What's your point exactly? The fact that he's had more financial success outside the Hollywood system says more about the Hollywood system than it does about Smith.
"Rappers are like roaches, they will survive any nuclear event."
Well the concept of "stealing other people's work and re-using it without permission" is how human culture developed for hundreds of thousands of years until the damned lawyers got involved a couple of hundred years ago. So you're right, this fundamental part of how culture develops will not be going away any time soon. Hopefully the lawyers will though.
You describe this as "another biased article" as if that's a bad thing that nobody else realised. Of course it's biased, this is an opinion blog, and Mike's opinion of the state of the patent system is well-know. Your comments have a very strong pro-patent bias, and most of us know why. So your accusation is both hypocritical and irrelevant.
"If they invented and patented it or bought it from the ineventor, they were the ones who innovated by definition."
I prefer to consider something truly innovative if it actually provides a benefit to someone. There is absolutely nothing innovative about coming up with an idea that you can't produce, or worse, buying someone else's idea and still not being able to produce it. By then using a ridiculously broad patent to prevent someone else's genuinely innovative product from coming to market (i.e. providing a benefit to someone), you're being the exact opposite of innovative.
"The infringers were the ones who stole it."
"Large infringers really are paying you to write this rubbish, aren't they?"
And with these two comments you paint yourself as an ignorant loon not worthy listening to.
It's a matter of trust, or a lack thereof. If governments had a history of implementing trade agreements that genuinely benefited the public as a whole, as opposed to a few powerful trade lobbies, then we would trust them to negotiate deals without close scrutiny. But they don't, so we don't.
"So your theory is that it's OK to violate people's rights 'cause you don't think they should have those rights in the first place?"
Not rights, just government-granted monopolies that should only exist if there's a net benefit to the public. Don't get confused by the misleading use of the word 'right' in copyright.
Exactly. As you say, it would be very hard to extradite you to another country for breaking their laws if your actions did not break the laws in your country. Just like it should be very hard to extradite Dwyer to the US for breaking US laws if his actions did not break the laws in the UK. But it's turned out to be very easy, and that's disgusting. No gotcha, just plain common sense.
"One can violate U.S. law while one is physically located in the U.K. That's what he did."
Funny how you repeatedly state that you can violate US law even if you're located elsewhere, and yet not once have you responded to the obvious parallel of all the laws of countries like Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, etc that you break all the time. Don't you think you should be punished for breaking those laws? Can you explain why this is different?
"What people have to realize is that knock-offs do more than just cannibalize sales: they create confusion in the market and allow inferior products to masquerade as industry front-runners."
This is hogwash that is simply insulting to consumers. Nobody confuses Samsung phones with iPhones, round corners or not. They decide to buy one or the other depending on which one they feel offers them the most value.
""Let the artist decide how he or she will make their money, if you don't like the way they do things don't listen to their music. It's that simple.
One very obvious point. If I don't listen to their music, they'll NEVER, EVER get my money.
As has point pointed out countless times, piracy is a far better option than obscurity. Fans will financially support artists, but to earn fans you have to make people like you and your music. Telling them to not listen to your music is the stupidest thing you could do. As you said, it's that simple.
"you really hate everything you don't agree with, no matter how ignorant you come off, no matter how far off base you are"
And you really hate everything on Techhdirt, no matter how ignorant you come off, no matter how far off base you are.
Your entire rant is just a weak attack on Techdirt, without addressing single element of the actual story. Or are you actually defending the position that this woman should spend $16k to not be taught anything about the potentially lethal act of braiding a kid's hair? Do you really think this is a safety and disease control issue? Be honest now.
"If you actually cared about property rights ... then you'd be glad this punk is getting his comeuppance."
So you genuinely think being ripped away from his family and country, possibly for years, is a proportional punishment for providing links? Jeez you're a sick bastard. Would you feel so vindictive if it was someone a friend or family member of yours?
"I certainly wouldn't whine later when Saudi Arabia went after me criminally."
Bollocks, you'd be squealing to the government like a stuck pig. And most people here would agree that you should not be held to another country's laws.
"Respecting other people's rights isn't your thing."
You say that as if copyright is equal in importance and value to other rights, but it simply isn't. It's well down the pecking order, and that, combined with the ongoing abuse of copyright laws by rightsholders, is why it is respected so little.
Sorry, your copyrights just aren't that important.
"Who owned the copyrights on the songs that were downloaded? The band or the label that they said they were signed with at the time?"
Here's what you're completely incapable of understanding: Nobody gives a shit if the label is unhappy. The band is happy, and that's all that matters. You can blah, blah about the law all you want, but the fact is the band is happy that people are listening to their music. You show your true colours (and likely source of employment) by getting so upset for the label and not even acknowledging that the band is getting the very thing they want.
On the post: If You Behave Like Your Own Fans Despise You, They Probably Will
Re:
On the post: Not So Hip 2 Da Game: 90s Rapper Sues Upstart Mac Miller For Doing What Rappers Do
Re:
Well the concept of "stealing other people's work and re-using it without permission" is how human culture developed for hundreds of thousands of years until the damned lawyers got involved a couple of hundred years ago. So you're right, this fundamental part of how culture develops will not be going away any time soon. Hopefully the lawyers will though.
On the post: Aereo Wins Round One Against Broadcasters; Judge Rejects Injunction & Allows Service To Live
Re:
Why should anyone have to pay to retransmit something that is available to anyone free of charge? Aereo are charging for a service, not the content.
On the post: Google Sued For Patent Infringement For Mobile Chrome
Re: another biased article
"If they invented and patented it or bought it from the ineventor, they were the ones who innovated by definition."
I prefer to consider something truly innovative if it actually provides a benefit to someone. There is absolutely nothing innovative about coming up with an idea that you can't produce, or worse, buying someone else's idea and still not being able to produce it. By then using a ridiculously broad patent to prevent someone else's genuinely innovative product from coming to market (i.e. providing a benefit to someone), you're being the exact opposite of innovative.
"The infringers were the ones who stole it."
"Large infringers really are paying you to write this rubbish, aren't they?"
And with these two comments you paint yourself as an ignorant loon not worthy listening to.
On the post: How Not To Build A 21st Century Trade Agreement: In Secret
Re:
On the post: Poll Shows Only 9% Of UK Public Think Richard O'Dwyer Should Be Extradited
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not rights, just government-granted monopolies that should only exist if there's a net benefit to the public. Don't get confused by the misleading use of the word 'right' in copyright.
On the post: Poll Shows Only 9% Of UK Public Think Richard O'Dwyer Should Be Extradited
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. As you say, it would be very hard to extradite you to another country for breaking their laws if your actions did not break the laws in your country. Just like it should be very hard to extradite Dwyer to the US for breaking US laws if his actions did not break the laws in the UK. But it's turned out to be very easy, and that's disgusting. No gotcha, just plain common sense.
On the post: Poll Shows Only 9% Of UK Public Think Richard O'Dwyer Should Be Extradited
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny how you repeatedly state that you can violate US law even if you're located elsewhere, and yet not once have you responded to the obvious parallel of all the laws of countries like Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, etc that you break all the time. Don't you think you should be punished for breaking those laws? Can you explain why this is different?
On the post: Dear Judge Koh: Competition Is No Reason To Ban A Phone
Re: Re: Re: H8ers Need to Eat Some Apple Pi
I'll clarify: Nobody buys a Samsung by mistake thinking it's an iPhone, or vice versa.
On the post: Dear Judge Koh: Competition Is No Reason To Ban A Phone
Re: H8ers Need to Eat Some Apple Pi
This is hogwash that is simply insulting to consumers. Nobody confuses Samsung phones with iPhones, round corners or not. They decide to buy one or the other depending on which one they feel offers them the most value.
On the post: Countries That Don't Put In Place Copyright Regimes The US Likes May Be Deemed 'Cybersecurity Concerns'
Re:
I don't think the willful violation of someone's copyright is a negative impact.
"It seems you don't value other people's rights--like at all."
Actual, real, physical property rights are absolutely respected by Techdirt and it's readers. Imaginary property rights, not so much.
On the post: Yet Another (Yes Another) Error In Megaupload Case: Search Warrants Ruled Illegal
Re: Re:
So explain to us why it was taken again?
On the post: Free Culture Is The Response To The Ethical Failings Of The Old Entertainment Industry
Re:
One very obvious point. If I don't listen to their music, they'll NEVER, EVER get my money.
As has point pointed out countless times, piracy is a far better option than obscurity. Fans will financially support artists, but to earn fans you have to make people like you and your music. Telling them to not listen to your music is the stupidest thing you could do. As you said, it's that simple.
On the post: Why You Can't Braid Someone's Hair In Utah For Money Without First Paying $16k
Re: Re: Re:
And you really hate everything on Techhdirt, no matter how ignorant you come off, no matter how far off base you are.
Your entire rant is just a weak attack on Techdirt, without addressing single element of the actual story. Or are you actually defending the position that this woman should spend $16k to not be taught anything about the potentially lethal act of braiding a kid's hair? Do you really think this is a safety and disease control issue? Be honest now.
On the post: UK Politician Speaks Out Against The Travesty Of Trying To Deport Richard O'Dwyer To Feed Hollywood's Anger
Re:
So you genuinely think being ripped away from his family and country, possibly for years, is a proportional punishment for providing links? Jeez you're a sick bastard. Would you feel so vindictive if it was someone a friend or family member of yours?
On the post: UK Politician Speaks Out Against The Travesty Of Trying To Deport Richard O'Dwyer To Feed Hollywood's Anger
Re: Re: Re:
Bollocks, you'd be squealing to the government like a stuck pig. And most people here would agree that you should not be held to another country's laws.
On the post: UK Politician Speaks Out Against The Travesty Of Trying To Deport Richard O'Dwyer To Feed Hollywood's Anger
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You say that as if copyright is equal in importance and value to other rights, but it simply isn't. It's well down the pecking order, and that, combined with the ongoing abuse of copyright laws by rightsholders, is why it is respected so little.
Sorry, your copyrights just aren't that important.
On the post: Band Explains Why It Loves When Fans Download Unauthorized Copies Of Its Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's what you're completely incapable of understanding: Nobody gives a shit if the label is unhappy. The band is happy, and that's all that matters. You can blah, blah about the law all you want, but the fact is the band is happy that people are listening to their music. You show your true colours (and likely source of employment) by getting so upset for the label and not even acknowledging that the band is getting the very thing they want.
On the post: Myth Dispensing: The Whole 'Spotify Barely Pays Artists' Story Is Bunk
Re: Re:
On the post: Myth Dispensing: The Whole 'Spotify Barely Pays Artists' Story Is Bunk
Re: Re:
Next >>