants obviously thought there was a "colorable claim." You can no more claim that absolutely none of the domain names seized pointed to sites where infringement was occurring than I could claim the opposite.
Really? That's the best you can do. There are so many exceptions to the freedom of contract rulings that the original case law hardly applies anymore. Minimum wage, non-compete limits, hours of work, you can't forfeit human rights, etc.
I said fundamental, not absolute. I stand by that statement.
The whole point is to ELIMINATE copyright in favor of some other system. As copyright is not a natural right, but rather a government granted monopoly, if the government stops granting a monopoly right you have nothing to contract. In simpler terms, you can't lose the freedom to contract a right you don't have.
So you think the way to eliminate copyright is to remove the ability to transfer rights. That seems like a silly strategy to me. How would that eliminate copyright.
All rights are government granted. So what?
Your entire "freedom of contract" argument is a big, useless red herring which has nothing to do with what is being discussed. I'm guessing it was the subject of a recent class at school and now you're throwing it around like a "word of the day."
I took contract law two years ago. Guess again. The freedom to contract is very much what's being discussed here. Limiting the ability to transfer rights limits one's ability to contract.
A non compete clause limits what one can do in a contract and hence it limits ones ability to contract.
Your argument is no different than saying, by preventing me from contracting someone else's work away, copyright limits my ability to contract and hence copyright is bad.
Or
If an artist contracts his work exclusively to a record label that limits his ability to contract it to others, hence allowing artists to contract their work away limits their ability to contract and is bad.
You're missing the point.
And if I contract away my exclusive rights to use my toaster oven to one party, that means I can't contract away those same rights to another party. So what? Do you think we just shouldn't allow people to contract away their exclusive rights when they choose to? I'm for freedom of contract. Apparently, you're not.
Huh? It simply takes away an incentive, not a freedom. I see a much more efficient system if rights of artists are more often retained by them, that's why it might be a good thing....
If you take away someone's ability to contract their rights, you've impinged their freedom to contract. Perhaps it would be better if less artists transferred their rights. Perhaps not. But to make it illegal to transfer one's rights altogether would be bad, as it would outlaw the transferal of rights in situations that are in fact beneficial to the transferor.
Limitations on non compete clauses do the same and they're good.
Right. A non-compete agreement limits one's ability to contract, limiting one's ability to contract is bad. Therefore, limiting non-compete agreements is good.
I believe this is where a great deal of the problems lie. Copyrights SHOULD be non-transferable so that they always remain in the creator's hands. If the labels find an interest in a band, they should make them an offer granting them (the labels) the right to share income for a limited time through a licensing agreement with the creator.
Artists would always get fairly paid, the labels could continue on doing what they are doing without holding everyone and everything hostage to THEIR terms, and in turn there'd likely be a much greater respect for copyright than there is now.
As long as copyright is heavy-handed, one-sided, and unfair, there will be no respect for it, and it can't work without respect for it in this day and age no matter what the law says.
People should be allowed to agree to any condition or term they want to in a contract (within reason, of course). I'm not sure how you think copyright is to blame for agreements that two parties willingly enter into. The right to freely contract is fundamental.
Like preventing the use of a domain name, because it's a stand-in for the encouragement of alleged infringement.
If you tried to argue that a DNS record directly infringed someone's copyright, you'd run straight into Feist.
Feist has nothing to do with the domain name seizures. The domain names were purportedly instrumentalities of crime, and that's why they were seized. Any effect the seizures had on protected speech was incidental--the protected speech was not the target of the seizures. The domain names were not seized because of the content of any views being expressed, hence it's not censorship.
Basically, they used the "Masnick Effect" on the data, allowing the results to be based not so much on fact, but on what they wanted it to say to start with.
This guy seems to saying it should go to the creator of the work not the "rights holder". Or am I missing something.
Is that what he's saying? If that's the case, why would anyone other than the creator want to hold the rights? There would be no incentive to transfer the rights.
Talk about an entitlement mentality. On my grading system this is a fail.
How is that any different than what we have now? The right to a particular source of income is not the same thing as a guarantee that any income will come from that source.
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It wasn't to you. It was to an AC. The AC is saying I contradicted myself. I didn't. When I said non-competes are bad, I meant that that's the theory of why they aren't allowed in some jurisdictions. Personally, I don't think non-competes in general are good or bad. It depends on the circumstances.
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok, seriously, stop pretending you're stupid because I know you aren't. There was a suggestion that you make it so compulsory licenses generate income directly to the creators and no one else. That takes away an INCENTIVE for a 3rd party to contract copyright away from the creator, but does not PREVENT THEM or LIMIT THEIR FREEDOM to do so. They can still gain plenty of revenue through such a contract, just not through the compulsory license (such as marketing fees, advising fees, etc.).
I did NOT EVER SAY anything about taking away someone's contracting freedom....
So the creator would not be able to transfer away his right to the compulsory licensing fee. That limits his ability to contract as he pleases. Why not let the creator decide what they want and what they don't want?
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What right isn't?
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Tunisian State Secretary Says Censorship Is Fine Because The West Does It Too
Re:
But that's been said before. Here, the main reason I brought up Feist was to emphasize that phone books and DNS records cannot be analyzed strictly as property.
If any "innocent materials" were affected in the seizure, that effect was incidental. The judge who signed off on the warrants obviously thought there was a "colorable claim." You can no more claim that absolutely none of the domain names seized pointed to sites where infringement was occurring than I could claim the opposite.
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I said fundamental, not absolute. I stand by that statement.
The whole point is to ELIMINATE copyright in favor of some other system. As copyright is not a natural right, but rather a government granted monopoly, if the government stops granting a monopoly right you have nothing to contract. In simpler terms, you can't lose the freedom to contract a right you don't have.
So you think the way to eliminate copyright is to remove the ability to transfer rights. That seems like a silly strategy to me. How would that eliminate copyright.
All rights are government granted. So what?
Your entire "freedom of contract" argument is a big, useless red herring which has nothing to do with what is being discussed. I'm guessing it was the subject of a recent class at school and now you're throwing it around like a "word of the day."
I took contract law two years ago. Guess again. The freedom to contract is very much what's being discussed here. Limiting the ability to transfer rights limits one's ability to contract.
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If that's the case, why would anyone other than the creator want to hold the rights? There would be no incentive to transfer the rights."
Which I'm good with. No impinging on freedoms, only the removal of incentives for something I think is bad.
How is this confusing to you?
If you take away the ability to transfer rights, you've impinged on freedom.
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your argument is no different than saying, by preventing me from contracting someone else's work away, copyright limits my ability to contract and hence copyright is bad.
Or
If an artist contracts his work exclusively to a record label that limits his ability to contract it to others, hence allowing artists to contract their work away limits their ability to contract and is bad.
You're missing the point.
And if I contract away my exclusive rights to use my toaster oven to one party, that means I can't contract away those same rights to another party. So what? Do you think we just shouldn't allow people to contract away their exclusive rights when they choose to? I'm for freedom of contract. Apparently, you're not.
On the post: Tunisian State Secretary Says Censorship Is Fine Because The West Does It Too
Re:
But the copyright claim did not appertain to the DNS itself. You're not making any sense to me, sorry.
On the post: Tunisian State Secretary Says Censorship Is Fine Because The West Does It Too
Re:
I'm very familiar with Feist, but I don't see how it's applicable here. Who is saying that DNS is copyrighted?
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you take away someone's ability to contract their rights, you've impinged their freedom to contract. Perhaps it would be better if less artists transferred their rights. Perhaps not. But to make it illegal to transfer one's rights altogether would be bad, as it would outlaw the transferal of rights in situations that are in fact beneficial to the transferor.
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right. A non-compete agreement limits one's ability to contract, limiting one's ability to contract is bad. Therefore, limiting non-compete agreements is good.
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Artists would always get fairly paid, the labels could continue on doing what they are doing without holding everyone and everything hostage to THEIR terms, and in turn there'd likely be a much greater respect for copyright than there is now.
As long as copyright is heavy-handed, one-sided, and unfair, there will be no respect for it, and it can't work without respect for it in this day and age no matter what the law says.
People should be allowed to agree to any condition or term they want to in a contract (within reason, of course). I'm not sure how you think copyright is to blame for agreements that two parties willingly enter into. The right to freely contract is fundamental.
On the post: Tunisian State Secretary Says Censorship Is Fine Because The West Does It Too
Re:
If you tried to argue that a DNS record directly infringed someone's copyright, you'd run straight into Feist.
Feist has nothing to do with the domain name seizures. The domain names were purportedly instrumentalities of crime, and that's why they were seized. Any effect the seizures had on protected speech was incidental--the protected speech was not the target of the seizures. The domain names were not seized because of the content of any views being expressed, hence it's not censorship.
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It impinges on one's freedom to contract. How's that a good thing?
On the post: Excess Correlation Linked To Claims Of Causation Without Proof
Re:
"Masnick Effect." LOL! I like that.
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Re: Re:
Is that what he's saying? If that's the case, why would anyone other than the creator want to hold the rights? There would be no incentive to transfer the rights.
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Re:
Talk about an entitlement mentality. On my grading system this is a fail.
How is that any different than what we have now? The right to a particular source of income is not the same thing as a guarantee that any income will come from that source.
Next >>