Can you explain why anyone would bother trying to have a conversation with you? You really come across as a pretty repulsive person who's simply not worth expending any effort on. Who's right and who's wrong is pretty much irrelevant. If you're so convinced your arguments are so strong, how about working on improving your personality instead.
NASA is pretty sure they put it up. Nobody else has gone to Mars recently. Are you suggesting they're wrong and it really is someone else's Mars movies?
"I hate copyrights, I often find myself opposed to patents, yet on this case some people here are treating me like an anti-piracy apologist. Ugh."
No, you're being treated like someone who thinks someone is going to buy this DVD set so they can use the case as a briefcase, and that Rimowa is somehow harmed by this product. These are silly ideas, so you're being treated accordingly.
"And in Rimowa's defense, I'm not sure how anyone can fault them for not wanting to do further business with selfish people like these producers who tried to screw them over. "
So the film's producers created a product that does not compete with Rimowa at all, but it does strengthen the connection to the movie, which already provided publicity for Rimowa, so Rimowa can benefit from the extra promotion, and all this cost them absolutely nothing. And you really think they're getting screwed over?
You know what will really screw them over? Lawyers fees (money being spent for zero gain and possible loss), and damage to brand reputation. There is no possible way they can come out of this better off than if they just shut the hell up, or even better, played up the free promotion they're getting.
"Copyright owners, like all property owners, have the right to "imprison" their works as they see fit."
First, copyright owners (good to see you didn't say creators) are not like property owners, because copyright is not like property. Not even close.
'Imprison' is a great word choice, because it's literally the only way any work will ever be under the complete control of it's creator. As soon as you release it into the wild in any way, shape or form, that control is gone forever. It has always been this way, but it's especially so today. Nothing is going to come along that can limit or even slow the growth of our ability to reproduce and distribute information as quickly and easily as we now can. You just need to get used to that.
"If you don't like how someone manages their property, don't do business with that person."
I'm pretty sure that exactly what a lot of people are doing; no business. Hard to make a living if nobody wants to do business with you though.
"The Constitution created it, the law defines it more narrowly, and unless you specifically change the laws, you won't get what you are looking for - even then, it is unlikely that you can take back something from copyright holders going backwards."
You may have heard of this little thing (misleadingly) called 'piracy'. It's quite popular with the general public these days. It's where people ignore the wishes of copyrights holders because they have lost all respect for these laws you think are so powerful. If you think that respect will ever be regained, you're a fool.
"Mike, one moment of reading of the actually complaint will see that they are specific about illegal duplication and conterfeit copies, not trying to shut down a reseller of used product."
And if you were genuinely interesting in having a discussion about this topic that further educates all readers in a helpful manner, you'd have quoted text from the complaint to actually back up your claim, especially since you're implying it's so easy to find. But you're not interested in that, you're just looking for another weak excuse to have a whine at Mike. Pathetic really.
"The benefit to the public isn't as large as that..."
I imagine the deaf public would disagree with you. The benefit to them is quite large. Do they simply not matter to you?
"...and at any rate is for the studios to fix, not a distributor."
You're correct, but they're not. So someone else is stepping in to do their job for them, at no cost to the them.
"Not directly, but it usurps the right holder's position to do this work and provide this with their product. "
Not it doesn't. They are still entirely able to provide their own service. I can't see how they are restricted in any way. In fact if they did, others wouldn't have to make the effort instead.
"Now, on the other side, if Netflix has subtitles but other sellers / lenders do not, have they gained a commercial benefit from this action? That might actually hurt the market, making it harder for others to sell or lend their copies, and perhaps causing a decrease in sales."
Jebbers, did need a brain injury to come up with a backwards logic like that? Making a product more useful, more desirable, more helpful, causes less people to buy it? In what universe has that ever happened?!
That has got to be the weakest, most pathetic attempt to defend ridiculous copyright restrictions I've ever read.
So you don't think Leahy's gift of movie roles is unethical? Well guess what? We do! I guess the fact that you don't have a problem with this means your ethics are at about the same level as Leahy's.
I would love for some of Techdirt's regular pro-copyright, pro-label shills to attempt to provide an answer your completely reasonable question. But I'm not holding my breath.
"DMCA "stepped in" to help their business models exist."
BS. The DMCA is a terrible piece of legislation that has one redeeming feature: the safe harbour provisions that codifies the obvious common sense fact that websites that host user-generated content should not be held liable for user's actions.
Still waiting for something, anything to back up your claim that lots of money was made. C'mon, from your tone it sounds like this should be an easy one for you, a slam duck win against all us freetards.
On the post: Ukraine Takes Down Demonoid As A Gift To The US Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seized by the government?
On the post: Ukraine Takes Down Demonoid As A Gift To The US Government
Re: Re: Re: Seized by the government?
No, one pattern of behavior is simply the result of another pattern of behavior.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: More Anti-Youtube Whining: 'YouTube Complies With Our Takedown Requests Just To Make Us Look Bad'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Over 400,000 Homes Have Cut The Cord So Far This Year... But Cord Cutting Is Still A Myth?
Re: Re: Re: Cord-nevers
On the post: Is Anyone Buying The Avengers' Box Set thinking They're Actuallying Buying A Rimowa's Topas Case?
Re: Re: Re:
No, you're being treated like someone who thinks someone is going to buy this DVD set so they can use the case as a briefcase, and that Rimowa is somehow harmed by this product. These are silly ideas, so you're being treated accordingly.
On the post: Is Anyone Buying The Avengers' Box Set thinking They're Actuallying Buying A Rimowa's Topas Case?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So the film's producers created a product that does not compete with Rimowa at all, but it does strengthen the connection to the movie, which already provided publicity for Rimowa, so Rimowa can benefit from the extra promotion, and all this cost them absolutely nothing. And you really think they're getting screwed over?
You know what will really screw them over? Lawyers fees (money being spent for zero gain and possible loss), and damage to brand reputation. There is no possible way they can come out of this better off than if they just shut the hell up, or even better, played up the free promotion they're getting.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
First, copyright owners (good to see you didn't say creators) are not like property owners, because copyright is not like property. Not even close.
'Imprison' is a great word choice, because it's literally the only way any work will ever be under the complete control of it's creator. As soon as you release it into the wild in any way, shape or form, that control is gone forever. It has always been this way, but it's especially so today. Nothing is going to come along that can limit or even slow the growth of our ability to reproduce and distribute information as quickly and easily as we now can. You just need to get used to that.
"If you don't like how someone manages their property, don't do business with that person."
I'm pretty sure that exactly what a lot of people are doing; no business. Hard to make a living if nobody wants to do business with you though.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You may have heard of this little thing (misleadingly) called 'piracy'. It's quite popular with the general public these days. It's where people ignore the wishes of copyrights holders because they have lost all respect for these laws you think are so powerful. If you think that respect will ever be regained, you're a fool.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One more time with feeling:
The democratic process does not end at voting!
On the post: Dan Bull's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
Is it depressing to realise you're the only person reading this who leapt to that stupid conclusion?
On the post: Warner Bros. Sues A Ton Of Amazon Resellers For Selling 'Counterfeit' DVDs
Re: Re: Best guess
And if you were genuinely interesting in having a discussion about this topic that further educates all readers in a helpful manner, you'd have quoted text from the complaint to actually back up your claim, especially since you're implying it's so easy to find. But you're not interested in that, you're just looking for another weak excuse to have a whine at Mike. Pathetic really.
On the post: Netflix To Try Crowdsourcing Subtitles; Will It Get Sued For Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
I imagine the deaf public would disagree with you. The benefit to them is quite large. Do they simply not matter to you?
"...and at any rate is for the studios to fix, not a distributor."
You're correct, but they're not. So someone else is stepping in to do their job for them, at no cost to the them.
"Not directly, but it usurps the right holder's position to do this work and provide this with their product. "
Not it doesn't. They are still entirely able to provide their own service. I can't see how they are restricted in any way. In fact if they did, others wouldn't have to make the effort instead.
"Now, on the other side, if Netflix has subtitles but other sellers / lenders do not, have they gained a commercial benefit from this action? That might actually hurt the market, making it harder for others to sell or lend their copies, and perhaps causing a decrease in sales."
Jebbers, did need a brain injury to come up with a backwards logic like that? Making a product more useful, more desirable, more helpful, causes less people to buy it? In what universe has that ever happened?!
That has got to be the weakest, most pathetic attempt to defend ridiculous copyright restrictions I've ever read.
On the post: Is This Real? Is This Recall? MPAA Hosts Screening Of Total Recall To 'Educate' Congress On 'Benefits' Of IP Protection
Re: Re:
I can see opposing views just fine. Your mouse button broken? Or just too dumb to follow the simple instruction?
On the post: Is This Real? Is This Recall? MPAA Hosts Screening Of Total Recall To 'Educate' Congress On 'Benefits' Of IP Protection
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Artists Want The Ability To Buy Back Their Copyrights If Universal Is Allowed To Buy EMI
Re:
On the post: If The Government Needs To Step In To Help Your Business Model, You Shouldn't Be In Business
Re: Re: Re: Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
My God, how do you even tie your own laces?!
They were protecting physical property from damage, which has nothing at all to do with how a shop chooses to do business.
On the post: If The Government Needs To Step In To Help Your Business Model, You Shouldn't Be In Business
Re: Re: Re: Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
No you didn't.
On the post: If The Government Needs To Step In To Help Your Business Model, You Shouldn't Be In Business
Re: Re: Re: Re:
BS. The DMCA is a terrible piece of legislation that has one redeeming feature: the safe harbour provisions that codifies the obvious common sense fact that websites that host user-generated content should not be held liable for user's actions.
On the post: Music Labels Have No Plans To Share Any Money They Get From The Pirate Bay With Artists
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>