"So now you people are labeling as "trolls" anyone who thinks stealing is wrong?"
The people in question are referred to as copyright trolls because the actions they're taking are an abuse of copyright laws and the court system for financial benefit, not because they believe stealing is wrong. It's a shakedown for money, not some grand moral stance.
Dishonest:
1. Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive.
2. Resulting from or marked by a lack of honesty.
Deciding not to honour a contract is not dishonesty by the dictionary definition. That's not to say it's acceptable, but you need to find a better word to describe it.
"The constitution doesn't say that copyright or patents would have to satisfy your personal progress, and certainly not the short term progress of anything."
I don't recall anyone making any comment about "personal progress", only progress of society as a whole, so that's a bit of a strawman argument.
"Remember that, if at the end of it all, you are even marginally ahead, you have still made progress. If a single additional song is written, or a single extra new drug created, or a single new device made, then you have progress."
And Techdirt has pointed to dozens and dozens of examples of copyright laws preventing the creation, release or distribution of music, films, devices, technology, etc. By your argument, if a single item is prevented from being created, you have the opposite of progress.
"You may not LIKE the progress, you may feel there is more progress in other routes. But the reality is that congress are the only ones who get to decide if progress is made..."
Actually that's not true. Congress gets to decide if examples of progress are legal or not. The true arbiters of progress are the public, who are always more than happy to follow along behind real progress whether it's legal or not. You may not LIKE the progress, but good luck stopping it.
"I would say you need to give AJ some space - what he is saying is true. You might not like it, but he isn't lying."
Reread what Joe and Mike said. Joe claimed "Of course, the anti-copyright crusaders love to leave out the means part of the equation." This is indeed a lie, and Mike called him out on it.
Nobody's said it's "unlimited", only that it's so long that it no longer fulfils the intent of being "limited". Apart from pure greed on the part of artists and their families, can you give any good reason for copyright needing to be extended from 14-28 years to anything up to 170-odd years? How is an artist being encouraged by copyright when they're dead? Was it the intent of copyright to provide welfare for several generations of an artist's family? You regularly claim the moral high ground in copyright discussion, but personally I believe the length of copyright is just as immoral as you think copyright infringement is.
So stop commenting about yourself. I DARE YOU to make a series of comments in a post and not mention yourself once. I don't think you're capable, but I'd be a pleasant surprise
"II'm pointing out that Mike is spreading FUD on this, claiming that "perhaps" there is abuse. But he has no evidence of abuse. "
Until you can figure out the difference between an opinion blog and a court of law, you're always going to struggle to make a useful point here. There is no need to present evidence of actual abuse in order to make a suggestion that given the long history of abuse of private info by governments, combined with the pretty sold factual info in the graphs, that abuse is very likely to be taking place. You'd be an ignorant fool to think otherwise.
"I get a lot of shit from a lot of people on TD--more so than probably any other person--and sometimes it gets to me. I'm only human."
You're such a sniveling weasel Joe. You expect us to believe you were rude because everyone was rude to you? How can you be so deluded? People are rude to you because you're rude to everyone. You get shit because all you do is fling shit. The odd nugget of knowledge you bring doesn't even come close to excusing you from you rest of the crap you regularly dump here in an ongoing effort to stroke your own ego and assert your imagined superiority.
"Mike on the other hand has never once even acknowledged that he's been rude to me, much less apologized."
Mike has acknowledged his behaviour towards you multiple times, including today, and explained why you deserve it, and I don't recall anyone disagreeing with him. Are you forgetful or do you willfully block facts from your mind when they don't line up with your latest claim of terrible treatment?
"He's put US Ambassadors and Ambassadors of other nations lives in danger....notice how many bombings are happening at Ebassy's throughout the Middle East?"
Nice credibility-killing conflation of two completely different events there Wally. Why use facts to make your point when you can just make stuff up!
"Sometimes revealing classified information reveals what our intelligence capabilities are."
That's a great hypothetical, but did it actually happen in this case? How about we concentrate on what info was actually released instead of making up stories to make things sound scarier than they actually are.
I suggest you go look it up, because your memory seems highly distorted. I don't remember Assange stating any such malicious intent, only a desire to expose untruths and corruption, whether corporate or state.
You're the one making the claims here, you have to back them up.
"Murdoch is experimenting to find the best way, and he is "admitting defeat"..."
He's not experimenting. He said Google was ripping him off and blocked them. It's obvious he's realised he was actually benefitting from Google, and is trying to get some of that free benefit back.
"...where as Trent Reznor signs a record label, and he's doing it right?"
His non-label period was very successful, and now he's obviously been offered a deal he's happy with. You can be sure it's much better than the deals that drove him away from labels in the first place.
"Another wonky day in Techdirt land!"
This stuff is not hard to understand. It must just be you...
"Sadly, the pirate types will just roll out more excuses, like "it's not on when I want to watch" or "cable costs too much" or "I can't be arsed to pay"."
It's free, and I'll DVR it (in HD and 5.1) to watch probably on the same evening or the next day. Why on earth would I make excuses and pirate it?
"It may solve some issues, but not many. NZ is how many people? That's not a huge part of the piracy issue right there. Even if every pirate in NZ suddenly stopped, it would be, what 1% of the issue?"
How is that even slightly relevant? If one network can do it for one show then lots of other networks can do it for lots of other shows. Having lots of satisfied customers is a far better end result than anything you'll get from traditional anti-piracy measures.
"Nice, but nothing to write home about."
Way to miss the point of the article. Try thinking beyond the one little thing right in front of you.
"I realize the "report" thing is a community driven function, hence, to the community, we should not use it as a "You're wrong" button."
As long as it's the only tool available for the community to say "You're wrong", that's what it'll be used for.
Ignore those bleating about "censorship", it's not even close. In fact I'm quite sure flagged comments get more attention than they would if unflagged. Some censorship that is...
No, you're insulting because that's just the kind of person you are. I have trouble imagining you're any more popular in the real world than you are here.
"What's he hiding? (Rhetorical question. It's obvious.)"
It may be ego-crushing to you, but maybe he has better things to do? You've proven countless times that you're just not worth investing much time in.
"If Mike were forthcoming and engaging on the issues, I wouldn't feel the need to constantly remind people that he's not."
The thing is, most of us are able to get a very clear picture about Mike's personal opinions, because we read the posts on his opinion blog. Your repeated demands for Mike to explain himself to you (beyond demonstrating an extraordinary sense of entitlement to someone else's time) just make it look like you're not smart enough to figure it out for yourself, despite it staring you in the face.
You don't think MPAA dollars counts as an "outside influence"? These guys are in business to do one thing: make more money. They do not fund and then publish reports that refute the claims they've been making to the public and to the law-makers in government. The fund reports that help them, not hinder them.
And I'm sure if it was funded by Google or TPB you wouldn't give it the time of day either. Groups like the MPAA simply don't fund reports that come to conclusions they don't agree with.
On the post: Copyright Trolls Still Arguing That Open WiFi Is 'Negligent'
Re: Wow
The people in question are referred to as copyright trolls because the actions they're taking are an abuse of copyright laws and the court system for financial benefit, not because they believe stealing is wrong. It's a shakedown for money, not some grand moral stance.
On the post: Big Name Musicians Threaten To Strike Over Parlophone Sell-Off After Discovering They're 'Just Assets'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive.
2. Resulting from or marked by a lack of honesty.
Deciding not to honour a contract is not dishonesty by the dictionary definition. That's not to say it's acceptable, but you need to find a better word to describe it.
On the post: Can We Kill The Myth That The Constitution Guarantees Copyrights And Patents?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't recall anyone making any comment about "personal progress", only progress of society as a whole, so that's a bit of a strawman argument.
"Remember that, if at the end of it all, you are even marginally ahead, you have still made progress. If a single additional song is written, or a single extra new drug created, or a single new device made, then you have progress."
And Techdirt has pointed to dozens and dozens of examples of copyright laws preventing the creation, release or distribution of music, films, devices, technology, etc. By your argument, if a single item is prevented from being created, you have the opposite of progress.
"You may not LIKE the progress, you may feel there is more progress in other routes. But the reality is that congress are the only ones who get to decide if progress is made..."
Actually that's not true. Congress gets to decide if examples of progress are legal or not. The true arbiters of progress are the public, who are always more than happy to follow along behind real progress whether it's legal or not. You may not LIKE the progress, but good luck stopping it.
"I would say you need to give AJ some space - what he is saying is true. You might not like it, but he isn't lying."
Reread what Joe and Mike said. Joe claimed "Of course, the anti-copyright crusaders love to leave out the means part of the equation." This is indeed a lie, and Mike called him out on it.
On the post: Can We Kill The Myth That The Constitution Guarantees Copyrights And Patents?
Re: Re: By Precedent (to Average Joe, #51)
On the post: Crime Inc. Inc., The Business Of Hyping The Piracy Threat
Re:
On the post: New Data Dump Shows Feds Massively Increased Spying On Who You're Talking To
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So stop commenting about yourself. I DARE YOU to make a series of comments in a post and not mention yourself once. I don't think you're capable, but I'd be a pleasant surprise
"II'm pointing out that Mike is spreading FUD on this, claiming that "perhaps" there is abuse. But he has no evidence of abuse. "
Until you can figure out the difference between an opinion blog and a court of law, you're always going to struggle to make a useful point here. There is no need to present evidence of actual abuse in order to make a suggestion that given the long history of abuse of private info by governments, combined with the pretty sold factual info in the graphs, that abuse is very likely to be taking place. You'd be an ignorant fool to think otherwise.
On the post: New Data Dump Shows Feds Massively Increased Spying On Who You're Talking To
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, Joe you're being an asshole. You really, really are. And that's not rude.
On the post: New Data Dump Shows Feds Massively Increased Spying On Who You're Talking To
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're such a sniveling weasel Joe. You expect us to believe you were rude because everyone was rude to you? How can you be so deluded? People are rude to you because you're rude to everyone. You get shit because all you do is fling shit. The odd nugget of knowledge you bring doesn't even come close to excusing you from you rest of the crap you regularly dump here in an ongoing effort to stroke your own ego and assert your imagined superiority.
"Mike on the other hand has never once even acknowledged that he's been rude to me, much less apologized."
Mike has acknowledged his behaviour towards you multiple times, including today, and explained why you deserve it, and I don't recall anyone disagreeing with him. Are you forgetful or do you willfully block facts from your mind when they don't line up with your latest claim of terrible treatment?
On the post: Google's Copyright Crackdown Punishes Author For Torrenting His Own Book
Re:
On the post: US Military Classifies Wikileaks As 'Enemy Of The United States'
Re:
Nice credibility-killing conflation of two completely different events there Wally. Why use facts to make your point when you can just make stuff up!
On the post: US Military Classifies Wikileaks As 'Enemy Of The United States'
Re: Re: Re:
That's a great hypothetical, but did it actually happen in this case? How about we concentrate on what info was actually released instead of making up stories to make things sound scarier than they actually are.
On the post: US Military Classifies Wikileaks As 'Enemy Of The United States'
Re: Assange says he's an enemy
You're the one making the claims here, you have to back them up.
On the post: Rupert Murdoch Admits Defeat: Now Wants London Times To Appear In Search Results
Re:
He's not experimenting. He said Google was ripping him off and blocked them. It's obvious he's realised he was actually benefitting from Google, and is trying to get some of that free benefit back.
"...where as Trent Reznor signs a record label, and he's doing it right?"
His non-label period was very successful, and now he's obviously been offered a deal he's happy with. You can be sure it's much better than the deals that drove him away from labels in the first place.
"Another wonky day in Techdirt land!"
This stuff is not hard to understand. It must just be you...
On the post: So What Can The Music Industry Do Now?
Re:
Do you have any evidence of this occurring on a meaningful scale?
"Why spend a year or more to write and produce a great new album..."
It does not take a year of full time work to produce an album. Stop overblowing your claims to try to make a point.
"...when you can make bank off your existing content, by playing live all over the world?"
Weren't you just taking about short-term feast being followed by famine?
On the post: NZ Gets New 'Homeland' Episodes Less Than 4 Hours After US
Re:
It's free, and I'll DVR it (in HD and 5.1) to watch probably on the same evening or the next day. Why on earth would I make excuses and pirate it?
"It may solve some issues, but not many. NZ is how many people? That's not a huge part of the piracy issue right there. Even if every pirate in NZ suddenly stopped, it would be, what 1% of the issue?"
How is that even slightly relevant? If one network can do it for one show then lots of other networks can do it for lots of other shows. Having lots of satisfied customers is a far better end result than anything you'll get from traditional anti-piracy measures.
"Nice, but nothing to write home about."
Way to miss the point of the article. Try thinking beyond the one little thing right in front of you.
On the post: NZ Prime Minister Admits That The Government Illegally Wiretapped Megaupload Employees
Re: Re:
As long as it's the only tool available for the community to say "You're wrong", that's what it'll be used for.
Ignore those bleating about "censorship", it's not even close. In fact I'm quite sure flagged comments get more attention than they would if unflagged. Some censorship that is...
On the post: Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you're insulting because that's just the kind of person you are. I have trouble imagining you're any more popular in the real world than you are here.
"What's he hiding? (Rhetorical question. It's obvious.)"
It may be ego-crushing to you, but maybe he has better things to do? You've proven countless times that you're just not worth investing much time in.
"If Mike were forthcoming and engaging on the issues, I wouldn't feel the need to constantly remind people that he's not."
The thing is, most of us are able to get a very clear picture about Mike's personal opinions, because we read the posts on his opinion blog. Your repeated demands for Mike to explain himself to you (beyond demonstrating an extraordinary sense of entitlement to someone else's time) just make it look like you're not smart enough to figure it out for yourself, despite it staring you in the face.
On the post: Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: EMI Universal Deal Cleared, Giving One Company Veto Rights On Pretty Much Any New Music Service
Re: Re: Re:
Masnick gets called out yet again and responds in his usual manner: demonstrating the commenter's complete lack of understanding of the topic.
Next >>