No, I'm asking *you* why *you* believe a phone service provider should have a legal cause of action against me merely for making full use of my own property.
Are you referring to unlocking or jailbreaking?
If doing so violates my contract with them, then they have remedies under contract law. They don't need the DMCA.
Going after each customer in breach of contract is far more difficult than shutting down the parties that supply the tools that make it all too simple for their customers to breach.
AJ, your "merits" have been torn to shreds already.
Hardly. I'm asking Mike to admit that this would weaken some of the rights that copyright holders have as far as anticircumvention is concerned. He can't even admit that much. Just like he can't admit that there is an allegation of specific criminal infringement against the Dotcom Crew or that Swartz may have violated the CFAA. For some reason (ahem... fundamental, cellular-level dishonesty) he can't ever concede simple points that cut against his rhetoric.
As far as the 106 rights go, all I've heard are conclusory statements that DRM does absolutely nothing to prevent piracy. If Mike is basing his assessment that this proposal doesn't weaken 106 rights because DRM is ineffective, he should admit that. But he won't discuss it because he knows he can't prove that DRM has no effect. It's just part of the TD mantra that disincentives are completely ineffective when it's copyright. It's total bullshit, as per usual, and Mike has run away rather than discuss anything on the merits. What a fake.
Then you agree with H that the hearing was criminal in nature and thus he should have been afforded more protection under the Due Process Clause? I haven't actually researched the issue enough to know for sure, but my initial thought was that it was criminal and H's petition made some plausible points to that effect. I don't care if he spends 40 years in jail for whatever crimes he may have committed. But I do care if his due process rights were violated. Just imaging how much Mike's head would explode if one of his piratical buddies was railroaded like his. I seriously think Mike would have to be hospitalized he'd be so upset.
Where' the due process violation with Six Strikes? There's no government action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor I'm talking about people's actual due process rights, not some TD version of reality.
Well, if that hearing was criminal in nature, which it seems to me it was despite the underlying infringement action being a civil action, then drawing any inferences from the silence is impermissible. If you read H's brief, he points out other ways in which his due process rights may have been violated. My point is that I care about that because I care about everyone's due process rights. Mike glosses over those arguments because the thought of H's due process rights being violated doesn't bother him. The fact is that judges don't typically investigate, charge, and punish criminals. Even if H is guilty, he deserves the same due process as everyone else. But, of course, Mike enjoys the thought of this guy getting railroaded, no matter whether his constitutional rights are violated or not. I don't operate that way.
Oh, I think it's pretty funny when an obvious pirate gets his comeuppance and Mike scrambles, desperately, to throw out any argument he can think of or "borrow" (usually the latter) to defend them. And it's funny too how Mike cares nothing about whether these idiots are getting railroaded and denied their due process rights.
Of what? I just think it's funny how completely obsessed you guys are about these idiots because, gasp, they're anti-piracy. Copyright enforcement threaten you much?
Don't I know it. If anything remotely bad happens to anyone pro-copyright, that's front page news on TD, aka, Pirate Central. But if anything remotely bad happens to someone pro-piracy, that's the end of the world and a complete miscarriage of justice that does nothing but discredit the entire copyright system. But yeah, Mike's not pro-piracy and he's just on the fence about whether there's any propriety to copyright in general.
average_joe really hates it when due process is enforced by the courts.
I love due process. I think that H. has a point that the sanctions are probably criminal, not civil, and that he was not afforded due process. If this were Dotcom or similar, Mike would be going apeshit about the apparent lack of due process. There would be article after article after article about how the person was getting railroaded. But since it's H., we get nothing. It's a total double standard. I care about everyone's due process rights equally.
When have I defended them? I recall pointing out that the court in California would not have general jurisdiction, but I did say it would have specific jurisdiction which is all it needs. That's not defending them. That's pointing out that the claim about general jurisdiction was incorrect. Got anything else, or is this just a faith-based assertion?
And, yet again, AJ shows why responding to him is a waste of time. He made a statement that was clearly false, and I pointed it out. Rather than admit his error, he continued the attack and moved the goalposts. Then he thinks it makes sense to yell at me because I won't respond to his ridiculous assertions?
This is why there is no discussing anything with you on the merits. You employ logical fallacies like you invented them, and you constantly move the goalposts.
I didn't move the goalposts. You said "copyrights," and I assumed you meant the rights granted to copyright holders under the Copyright Act--which is a reasonable interpretation of the word. You appear to be limiting your claim to some subset of those rights. That's fine. The word "copyrights" can be construed differently, and my construction differed from yours. No big deal. But you still have not answered my question: What do you mean by "copyrights." You're pretending like it's my fault I don't know what you mean when you haven't bothered to explain what you mean by your use of the word.
Regardless, I've asked you to address my point this proposal would indeed weaken the copyright rights, defined broadly as including the anticircumvention rights under 1201, of copyright holders. You have not addressed this question. Nor have you addressed the point I've made repeatedly in the comments that if you meant by "copyrights" only the exclusive rights under Section 106, then this proposal would weaken those rights as well because making it legal to traffic in technologies that can be used to circumvent access controls would make it easier to infringe. Those controls exist for the purpose of protecting the rights under Section 106. If those controls are weakened, then that in turn weakens the protection of the Section 106 rights. The fact that it would still be illegal to violate the 106 rights ignores the fact that it would be easier to do so.
Now, instead of pulling out your usual trope about "temper tantrums" and "moving the goalposts," why don't you actually discuss these actual issues on the merits? Seriously, Mike. Grow a fucking pair and discuss something like a man. Stop running away all the time. It's fucking ridiculous.
Poor Mike. Too chicken shit to back up his argument when challenged. He has his flock do his dirty work. Oh well, I thought for a second that Mike was actually going to engage me. Forgot who I was dealing with for a second. Mike doesn't discuss issues on the merits. That's not his bag. Later folks.
So you think that making it illegal has no effect whether anyone uses it? That makes little sense to me. The more difficult to use and underground something is, the less people will use it. I know the TD meme is that nothing stops pirates ever so there's no use in ever doing anything to try and stop them, but I don't think that's true. Only on TD do disincentives not actually disincentivize anyone.
So you agree that DMCA 1201 is not directly related to copyright, it's directly related to DRM. Relation to copyright is indirect.
That seems a bit of a stretch. That's like saying my window and door locks only protect my windows and doors from opening, not the contents of my house. It's like saying my alarm system only indirectly protects my stuff.
Firstly, the presence of DMCA doesn't really reduce the breaking of DRM. If DRM is breakable - it will be broken, DMCA or not.
Sure. DRM gets broken. But if it's illegal to traffic in it, then that makes it harder to obtain and utilize. I understand that hardcore pirates (Mike's bread and butter) won't be affected, but it stands to reason that the more difficult and underground something is, the less people will use it.
Secondly DRM itself doesn't really affect copyright - as practice shows DRM doesn't prevent infringement, all it does it is annoying legitimate users by crippling the usability.
You're assuming that the same amount of infringement would occur in the absence of DRM. I don't think you can show that. And given the fact that copyright holders are so protective of DRM, it seems to me that they think it has an effect on infringement. Again, hardcore pirates will pirate their little hearts out. But the harder it is to infringe, the less people will do it.
DMCA/1201 doesn't protect copyright. It protects DRM.
It protects DRM which protects copyright.
So you are talking about some non tangible potential of affecting copyrights, while you ignore that DMCA/1201 very concretely violates users ability to exercise fair use. Therefore dropping DMCA/1201 will restore concrete users' rights and will not really affect any copyrights.
It does indeed make it more difficult to engage certain types of fair use. But there is no RIGHT to fair use, only a privilege. So it doesn't violate your rights. It just makes it more difficult to exercise a privilege in certain ways (but not others).
That AJ is pretending I said something I didn't, and then going on one of his trademarked temper tantrums, is priceless.
Where'd you run off to, Mike? Pretending like I'm having a "temper tantrum" so you can get out actually discussing your argument on the merits is your trademarked move. I know some of the dumber ones buy it, but wouldn't you rather just thrash me about on the merits? I'd love to chat with you about these things, but I suspect that, as you've done so many hundreds of times before, you're too chicken. I don't get it. I'm not that intimidating, am I?
Let me explain. The basic premise of your argument is wrong. You are saying that removing the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA weakens the rights of copyright holders because removing the anti-circumvention clause weakens the rights of copyright holders. This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question" (as opposed to the common use where it means creating a question). Repetition of your fallacy does not improve it's validity.
That's not what I said. The anticircumvention provisions strengthen copyright holders' rights by making it more difficult to circumvent access controls. Those access controls make it more difficult to infringe. By making it legal to traffic in these circumvention technologies, that in turn makes it easier to infringe.
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you referring to unlocking or jailbreaking?
If doing so violates my contract with them, then they have remedies under contract law. They don't need the DMCA.
Going after each customer in breach of contract is far more difficult than shutting down the parties that supply the tools that make it all too simple for their customers to breach.
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hardly. I'm asking Mike to admit that this would weaken some of the rights that copyright holders have as far as anticircumvention is concerned. He can't even admit that much. Just like he can't admit that there is an allegation of specific criminal infringement against the Dotcom Crew or that Swartz may have violated the CFAA. For some reason (ahem... fundamental, cellular-level dishonesty) he can't ever concede simple points that cut against his rhetoric.
As far as the 106 rights go, all I've heard are conclusory statements that DRM does absolutely nothing to prevent piracy. If Mike is basing his assessment that this proposal doesn't weaken 106 rights because DRM is ineffective, he should admit that. But he won't discuss it because he knows he can't prove that DRM has no effect. It's just part of the TD mantra that disincentives are completely ineffective when it's copyright. It's total bullshit, as per usual, and Mike has run away rather than discuss anything on the merits. What a fake.
On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota
Re: Re:
On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota
Re: Re:
On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota
Re: Re:
On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota
Re: Re:
On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota
Re: Re:
I love due process. I think that H. has a point that the sanctions are probably criminal, not civil, and that he was not afforded due process. If this were Dotcom or similar, Mike would be going apeshit about the apparent lack of due process. There would be article after article after article about how the person was getting railroaded. But since it's H., we get nothing. It's a total double standard. I care about everyone's due process rights equally.
On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota
Re: Re:
On the post: First Hand Account Of Judicial Smackdown Of Prenda In Minnesota
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re:
This is why there is no discussing anything with you on the merits. You employ logical fallacies like you invented them, and you constantly move the goalposts.
I didn't move the goalposts. You said "copyrights," and I assumed you meant the rights granted to copyright holders under the Copyright Act--which is a reasonable interpretation of the word. You appear to be limiting your claim to some subset of those rights. That's fine. The word "copyrights" can be construed differently, and my construction differed from yours. No big deal. But you still have not answered my question: What do you mean by "copyrights." You're pretending like it's my fault I don't know what you mean when you haven't bothered to explain what you mean by your use of the word.
Regardless, I've asked you to address my point this proposal would indeed weaken the copyright rights, defined broadly as including the anticircumvention rights under 1201, of copyright holders. You have not addressed this question. Nor have you addressed the point I've made repeatedly in the comments that if you meant by "copyrights" only the exclusive rights under Section 106, then this proposal would weaken those rights as well because making it legal to traffic in technologies that can be used to circumvent access controls would make it easier to infringe. Those controls exist for the purpose of protecting the rights under Section 106. If those controls are weakened, then that in turn weakens the protection of the Section 106 rights. The fact that it would still be illegal to violate the 106 rights ignores the fact that it would be easier to do so.
Now, instead of pulling out your usual trope about "temper tantrums" and "moving the goalposts," why don't you actually discuss these actual issues on the merits? Seriously, Mike. Grow a fucking pair and discuss something like a man. Stop running away all the time. It's fucking ridiculous.
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That seems a bit of a stretch. That's like saying my window and door locks only protect my windows and doors from opening, not the contents of my house. It's like saying my alarm system only indirectly protects my stuff.
Firstly, the presence of DMCA doesn't really reduce the breaking of DRM. If DRM is breakable - it will be broken, DMCA or not.
Sure. DRM gets broken. But if it's illegal to traffic in it, then that makes it harder to obtain and utilize. I understand that hardcore pirates (Mike's bread and butter) won't be affected, but it stands to reason that the more difficult and underground something is, the less people will use it.
Secondly DRM itself doesn't really affect copyright - as practice shows DRM doesn't prevent infringement, all it does it is annoying legitimate users by crippling the usability.
You're assuming that the same amount of infringement would occur in the absence of DRM. I don't think you can show that. And given the fact that copyright holders are so protective of DRM, it seems to me that they think it has an effect on infringement. Again, hardcore pirates will pirate their little hearts out. But the harder it is to infringe, the less people will do it.
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It protects DRM which protects copyright.
So you are talking about some non tangible potential of affecting copyrights, while you ignore that DMCA/1201 very concretely violates users ability to exercise fair use. Therefore dropping DMCA/1201 will restore concrete users' rights and will not really affect any copyrights.
It does indeed make it more difficult to engage certain types of fair use. But there is no RIGHT to fair use, only a privilege. So it doesn't violate your rights. It just makes it more difficult to exercise a privilege in certain ways (but not others).
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re:
Where'd you run off to, Mike? Pretending like I'm having a "temper tantrum" so you can get out actually discussing your argument on the merits is your trademarked move. I know some of the dumber ones buy it, but wouldn't you rather just thrash me about on the merits? I'd love to chat with you about these things, but I suspect that, as you've done so many hundreds of times before, you're too chicken. I don't get it. I'm not that intimidating, am I?
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re:
That's not what I said. The anticircumvention provisions strengthen copyright holders' rights by making it more difficult to circumvent access controls. Those access controls make it more difficult to infringe. By making it legal to traffic in these circumvention technologies, that in turn makes it easier to infringe.
Next >>