Re: Re: Re: Big Mac or McChicken without McClown Approval!
Reverse engineer a Big Mac in the lab!?!?
Without prior consultation of a lawyer? e e, you're losing your touch! You have to consult an authority to decide if such action is legal!
Besides that, I gave an example, the McDonald's "Big-n-tasty" that appears to be a duplicate of Burger King's "The Whopper. You could probably compare the ill-named McDonald's "Third Pounders" to Carl's Jr "Six-Dollar Burger", too. Oh, and what about McDonald's "Double Cheeseburger" vs Wendy's "Double Stack"?
Looks like such "reverse engineering" takes place all over the place in real life.
As far as "look and feel" of stores, and trademarks, you are correct, and thank you for admitting that part is in fact trademarked, but the food isn't.
chef’s who pilfer each other’s signatures are just as scorned as comedians who steal the material of others.
That's part of the anti-copyright point isn't it? That comedy, fashion, "magic" and food all manage to innovate and promote creativity despite working in fields that don't have the so-called incentive of copyright?
Also, I think you've badly mis-used the term "copyleft". Copyleft is a sort of slang term for the use of copyright to promote computer source code sharing.
Re: Big Mac or McChicken without McClown Approval!
e e trollings writes: however, i dare you to try to sell a big mac or a mcchicken without the clown corp approval, and see how far that gets you.
You know what? You're correct, but that would be a trademark problem, not a copyright problem. So, you're also incorrect. You seem to have willfully confused what's trademarked, and what's copyrighted.
But you can go into a McDonald's and by a Big-N-Tasty, which is, as I understand it, a copy of Burger King's "Whopper". So, it did work the other way around: McClownCorp copied the food of PlasticKingCorp, slapped a new name on it, and started competing.
Honestly, how can you not see the copying that McDonald's, Burger King, Carl's Jr and even (ugh!) Arby's do?
Someone wrote (I'm not sure of the attribution): Now, in the digital age, you can copy-and-paste millions of times, effectively creating a million copies of this piece of work.
OK, if we imagine that this "piece of work" is "manufactured" by cut-n-paste millions of times, and we imagine that this "piece of work" is some kind of property, like a car, or a lathe or a radio antenna, then the price should fall to something very close to zero. The marginal cost of production has decreased to nearly zero. Classical economics would have us believe that a nearly zero cost of production would end up putting the price of a good at nearly zero.
So, how is the file-sharing situation any different?
What the hell is Raytheon doing with an INFOSEC contract?
I can only guess, as I don't work for Raytheon, or indeed, in the Defence Contracting business at all, but...
My guess is that only one of the Big 3 defense contractors can stomach the cost of the paperwork to get a DoD contract these days. I'd also guess that the secrecy requirements of any such contract would overwhelm anybody else. The Big 3 defense contractors have had 50 or 60 years of "boiling frog" experience with secrecy and compartmentalization, and have become accustomed to working in a near vacuum.
At another level, part of me wants to say that the DoD is nothing more than an unauditable way to funnel money to some new ruling elite, and that the Big 3 defense contractors can do this sort of thing without raising very many eyebrows due to their already existing HR departments that are used to doing clearances, and hiring "qualified" people to do what amounts to hourly work.
Suppose this is an attempt to inflate a Boogieman to replace Osama bin Laden. I mean, if he's not dead (in reality) yet, surely he and his organization have to start doing things to merit the enormous expenditures in Afghanistan.
What, no al Queda action in a while? Why, it's Cyberwar all the way baby! We need to maintain Cold War levels of spending on things like "Cyberwar Practice Ranges", and stuff like that, otherwise Our Critical Infrastructure Might Be Taken Over By Russian Siloviks!
The US made a huge mistake by allowing the DoD to get to such a huge size during the Cold War. We can't wind it down to a reasonable size without economically displacing some very powerful interests.
I personally believe two "Anonymous Coward" trolls exist.
The Troll Formally Known as The Anti-Mike: he/she/it/them does use punctuation, and capitalizes correctly. Writes in paragraphs and makes acerbic straw man arguments.
e e trollings: doesnt use punctuation, doesnt capitalize tends to post one liners predicting the disappearance of mainstream/major media due to unfair, immoral competition from file-sharing networks and "pirates". Tends to believe in the absolute authority of lawyers.
Of course, the possibility exists that the same committee writes both trolls' messages, as they both assume that RIAA/MPAA/AP/Big Book Publishers can do no wrong. I think the difference in style of argument (straw man for ex-TAM, arguments from authority for e e trollings) means that two different people, probably both male, write the posts.
ee trollings says: it's a typical friday on techdirt and mike is once again misleading his brain dead followers into thinking water is wet. water may not be wet. consult a lawyer to find out if water is, in fact, wet. all mike and his ilk want to do is drink water, wet or not.
Ha ha! The Argument from Ignorance. Very good, old bean!
Perhaps because giving anyone a monopoly (enforced by the government) distorts whatever market exists for the songs?
Perhaps because giving anyone copyrights that extreme has side effects that cause the rest of us harm way beyond the good given to that songwriter, and is hence non-Pareto-efficient?
Now, I'm confused. Is your comment "parody" or "satire"?
Also, did you run it past a lawyer who made judgement upon it?
Because it seems like you're just being petty. It's pretty obvious that the RIAA side has done the shifting, through lobbying and other means. To say otherwise has to be some form of humor-by-emphasis. I've always been a bit weak on the taxonomy of humor, so your lawyer should post here to inform me and other victims of public schools about whether you just posted "satire" or "parody">
successful artist's creation becomes a part of the culture and therefore has expressive powers and resonance that other artists pick up and use as a matter of typical artistic creation.
Indeed. The syndicated newspaper comic strip "Frazz" sometimes includes a character named "Caulfield". The actions of Caulfield seem (to me) far funnier because of the resonance with "Catcher in the Rye".
How sly does "satire" have to be before it can successfully fly under the radar of even zealous copyright defenders like the Estate of JD Salinger? Does a court case exist? What would a lawyer say? Does the keeness of a lawyer's sense of humor have to be ascertained before his eminence can detect such satire, which isn't protected speech?
TAM writes: Thank you for noting the existence of a link, though its presentation in a cordial manner would have been appreciated.
Likewise, I'm sure. Classic on-line trolling here. Demand that the other side in an argument present every point in the most demure, unemotional and mannerly fashion possible, while reserving the right to resort to graphic, exceedingly emotional language yourself.
This tactic works better when done by several sock puppets, or in this case, as an anonymous poster.
Stick to the point, dude. You'll be received better yourself.
The lawyers only present the points of contention, and the evidence. They do not actually decide. A judge or jury decides.
Emphasizing the false viewpoint that "a lawyer has to decide" detracts from the real point, which is that copyright is suppressing creative works, and political speech and whistle-blowing speech.
Also, you're wrong about "copying things" being wrong and illegal. "Copying things" is how every creative person gets their start. There's no contesting this, it's a facet of human nature. We all learn by emulating, we don't all start from nothing. No creative work appears ex nihilo.
About the best you can say about a "copy" is that if the original was created on or after 1923, you might have more problems with copyright enforcement than if your original was created before 1923.
Lawyers don't get to decide the outcome of an accusation of copyright enfringement, a judge or jury does.
Why are you so big on lawyer's advice? Isn't "take a lawyer's advice" just a form of Argument from Authority?
What magical property do lawyers bring to situations such as this? Clearly, they can (see the Cease and Desist letter in question) and do perform silly and senseless acts. So they don't bring "infallibility" to the table.
They don't even really bring "authority" to the table. They just argue cases, right? They don't judge the cases themselves, that's up to a full blown Judge or jury, after he/she/it/them hears both sides of an argument.
So, in 25 lowercase words or less, exactly what does "a lawyer" bring to this situation?
You can sometimes do "nslookup xxx.yyy.zzz.aaa" and find out what hostname(s) an IP address resolves to. I'm going to guess that a Big Law Firm will have reverse lookup on their IP addresses.
Sometimes "tracroute xxx.yyy.zzz.aaa" will help you figure out what's going on.
e e trollings wrote:welcome to the content free for all. watch the movie and tv business disappear.
Wait just a minute. In another comment you (or someone who writes exactly like you) wrote:conversations may be an issue if you havent pre-warned the people that you are recording. that would take a better lawyer than average to figure out.
Going back to that article for context, you seemed to have admitted back then that some authority (you wrote "a lawyer", but that's wrong, they only argue cases, not decide them) was needed to decide what constituted copyright violation and what constituted privacy violation. So how, in this case, is YouTube supposed to decide?
That's a serious question, by the way. If YouTube is supposed to pre-emptively block user-uploaded content based on copyright violation, can you tell us how they'd do that in an economically feasible way? They can't really run every clip past a judge to decide, that would cost too much, and they would just shut down.
On a less serious and far less factual note, if the Red Chinese invaded today and shut down the movie and tee vee industries, hardly anyone would shed two tears. They've lost all relevance in and of themselves, auto-sodomizing themselves via self-parody.
e e trollings writes: short term benefits to society of wider availablity may appear good, but once the financial motivations are taken away from the producers of higher end / higher cost content, they will just stop producing at those levels. the results may end up being more poor quality content
Wait, isn't that called a "free market" in other industries? I'm not trying to be snarky here, despite what it sounds like at first. A variety of wristwatch makers exist: some go for high end/high cost (Rolex). Others go for low-end, low cost, very high volume, don't even know if these typically have a brand name. Some market for novelty (Swatch, Victorinex). If the high-end manufacturers guess wrong, they get punished in the marketplace. Same for the low end and the novelty segment.
Are you really arguing for controls on the wristwatch market so that Rolex can stay in business? Or maybe for controls on what other consumer electronic tchotchkes can have clocks on them so that Casio can make middle-market watches? Let the Market Decide, because I already have. I don't wear a wristwatch, I use the higher accuracy time of my computer (NTP) or my cellphone.
conversations may be an issue if you havent pre-warned the people that you are recording. that would take a better lawyer than average to figure out.
Wait, shouldn't that be "a better court than average", given that the lawyer only argues a (possibly wrong) viewpoint before a court, but the court actually does the deciding?
Can I take your article as tacit admission of being a lawyer, as you seem to be giving legal advice?
Also, e e trollings, you should watch out. Now that you've admitted that it takes a court/lawyer to figure out what constitutes copyright infringement and what doesn't, you should never ever argue that some website (youtube for example) can use some computational or automatic way of deciding what's infringing content. The Collective Memory of Techdirt will remind you that you've argued the other way in the past.
On the post: Lack Of Food Copyright Helps Restaurant Innovation Thrive
Re: Re: Re: Big Mac or McChicken without McClown Approval!
Without prior consultation of a lawyer? e e, you're losing your touch! You have to consult an authority to decide if such action is legal!
Besides that, I gave an example, the McDonald's "Big-n-tasty" that appears to be a duplicate of Burger King's "The Whopper. You could probably compare the ill-named McDonald's "Third Pounders" to Carl's Jr "Six-Dollar Burger", too. Oh, and what about McDonald's "Double Cheeseburger" vs Wendy's "Double Stack"?
Looks like such "reverse engineering" takes place all over the place in real life.
As far as "look and feel" of stores, and trademarks, you are correct, and thank you for admitting that part is in fact trademarked, but the food isn't.
On the post: Lack Of Food Copyright Helps Restaurant Innovation Thrive
Re: A tangible signature meal
That's part of the anti-copyright point isn't it? That comedy, fashion, "magic" and food all manage to innovate and promote creativity despite working in fields that don't have the so-called incentive of copyright?
Also, I think you've badly mis-used the term "copyleft". Copyleft is a sort of slang term for the use of copyright to promote computer source code sharing.
On the post: Lack Of Food Copyright Helps Restaurant Innovation Thrive
Re: Big Mac or McChicken without McClown Approval!
You know what? You're correct, but that would be a trademark problem, not a copyright problem. So, you're also incorrect. You seem to have willfully confused what's trademarked, and what's copyrighted.
But you can go into a McDonald's and by a Big-N-Tasty, which is, as I understand it, a copy of Burger King's "Whopper". So, it did work the other way around: McClownCorp copied the food of PlasticKingCorp, slapped a new name on it, and started competing.
Honestly, how can you not see the copying that McDonald's, Burger King, Carl's Jr and even (ugh!) Arby's do?
On the post: Musician/Media Professor Explains Why Teenager Was Right In Debate With Composer
Re:
OK, if we imagine that this "piece of work" is "manufactured" by cut-n-paste millions of times, and we imagine that this "piece of work" is some kind of property, like a car, or a lathe or a radio antenna, then the price should fall to something very close to zero. The marginal cost of production has decreased to nearly zero. Classical economics would have us believe that a nearly zero cost of production would end up putting the price of a good at nearly zero.
So, how is the file-sharing situation any different?
On the post: NSA Hooking Up Ominously Named 'Perfect Citizen' To Watch The Internet
Re:
I can only guess, as I don't work for Raytheon, or indeed, in the Defence Contracting business at all, but...
My guess is that only one of the Big 3 defense contractors can stomach the cost of the paperwork to get a DoD contract these days. I'd also guess that the secrecy requirements of any such contract would overwhelm anybody else. The Big 3 defense contractors have had 50 or 60 years of "boiling frog" experience with secrecy and compartmentalization, and have become accustomed to working in a near vacuum.
At another level, part of me wants to say that the DoD is nothing more than an unauditable way to funnel money to some new ruling elite, and that the Big 3 defense contractors can do this sort of thing without raising very many eyebrows due to their already existing HR departments that are used to doing clearances, and hiring "qualified" people to do what amounts to hourly work.
On the post: Schneier Picks Apart Cyberwar Hype
Generating a Plan B Boogieman?
Suppose this is an attempt to inflate a Boogieman to replace Osama bin Laden. I mean, if he's not dead (in reality) yet, surely he and his organization have to start doing things to merit the enormous expenditures in Afghanistan.
What, no al Queda action in a while? Why, it's Cyberwar all the way baby! We need to maintain Cold War levels of spending on things like "Cyberwar Practice Ranges", and stuff like that, otherwise Our Critical Infrastructure Might Be Taken Over By Russian Siloviks!
The US made a huge mistake by allowing the DoD to get to such a huge size during the Cold War. We can't wind it down to a reasonable size without economically displacing some very powerful interests.
On the post: Woot Asks AP To Pay Up For Quoting Woot Blog Post Without Paying [Updated]
Re: Re: Pre-emptive TAM
The Troll Formally Known as The Anti-Mike: he/she/it/them does use punctuation, and capitalizes correctly. Writes in paragraphs and makes acerbic straw man arguments.
e e trollings: doesnt use punctuation, doesnt capitalize tends to post one liners predicting the disappearance of mainstream/major media due to unfair, immoral competition from file-sharing networks and "pirates". Tends to believe in the absolute authority of lawyers.
Of course, the possibility exists that the same committee writes both trolls' messages, as they both assume that RIAA/MPAA/AP/Big Book Publishers can do no wrong. I think the difference in style of argument (straw man for ex-TAM, arguments from authority for e e trollings) means that two different people, probably both male, write the posts.
On the post: Concrete Company Sues Woman For Posting Negative Review On Angie's List
Re: Re: Re:
ee trollings says: it's a typical friday on techdirt and mike is once again misleading his brain dead followers into thinking water is wet. water may not be wet. consult a lawyer to find out if water is, in fact, wet. all mike and his ilk want to do is drink water, wet or not.
On the post: Music Publishers Keep Lashing Out At Consumer Groups; Those Who Respect Individuals' Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ha ha! The Argument from Ignorance. Very good, old bean!
Perhaps because giving anyone a monopoly (enforced by the government) distorts whatever market exists for the songs?
Perhaps because giving anyone copyrights that extreme has side effects that cause the rest of us harm way beyond the good given to that songwriter, and is hence non-Pareto-efficient?
On the post: Copyright And The First Amendment: Lack Of Satire Coverage Leads To Stifling Of Speech
Re: Re: where's the beef?
Which sort of implies that as well as "Parody" and "Satire" buttons, "Sarcasm" and "Irony" are necessary buttons, too.
On the post: Copyright And The First Amendment: Lack Of Satire Coverage Leads To Stifling Of Speech
Re: Re: copyright
Also, did you run it past a lawyer who made judgement upon it?
Because it seems like you're just being petty. It's pretty obvious that the RIAA side has done the shifting, through lobbying and other means. To say otherwise has to be some form of humor-by-emphasis. I've always been a bit weak on the taxonomy of humor, so your lawyer should post here to inform me and other victims of public schools about whether you just posted "satire" or "parody">
On the post: Copyright And The First Amendment: Lack Of Satire Coverage Leads To Stifling Of Speech
Re: using copyrighted works for satire
Indeed. The syndicated newspaper comic strip "Frazz" sometimes includes a character named "Caulfield". The actions of Caulfield seem (to me) far funnier because of the resonance with "Catcher in the Rye".
How sly does "satire" have to be before it can successfully fly under the radar of even zealous copyright defenders like the Estate of JD Salinger? Does a court case exist? What would a lawyer say? Does the keeness of a lawyer's sense of humor have to be ascertained before his eminence can detect such satire, which isn't protected speech?
On the post: Copyright And The First Amendment: Lack Of Satire Coverage Leads To Stifling Of Speech
Re: where's the beef?
I'd like to further propose some new buttons for consideration after "Parody" and "Satire" appear:
"Irony" - click this for irony in its most ferrous form. Perhaps we can find a case (or a lawyer) to decide what distinguishes "irony" from "satire".
"e e trollings" - click this when your lawyer believes the lower-case troll (and not a wrong and illegal imitator) commented.
"TAM" - click this when The Anti-Mike, notable for his/her/its/their large vocabulary and snide phrasing, seems to have made the comment.
On the post: Copyright And The First Amendment: Lack Of Satire Coverage Leads To Stifling Of Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Likewise, I'm sure. Classic on-line trolling here. Demand that the other side in an argument present every point in the most demure, unemotional and mannerly fashion possible, while reserving the right to resort to graphic, exceedingly emotional language yourself.
This tactic works better when done by several sock puppets, or in this case, as an anonymous poster.
Stick to the point, dude. You'll be received better yourself.
On the post: New Research Suggests Digital Economy Act & ACTA Will Stifle Creativity
Re:
Why the emphasis on the authority of lawyers?
The lawyers only present the points of contention, and the evidence. They do not actually decide. A judge or jury decides.
Emphasizing the false viewpoint that "a lawyer has to decide" detracts from the real point, which is that copyright is suppressing creative works, and political speech and whistle-blowing speech.
Also, you're wrong about "copying things" being wrong and illegal. "Copying things" is how every creative person gets their start. There's no contesting this, it's a facet of human nature. We all learn by emulating, we don't all start from nothing. No creative work appears ex nihilo.
About the best you can say about a "copy" is that if the original was created on or after 1923, you might have more problems with copyright enforcement than if your original was created before 1923.
Lawyers don't get to decide the outcome of an accusation of copyright enfringement, a judge or jury does.
On the post: Pork Board Admits It Knows Unicorns Don't Exist, But Claims It Doesn't Matter
Re:
What magical property do lawyers bring to situations such as this? Clearly, they can (see the Cease and Desist letter in question) and do perform silly and senseless acts. So they don't bring "infallibility" to the table.
They don't even really bring "authority" to the table. They just argue cases, right? They don't judge the cases themselves, that's up to a full blown Judge or jury, after he/she/it/them hears both sides of an argument.
So, in 25 lowercase words or less, exactly what does "a lawyer" bring to this situation?
On the post: ASCAP Claiming That Creative Commons Must Be Stopped; Apparently They Don't Actually Believe In Artist Freedom
Re:
Sometimes "tracroute xxx.yyy.zzz.aaa" will help you figure out what's going on.
On the post: Huge Victory: Court Rules For YouTube Against Viacom
Re:
Wait just a minute. In another comment you (or someone who writes exactly like you) wrote:conversations may be an issue if you havent pre-warned the people that you are recording. that would take a better lawyer than average to figure out.
Going back to that article for context, you seemed to have admitted back then that some authority (you wrote "a lawyer", but that's wrong, they only argue cases, not decide them) was needed to decide what constituted copyright violation and what constituted privacy violation. So how, in this case, is YouTube supposed to decide?
That's a serious question, by the way. If YouTube is supposed to pre-emptively block user-uploaded content based on copyright violation, can you tell us how they'd do that in an economically feasible way? They can't really run every clip past a judge to decide, that would cost too much, and they would just shut down.
On a less serious and far less factual note, if the Red Chinese invaded today and shut down the movie and tee vee industries, hardly anyone would shed two tears. They've lost all relevance in and of themselves, auto-sodomizing themselves via self-parody.
On the post: Updated Research Showing, Yet Again, That Weaker Copyright Has Benefited Culture And Society
Re:
Wait, isn't that called a "free market" in other industries? I'm not trying to be snarky here, despite what it sounds like at first. A variety of wristwatch makers exist: some go for high end/high cost (Rolex). Others go for low-end, low cost, very high volume, don't even know if these typically have a brand name. Some market for novelty (Swatch, Victorinex). If the high-end manufacturers guess wrong, they get punished in the marketplace. Same for the low end and the novelty segment.
Are you really arguing for controls on the wristwatch market so that Rolex can stay in business? Or maybe for controls on what other consumer electronic tchotchkes can have clocks on them so that Casio can make middle-market watches? Let the Market Decide, because I already have. I don't wear a wristwatch, I use the higher accuracy time of my computer (NTP) or my cellphone.
On the post: When Recording Everything We See Is Standard, What Happens To Copyright?
Re:
conversations may be an issue if you havent pre-warned the people that you are recording. that would take a better lawyer than average to figure out.
Wait, shouldn't that be "a better court than average", given that the lawyer only argues a (possibly wrong) viewpoint before a court, but the court actually does the deciding?
Can I take your article as tacit admission of being a lawyer, as you seem to be giving legal advice?
Also, e e trollings, you should watch out. Now that you've admitted that it takes a court/lawyer to figure out what constitutes copyright infringement and what doesn't, you should never ever argue that some website (youtube for example) can use some computational or automatic way of deciding what's infringing content. The Collective Memory of Techdirt will remind you that you've argued the other way in the past.
Next >>