Re: Involuntary participation in the justice system
"The police officer identified there was proof that he needed. If she had been more on the ball, she could have offered a copy be emailed to the police officer, or allow the officer to make a copy."
Surely you just had a massive brain fart, and meant to say "If the police officer had been more on the ball, he could have asked politely for a copy to be emailed to him, or asked politely to make a copy."
"People need to stop thinking that all cops are bad."
Cops need to stop doing things that make people think all cops are bad. They could start by not defending or protecting other officers that do these things.
"They have a job to do..."
Lamest excuse ever. Their job requires them to follow the law, and society holds them to a higher standard of following laws than non-police. Respect is earned slowly by good actions, but lost rapidly by bad ones.
"Would you, example, store your furniture at a storage locker place, when the lockers on either side of yours are being used to sell drugs, and the main office is working as a fence for stolen goods?"
Of course not! As soon as I read the signs out front that said "STORE YOUR DRUGS HERE!" and "ILLEGAL GOODS BOUGHT AND SOLD!" I would've run away and found a place that didn't have those signs. Coz I'm as smart as you...
"How about the creators property rights being protected from wholesale looting? WHere the righteous indignation for those property rights?"
Why should you expect righteous indignation for something the public has less and less respect for every day? People only respect laws they believe in and can see working positively. Thanks to decades of constant ratcheting upwards of copyright laws by greedy rightsholders and then wholesale abuse of those laws at the public's detriment (of which this case is a perfect example), you and your ilk are really not in any position to demand respect. It's quite incredible for you to support the punishment of completely innocent parties because of the government's ham-fisted actions, while at the same time expecting us to be feeling sorry for you. You are completely deluded.
"First off, let's say that the term "copyright cartels" pretty much tells me that you have come to a conclusion long before the discussion even starts."
Your statement is complete nonsense. Perhaps you're not familiar with TAC's commenting, but it's pretty obvious that he's been having "the discussion" for quite some time and has come to a conclusion based on that. It's arrogant of you to assume he's just walked in the door and taken a side.
"Second, the legal system in the US is as a result of the way the laws are written, and the way people use them. It's not an issue of copyright, it's an issue of a "sue them all" mentality that exists in the US. Suggesting that copyright is broken because of expensive court cases is entirely misleading, you are blaming the outcome and not the cause."
You're accusing him of conflating two issues incorrectly, but you're actually doing that yourself. The copyright system isn't broken because of the legal system or the US's litigious nature, it's broken because it has been continuously and vigorously abused by corporations and their pet politicians for many decades. The broken legal system has simply made their work easier.
"You seems committed to ignoring the Constitutional guarantee to an "exclusive right"."
You seem to be committed to believing a completely incorrect interpretation of the Constitution, which actually guarantees no such thing. An unfortunately common mistake among copyright maximilists.
"You can come far closer to replicating a motion picture at home than a rock concert."
I assume you actually meant replicating a cinema at home (since that's what we're discussing), which can only be done by spending a lot of money, which makes your next line completely laughable:
"And it seems that consumers who pay upwards of several hundreds of dollars to attend a concert versus ten bucks to go to a movie do not share your view of how similar the multiplex and concert hall experience are."
Serious home theatre fans spend tens of thousands of dollars to build something that is still nowhere near a decent cinema and more importantly still does not at all replicate the social experience of going out to the movies. It's sad that you consistently fail to see the value in that.
Besides, your concert vs. movie comparison is pointless, because you can't walk into a multiplex any day of the week and pick from one of a dozen different music acts playing several times a night. If you could, nobody would pay several hundred dollars for the privilege. Supply and demand must be in next week's Econ 101 class. Don't miss it!
"Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour."
I fail to see how what Manning did comes close to these definitions. Did he help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the US? Nope. Did he attempt or conspire to overthrow the government? Nope. It seems a lot of the people so keen to throw out the traitor accusation don't really know what it means.
Assuming you're American, you should be far more outraged by the exposed actions of the USG than Manning.
"If you can't see how the relationship of a rock concert to listening on your home stereo differs from the relationship of going to the theater versus watching at home on your HD television- it is you who has no place in this discussion."
Right back at ya. They are fundamentally very similar. Both live music and films in the cinema are far more immersive social experiences compared to home listening/viewing. Both involve significant aspects that you simply cannot replicate at home or duplicate and share. I'm amazed that you can't see that.
"And I understand the distinction that allows you to be more comfortable with stealing."
I've reread my post and can't see where I mentioned anything about my "stealing". I don't see why explaining basic economic and social concepts to you should automatically (and incorrectly) qualify me as a thief. It's funny to watch you lash out though, it does indeed make me feel better.
"That's because it's harder to sneak into a concert than to steal a copy of a recording."
Congratulations on figuring out the difference between something that's finite and not reproducible (scarce), and an infinitely reproducible digital file (abundant). Welcome to Econ 101.
And obviously you can't "steal" a digital copy.
"What about motion pictures? Not like you can take MIB 3 on tour."
If you can't see how watching a film in a cinema is (or should be) a much better experience than watching a film at home, and hence more valuable to the consumer, then you have no place in this discussion.
"Fair use is meant for people who are adding new information to the world."
As of now, those three posts you linked to have nearly 200 comments between them. Those comments have "added new information" for BoingBoing users, who obviously find the site quite useful.
"The sad fact is that the BB version probably got 100 views for every person who clicked through."
If that's the case (and you're guessing based on nothing), then it's a sad fact that BoingBoing are doing a much better job at promoting the author's work than the source websites.
"BB probably made more money in ad revenue than the original author on these eyeballs. That's just wrong."
But did BoingBoing make money that would otherwise have been given to the the authors? Highly unlikely, so your point is moot.
"I don't consider them crooks. I consider them talented..."
You'd be in the minority here then. When you contractually promise actors a share of the profits, and then use unethical accounting tricks to make a clearly profitable film look unprofitable on paper, you're a crook. That doesn't take talent, just a lack of morals.
"You really do think the internet should be above the law, don't you? "
Can you point to any part of the article that says anything like that? No you can't, because you made up an attack point, just like you always do. Lame.
Re: Re: Re: Easy-- make people personally responsible for the infringement
If you have no knowledge of all the many DMCA notices that were sent by people who have no legitimate claim to the content involved, despite the many examples of this posted on Techdirt, including the one I linked to, then I'd have to ask what you're smoking.
On the post: Police Arrest Woman For Filming Them, Take Phone Out Of Her Bra, Claim That It Must Be Kept As 'Evidence'
Re: Involuntary participation in the justice system
Surely you just had a massive brain fart, and meant to say "If the police officer had been more on the ball, he could have asked politely for a copy to be emailed to him, or asked politely to make a copy."
"People need to stop thinking that all cops are bad."
Cops need to stop doing things that make people think all cops are bad. They could start by not defending or protecting other officers that do these things.
"They have a job to do..."
Lamest excuse ever. Their job requires them to follow the law, and society holds them to a higher standard of following laws than non-police. Respect is earned slowly by good actions, but lost rapidly by bad ones.
On the post: The DOJ's Truly Disgusting Argument For Denying A Megaupload User Access To His Legal Content
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course not! As soon as I read the signs out front that said "STORE YOUR DRUGS HERE!" and "ILLEGAL GOODS BOUGHT AND SOLD!" I would've run away and found a place that didn't have those signs. Coz I'm as smart as you...
On the post: The DOJ's Truly Disgusting Argument For Denying A Megaupload User Access To His Legal Content
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why should you expect righteous indignation for something the public has less and less respect for every day? People only respect laws they believe in and can see working positively. Thanks to decades of constant ratcheting upwards of copyright laws by greedy rightsholders and then wholesale abuse of those laws at the public's detriment (of which this case is a perfect example), you and your ilk are really not in any position to demand respect. It's quite incredible for you to support the punishment of completely innocent parties because of the government's ham-fisted actions, while at the same time expecting us to be feeling sorry for you. You are completely deluded.
On the post: Canadian IP Lobby Calls For SOPA North, Complete With Website Blocking And Secondary Liability
Re: Re: Re:
Stop conflating two serious but completely separate problems. It just makes you look ignorant.
On the post: A Big Victory For Fair Use Via South Park, What What (In The Butt), Numa Numa, Afro Ninja, Et Al.
Re: Re:
On the post: A Big Victory For Fair Use Via South Park, What What (In The Butt), Numa Numa, Afro Ninja, Et Al.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your statement is complete nonsense. Perhaps you're not familiar with TAC's commenting, but it's pretty obvious that he's been having "the discussion" for quite some time and has come to a conclusion based on that. It's arrogant of you to assume he's just walked in the door and taken a side.
"Second, the legal system in the US is as a result of the way the laws are written, and the way people use them. It's not an issue of copyright, it's an issue of a "sue them all" mentality that exists in the US. Suggesting that copyright is broken because of expensive court cases is entirely misleading, you are blaming the outcome and not the cause."
You're accusing him of conflating two issues incorrectly, but you're actually doing that yourself. The copyright system isn't broken because of the legal system or the US's litigious nature, it's broken because it has been continuously and vigorously abused by corporations and their pet politicians for many decades. The broken legal system has simply made their work easier.
On the post: RIAA To Congress: We're Finally Innovating... Now Go Shut Down Pirate Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to be committed to believing a completely incorrect interpretation of the Constitution, which actually guarantees no such thing. An unfortunately common mistake among copyright maximilists.
On the post: RIAA To Congress: We're Finally Innovating... Now Go Shut Down Pirate Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I assume you actually meant replicating a cinema at home (since that's what we're discussing), which can only be done by spending a lot of money, which makes your next line completely laughable:
"And it seems that consumers who pay upwards of several hundreds of dollars to attend a concert versus ten bucks to go to a movie do not share your view of how similar the multiplex and concert hall experience are."
Serious home theatre fans spend tens of thousands of dollars to build something that is still nowhere near a decent cinema and more importantly still does not at all replicate the social experience of going out to the movies. It's sad that you consistently fail to see the value in that.
Besides, your concert vs. movie comparison is pointless, because you can't walk into a multiplex any day of the week and pick from one of a dozen different music acts playing several times a night. If you could, nobody would pay several hundred dollars for the privilege. Supply and demand must be in next week's Econ 101 class. Don't miss it!
On the post: Would Bradley Manning Face The Same Charges If He Leaked Same Info To NYTimes Instead Of Wikileaks?
Re:
"Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour."
I fail to see how what Manning did comes close to these definitions. Did he help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the US? Nope. Did he attempt or conspire to overthrow the government? Nope. It seems a lot of the people so keen to throw out the traitor accusation don't really know what it means.
Assuming you're American, you should be far more outraged by the exposed actions of the USG than Manning.
On the post: Copyright Extension: A Way To Protect Hollywood From Having To Compete With The Past
Re: Re: Re: This allows them to 'remix' the past and resell it.... who wouldn't want that?
On the post: RIAA To Congress: We're Finally Innovating... Now Go Shut Down Pirate Sites
Re: Re: Re:
Right back at ya. They are fundamentally very similar. Both live music and films in the cinema are far more immersive social experiences compared to home listening/viewing. Both involve significant aspects that you simply cannot replicate at home or duplicate and share. I'm amazed that you can't see that.
"And I understand the distinction that allows you to be more comfortable with stealing."
I've reread my post and can't see where I mentioned anything about my "stealing". I don't see why explaining basic economic and social concepts to you should automatically (and incorrectly) qualify me as a thief. It's funny to watch you lash out though, it does indeed make me feel better.
On the post: RIAA To Congress: We're Finally Innovating... Now Go Shut Down Pirate Sites
Re:
Congratulations on figuring out the difference between something that's finite and not reproducible (scarce), and an infinitely reproducible digital file (abundant). Welcome to Econ 101.
And obviously you can't "steal" a digital copy.
"What about motion pictures? Not like you can take MIB 3 on tour."
If you can't see how watching a film in a cinema is (or should be) a much better experience than watching a film at home, and hence more valuable to the consumer, then you have no place in this discussion.
On the post: RIAA To Congress: We're Finally Innovating... Now Go Shut Down Pirate Sites
Re: Re:
On the post: AOL Threatens Blogger With Copyright Infringement Charge... For Doing The Exact Same Thing AOL Has Done On A Large Scale
Re: Re: Re: Hypocritical? Perhaps
As of now, those three posts you linked to have nearly 200 comments between them. Those comments have "added new information" for BoingBoing users, who obviously find the site quite useful.
"The sad fact is that the BB version probably got 100 views for every person who clicked through."
If that's the case (and you're guessing based on nothing), then it's a sad fact that BoingBoing are doing a much better job at promoting the author's work than the source websites.
"BB probably made more money in ad revenue than the original author on these eyeballs. That's just wrong."
But did BoingBoing make money that would otherwise have been given to the the authors? Highly unlikely, so your point is moot.
On the post: If You're Going To Leak Classified Info About The White House, It Better Make Them Look Good
Re: Re: This leak actually lets the White House claim credit and look good.
For a second there I thought you were talking about the US...
On the post: Darth Vader Is The Most Successful Star Wars Character Ever, But Still No Return Of The Jedi Residuals For Actor
Re: Re: Re:
You'd be in the minority here then. When you contractually promise actors a share of the profits, and then use unethical accounting tricks to make a clearly profitable film look unprofitable on paper, you're a crook. That doesn't take talent, just a lack of morals.
On the post: Tell The UN To Keep Its Hands Off The People's Internet
Re:
Can you point to any part of the article that says anything like that? No you can't, because you made up an attack point, just like you always do. Lame.
On the post: Tell The UN To Keep Its Hands Off The People's Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only if you're a paranoid clown.
On the post: Megaupload Filings Show Massive Flaws In US Case, Ask Court To Dismiss
Re: Mad
On the post: YouTube Uploads Hit 72 Hours A Minute: How Can That Ever Be Pre-Screened For 'Objectionable' Material?
Re: Re: Re: Easy-- make people personally responsible for the infringement
Next >>