He says that going around the paywall is the same as stealing a newspaper and then suggests that high school kids and unemployed people are the only ones likely to do it. I don't think many high school kids or unemployed people would want to read his paper if they hear what he thinks of them.
"is it censorship if the comment is simply flagged by the community, even though the comment is literally a click away?"
In my opinion, yes. While some definitions may be interpreted narrowly as relating to removal or blocking of material, the origin of the word stems from the act of choosing what to block or remove. If you're choosing what to limit access to (even cosmetically) then it is the choosing that makes it censorship more than how far you go in limiting access. That is why the domain seizures were censorship even if they failed to block any content.
"I hate to be the guy to do this, but unless I can see some actual evidence of anyone calling sample-based derivative works "piracy" specifically, then this post really is FUD."
Here he is supporting something that is potentially infringing copyright, and there they are calling him a pirate supporter. It seems closer to the truth to suggest that remixing is piracy than that Mike supports some other form of copyright infringement. As far as I'm aware, the term piracy doesn't specifically exclude remixing.
"Yes, you whine all day about how your "rights" are being censored when you can't pirate music, yet it's ok to censor actual protected speech here?"
Your speech isn't protected from Mike or the community deciding which comments to show on his own site. That you cannot understand this suggests that you haven't a clue about what protected speech means. Yes, I would call it censorship. No, you're not protected against it.
"Mike, this just isn't the case. You are trying to make a logical leap that isn't supported here."
It's nice to see that you can identify actual flaws in his reasoning sometimes. I agree, the fact that plaintiff cannot locate a user by the IP address does not correspond with whether the IP address identifies a user. The subscriber details are held by the ISP whereas the IP location details are often public.
"That location information isn't readily available to the plaintiffs in no manner makes IP / user matching impossible for the ISP"
It may not be readily available, but it probably is. My location information is in the FQDN corresponding to my IP. While I'm unsure about the issues of reverse class actions and what burden there is to show jurisdiction generally, it seems quite possible to make a better estimate of location than the plaintiff tried to in this case.
Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't want to be considered a piracy supporter? Condemn some sites.
"If we don't like the choice and compromises, we don't pick up weapons are shoot each other (as has happened in other countries)"
I feel compelled to point out that the United States of America was founded on a revolutionary war and has had a civil war since then. Pointing to other countries and suggesting they're not civilised merely for the fact that they have civil wars suggests that the US wasn't civilised until the late 1860's. The first US copyright act was in 1790. Of course, none of that matters except to illustrate the absurdity of your statements.
"What you are suggesting is that you want a sort of anarchy"
It'll probably annoy you but I'm going to bring up civil disobedience here. Was all Rosa Parks wanted a sort of anarchy?
Then what I said doesn't apply to you, obviously. Although there are probably other less than justified reasons to post anonymously that I didn't cover.
'I just don't see the reason why a comment from "viaelamor" is any more useful than one from "xyz" or "anonymous guy"'
Why don't you see that? It's been explained enough times. I have a consistent identity on this site whereas you only have a consistent identity on this thread. You are able to associate what I have said in previous threads to what I say now. I have heard the argument that only what you're saying now matters, but that only applies if you are dealing in verifiable facts, not opinions. Forming an opinion about someone is a basic tool we use to determine whether what others say is worth reading, whether what others say should change our own opinion and whether what others say is likely to be true or false. If we dealt only with immediately verifiable facts then we probably wouldn't need to communicate anyway.
"If you were actually signing your real name (with address, phone number, and your IM) you might have a point"
You have never explained to me why it would be useful to have my real name or other traceable details. I suspect that anything you might come up with in that regard would also apply to having a consistent identity. Lacking your explanation, I'm left to speculate that you don't actually have a point but are merely using my lack of a real name to point to in lieu of a real issue.
"But on a site with nothing but nicknames, it is sort of meaningless to claim that one group of posters are any different from anyone else."
Perhaps if I were generous then I could conclude that you are mistaking the issue for that of proof of identity. That may be an issue, but you'll have to be more explicit in explaining why the issue of proof of identity makes the issue of having a consistent identity meaningless.
"Do not confuse anonymity with the quality of comments."
It seems that those who lack confidence in their position will often resort to posting anonymously. I guess for the obvious reason that they can say what they like without fear that someone will judge their comments on subsequent threads in light of what they've said previously.
It is fortunate for them that other anonymous posters make the option worthwhile to keep.
"Techdirt is all about standing on everyone else's lawn and doing whatever you want, because lawns are infinite and it doesn't matter. "
Technically, copying in the lawn analogy would be standing on a lawn that looked just like someone else's, but without the consequence of them even knowing of your existence.
"What you are admitting is that both sides have rights."
Doesn't that generally go without saying? Unless the other side is an alien.
'Just as these people have the right to be "artists", do the people they decide to remix also not have the right to be asked, and to opt not to be part of it?'
They may, then again they may not. They certainly don't have the right to be asked just because the remixer has the right to remix, which is what you're implying.
"I can invite you on my lawn to yell if I like. You can't go there alone."
Again, this isn't so much yelling on your lawn, but one that looks like yours and in this case only partially.
"You love to jump to extremes and spread the FUD. The government can ALREADY make up any claim it wants and have people arrested. This is nothing new. Sometimes powers get abused. This is also nothing new. Nobody's seizing the entire internet. You sound like a kook."
You think HE sounds like a kook? You're the one implying that due process is unimportant by pointing out that the government has unlimited power anyway. The whole point of due process is to keep that power in check.
'What's weird is that Mike's "analysis" never includes an explanation of what ACTUALLY constitutes due process in seizures such as this.'
Again, adhering to the law and respecting individual rights pretty much sums it up. Exploiting legal loopholes is by its very nature a perversion of due process. The government is supposed to fix loopholes, not exploit them.
"wondered if I'd ever have heard her if not for this cornucopia of supposed infringement"
One of the interesting aspects of Kutiman's work is the processing he does to the clips used, whether to make the sound fit better or just to clean them up. The processing on her vocals seems mostly stylistic compared to some of the others which have been drastically altered just to be usable, but either way the editing likely gives the clips a new audience even without taking the mixing into account.
Is the double use of "of course" in context of piracy also supposed to be ironic? Perhaps more likely is that the Russian Justice Ministry de-calibrated my irony meter.
On the post: NY Times In Denial: Only Teens & The Unemployed Will Game The Paywall
Wow
On the post: Judge Says Mass Suing People For Infringement Is Perfectly Fine And Even 'Benefits' Defendants
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In my opinion, yes. While some definitions may be interpreted narrowly as relating to removal or blocking of material, the origin of the word stems from the act of choosing what to block or remove. If you're choosing what to limit access to (even cosmetically) then it is the choosing that makes it censorship more than how far you go in limiting access. That is why the domain seizures were censorship even if they failed to block any content.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Red Herring?
Here he is supporting something that is potentially infringing copyright, and there they are calling him a pirate supporter. It seems closer to the truth to suggest that remixing is piracy than that Mike supports some other form of copyright infringement. As far as I'm aware, the term piracy doesn't specifically exclude remixing.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Says Mass Suing People For Infringement Is Perfectly Fine And Even 'Benefits' Defendants
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your speech isn't protected from Mike or the community deciding which comments to show on his own site. That you cannot understand this suggests that you haven't a clue about what protected speech means. Yes, I would call it censorship. No, you're not protected against it.
On the post: Judge Says Mass Suing People For Infringement Is Perfectly Fine And Even 'Benefits' Defendants
Re:
It's nice to see that you can identify actual flaws in his reasoning sometimes. I agree, the fact that plaintiff cannot locate a user by the IP address does not correspond with whether the IP address identifies a user. The subscriber details are held by the ISP whereas the IP location details are often public.
"That location information isn't readily available to the plaintiffs in no manner makes IP / user matching impossible for the ISP"
It may not be readily available, but it probably is. My location information is in the FQDN corresponding to my IP. While I'm unsure about the issues of reverse class actions and what burden there is to show jurisdiction generally, it seems quite possible to make a better estimate of location than the plaintiff tried to in this case.
On the post: Judge Says Mass Suing People For Infringement Is Perfectly Fine And Even 'Benefits' Defendants
Re: Re: Re:
Technically, if you don't have the right then it's not free speech. Where did you get the idea that you're entitled to not be censored here?
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't want to be considered a piracy supporter? Condemn some sites.
I feel compelled to point out that the United States of America was founded on a revolutionary war and has had a civil war since then. Pointing to other countries and suggesting they're not civilised merely for the fact that they have civil wars suggests that the US wasn't civilised until the late 1860's. The first US copyright act was in 1790. Of course, none of that matters except to illustrate the absurdity of your statements.
"What you are suggesting is that you want a sort of anarchy"
It'll probably annoy you but I'm going to bring up civil disobedience here. Was all Rosa Parks wanted a sort of anarchy?
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They say patience is a virtue, but it does seem to have this annoying side effect of feeding trolls too much.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then what I said doesn't apply to you, obviously. Although there are probably other less than justified reasons to post anonymously that I didn't cover.
'I just don't see the reason why a comment from "viaelamor" is any more useful than one from "xyz" or "anonymous guy"'
Why don't you see that? It's been explained enough times. I have a consistent identity on this site whereas you only have a consistent identity on this thread. You are able to associate what I have said in previous threads to what I say now. I have heard the argument that only what you're saying now matters, but that only applies if you are dealing in verifiable facts, not opinions. Forming an opinion about someone is a basic tool we use to determine whether what others say is worth reading, whether what others say should change our own opinion and whether what others say is likely to be true or false. If we dealt only with immediately verifiable facts then we probably wouldn't need to communicate anyway.
"If you were actually signing your real name (with address, phone number, and your IM) you might have a point"
You have never explained to me why it would be useful to have my real name or other traceable details. I suspect that anything you might come up with in that regard would also apply to having a consistent identity. Lacking your explanation, I'm left to speculate that you don't actually have a point but are merely using my lack of a real name to point to in lieu of a real issue.
"But on a site with nothing but nicknames, it is sort of meaningless to claim that one group of posters are any different from anyone else."
Perhaps if I were generous then I could conclude that you are mistaking the issue for that of proof of identity. That may be an issue, but you'll have to be more explicit in explaining why the issue of proof of identity makes the issue of having a consistent identity meaningless.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It seems that those who lack confidence in their position will often resort to posting anonymously. I guess for the obvious reason that they can say what they like without fear that someone will judge their comments on subsequent threads in light of what they've said previously.
It is fortunate for them that other anonymous posters make the option worthwhile to keep.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Technically, copying in the lawn analogy would be standing on a lawn that looked just like someone else's, but without the consequence of them even knowing of your existence.
"What you are admitting is that both sides have rights."
Doesn't that generally go without saying? Unless the other side is an alien.
'Just as these people have the right to be "artists", do the people they decide to remix also not have the right to be asked, and to opt not to be part of it?'
They may, then again they may not. They certainly don't have the right to be asked just because the remixer has the right to remix, which is what you're implying.
"I can invite you on my lawn to yell if I like. You can't go there alone."
Again, this isn't so much yelling on your lawn, but one that looks like yours and in this case only partially.
On the post: Defending The Indefensible: Lawyers Who Love Loopholes Ignoring Serious Constitutional Issues In Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You think HE sounds like a kook? You're the one implying that due process is unimportant by pointing out that the government has unlimited power anyway. The whole point of due process is to keep that power in check.
It's no wonder you post anonymously.
On the post: Defending The Indefensible: Lawyers Who Love Loopholes Ignoring Serious Constitutional Issues In Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, adhering to the law and respecting individual rights pretty much sums it up. Exploiting legal loopholes is by its very nature a perversion of due process. The government is supposed to fix loopholes, not exploit them.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Positive feedback from one of the artists
One of the interesting aspects of Kutiman's work is the processing he does to the clips used, whether to make the sound fit better or just to clean them up. The processing on her vocals seems mostly stylistic compared to some of the others which have been drastically altered just to be usable, but either way the editing likely gives the clips a new audience even without taking the mixing into account.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re:
As I read the fervent non efforts by the anon above, I'm in agreement that the report button is the way to go.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Re:
As many have beaten me to pointing out, a slippery slope argument on its own is entirely fallacious.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: You don't want to be considered a piracy supporter? Condemn some sites.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re: Re: Re:
Would that require having a Facebook account? If so then I am firmly against the idea.
On the post: Russia Won't Recognize The Pirate Party Because It Doesn't Like The Name
Irony
Next >>