"What is not ok is that the public is being deprived from that piece of culture so someone can get easy money."
ah - that strikes me as making some sense now! I appreciate you providing clarification with that statement. It helped me see the "moral" issue at hand "explicit coward" might have also been referring to.
Now I need to go ponder that notion. Because you caused me to pause in my premise...
that's the rub. at what point does it become morally wrong? I, my brother, and sister inherited my parent's house. It was worth, at that point many years ago, worth something around $75,000. So what's the threshold? Is that morally disgusting?
That's why I have a concern with the categorization being based on moral considerations as well. And what if the heirs give away X amount of that each year? how much then becomes "enough" to give them a free pass?
to answer the mobile nature concept, even if they're a US citizen, the artifact they're copying while in Australia is not protected and therefore they aren't infringing. Even when they come back into the U.S.
Same goes for VPN access. They're not accessing an artifact controlled by, held by or in the possession of the copyright holder.
if its a file on a server in the US, then it's clearly within the borders of the copyright protection. Unless the server is owned by an Australian. Then all bets are off.
this is easy if the "you" in your example, is downloading while in the U.S. - that 36% is more than "fair use" would allow and clearly prosecutable. :-)
technically, that's an erroneous claim. $8400 "during his lifetime" needs to be adjusted to 2013 dollars. So in today's terms, he made a lot more, relatively speaking.
When a descendant profits from an estate, it is, by fairness, their inheritance. Should we judge such people if the value is such a high figure? And if they are rightfully entitled to it as an heir? I mean, other than to condemn them from the perspective that they didn't earn it themselves, which personally, I think is an ugly notion.
What right do others have to condemn someone who gains wealth through inheritance?
I'm not saying this to be purely argumentative. Only to probe the validity of the outrage you express.
Personally, I think the issue here that is outrageous is not that someone profits via inheritance, but instead, that copyright can be held for so long. Especially for such works as the Great Gatsby. While I don't personally think it's THAT important a writing, an overwhelming majority of people do. And if they do, at what point does the value of sharing need to outweigh a copyright term?
while a US copyright holder would want compensation and/or prosecution, and while an overzealous prosecutor would love to make an example out of the case, if I understand the quantum mechanics involved (and I'm no quantum physicist), if the artifact resides freely in Australia, and the copy is made of that file, even if it's reassembled in the U.S., it's not infringing.
Why? because it's not a copy of a U.S. artifact. And only the U.S. artifact is protected against illegal copying.
Or do I completely not understand physics and the nature of reality?
so everyone here who comments (apparently in opposition to your view) is an armchair anarchists?
You don't believe in people having a discussion online? Or voicing their opinion online (other than trolls like you who have nothing viable to offer intellectually?) And let's clear up your utter clueless beliefs.
One way people in the United States can take action is by signing petitions. They are not the only action people can take. Yet they are one form of it. And oh how shocking. I found out that there WAS a petition related to this case because I read This article.
Further, I'm not an anarchist. I believe in government, and shock, even capitalism. I own a business. I pay taxes. And do so because I actually think while imperfect, they do at least help to keep streets paved, police and firefighters and military protecting our country and way of life.
I do NOT, however, believe that government, unfettered, and unchecked, is an acceptable concept. So maybe instead of the rest of us "anarchists", you might want to look in the mirror at your pathetic "contribution" to a noble dialogue.
Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website
Excellent response to Mr. DesElms. I honestly love the fact that you brought up Rosa Parks. While some may argue Aaron's actions to not be on par with African American's civil rights, in my opinion, they're one and the same on a certain level.
Not entirely, of course, yet clearly as relates to the notions of human freedoms, of abuse of power against those not in power, of punishment so out of proportion to perceived violations of laws...
I also personally believe he was absolutely right to do what he did in the accessing of content, yet that too is just my perspective on this world we live in.
I fully agree with everything you say - Ortiz is guilty, the government's policies and processes are guilty. However where you say "they knew they were doing something wrong". I honestly don't believe they knew it.
I believe bullies might subconsciously know, but consciously they are so caught up in their power and have absolutely no conscious capacity to pause to consider their actions as being anything but justified. In other words, I believe Ortiz and those like her that created the environment to allow this to unfold are psychologically incapable of knowing consciously that they are wrong.
It's a primary consideration as to why this country is so screwed up at the Federal level.
Every time I inch closer to despising the insanity of U.S. governmental politics, infringement of constitutional freedom, and over-zealousness by law enforcement here, a story like this comes along and reminds me of both how much better off we are here and how important it is to ensure the insanity in this country isn't able to escalate to the point of no return...
"Chris Dodd is an Asshat" copyright 2012 Alan Bleiweiss All rights reserved. Any reuse, retransmission, sharing, copying or other replication of "Chris Dodd is an Asshat" expressly forbidden without prior written consent of the copyright holder.
it's not JUST fake reviews. It's a threat of legal action for a LEGIT review. And there's a much deeper pattern of very bad ORM efforts and how its so wrong for companies to use bully tactics to squash legitimate complaints...
And FYI , it's gone viral - Consumerist picked it up, and it's now gotten over 2000 votes and 300 comments on Reddit on the Reddit JusticePorn home page
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
ah - that strikes me as making some sense now! I appreciate you providing clarification with that statement. It helped me see the "moral" issue at hand "explicit coward" might have also been referring to.
Now I need to go ponder that notion. Because you caused me to pause in my premise...
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
That's why I have a concern with the categorization being based on moral considerations as well. And what if the heirs give away X amount of that each year? how much then becomes "enough" to give them a free pass?
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re:
Same goes for VPN access. They're not accessing an artifact controlled by, held by or in the possession of the copyright holder.
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re:
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re: Re:
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Re:
When a descendant profits from an estate, it is, by fairness, their inheritance. Should we judge such people if the value is such a high figure? And if they are rightfully entitled to it as an heir? I mean, other than to condemn them from the perspective that they didn't earn it themselves, which personally, I think is an ugly notion.
What right do others have to condemn someone who gains wealth through inheritance?
I'm not saying this to be purely argumentative. Only to probe the validity of the outrage you express.
Personally, I think the issue here that is outrageous is not that someone profits via inheritance, but instead, that copyright can be held for so long. Especially for such works as the Great Gatsby. While I don't personally think it's THAT important a writing, an overwhelming majority of people do. And if they do, at what point does the value of sharing need to outweigh a copyright term?
On the post: 'Quantum Copyright:' At What Point Does A Legal Copy Become Infringement?
Why? because it's not a copy of a U.S. artifact. And only the U.S. artifact is protected against illegal copying.
Or do I completely not understand physics and the nature of reality?
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't believe in people having a discussion online? Or voicing their opinion online (other than trolls like you who have nothing viable to offer intellectually?) And let's clear up your utter clueless beliefs.
One way people in the United States can take action is by signing petitions. They are not the only action people can take. Yet they are one form of it. And oh how shocking. I found out that there WAS a petition related to this case because I read This article.
Further, I'm not an anarchist. I believe in government, and shock, even capitalism. I own a business. I pay taxes. And do so because I actually think while imperfect, they do at least help to keep streets paved, police and firefighters and military protecting our country and way of life.
I do NOT, however, believe that government, unfettered, and unchecked, is an acceptable concept. So maybe instead of the rest of us "anarchists", you might want to look in the mirror at your pathetic "contribution" to a noble dialogue.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website
Not entirely, of course, yet clearly as relates to the notions of human freedoms, of abuse of power against those not in power, of punishment so out of proportion to perceived violations of laws...
I also personally believe he was absolutely right to do what he did in the accessing of content, yet that too is just my perspective on this world we live in.
On the post: Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's called a trigger
I believe bullies might subconsciously know, but consciously they are so caught up in their power and have absolutely no conscious capacity to pause to consider their actions as being anything but justified. In other words, I believe Ortiz and those like her that created the environment to allow this to unfold are psychologically incapable of knowing consciously that they are wrong.
It's a primary consideration as to why this country is so screwed up at the Federal level.
On the post: Nokia Running A Man In The Middle Attack To Decrypt All Your Encrypted Traffic, But Promises Not To Peek
On the post: EPIC Sues CIA For Release Of Documents Concerning Domestic Spying It Swears It's Not Doing
On the post: To Avoid Controversy, 'Realtime' Microblogging In China Now Delayed By 7 Days
On the post: Charles Carreon Promises Not To Go After Blogger; But Digs Own Hole Deeper Trying To Avoid Paying Legal Fees
Thank you. Sincerely. Your ability to take things from the ridiculous to the absurd is beyond measure. :-)
On the post: Open Letter To Human Synergistics International In Response To Your Accusation That Techdirt Is Infringing
Re:
Terrorists. All of them...
On the post: Open Letter To Human Synergistics International In Response To Your Accusation That Techdirt Is Infringing
On the post: Open Letter To Human Synergistics International In Response To Your Accusation That Techdirt Is Infringing
On the post: Chris Dodd: Bogus Facebook 'Copyright' Declaration Proves Everyone Loves Copyright
"Chris Dodd is an Asshat" copyright 2012 Alan Bleiweiss All rights reserved. Any reuse, retransmission, sharing, copying or other replication of "Chris Dodd is an Asshat" expressly forbidden without prior written consent of the copyright holder.
On the post: Latest Company To Discover The Streisand Effect: Casey Movers
Re: Fake Online Reviews
On the post: Latest Company To Discover The Streisand Effect: Casey Movers
Next >>