"No, it does no such thing. You are free to copy techdirt and it does nothing to make the Internet useless. Your comment that it makes the Internet effectively useless is not only poorly thought out, it's incorrect."
How do you tell the fakes, then? Thousands of perfect copies of www.Techdirt.com out there, and a percentage have been 'doctored'. If that occurred, I think Mike would have something to say about the practicality of his policy, if his policy even goes that far to allow a mirrored website. Mike, you want to comment on if that would be allowed?
Mike is a H*LL lot more ethical then your average politician. If all the politicians do the copy verbatim thing, a few would eventually modify it and then have the disclaimer in micro-print at the bottom, that the page is "commentary or editorializing". All in an effort to misrepresent their opponent.
You know they will, that's the point. If your gonna argue this issue, address that. Enough with the easy answers, already.
Not being a big fan of copyright abuse, I'm torn on this one. But I think and that some views may be clouded by the fact this is political speech in particular.
There are those saying obeying the C&D letter is stifling political speech. I get that.
But I also think it's wrong and misleading to copy another site verbatim. I can't think of any other law that covers copying verbatim other then copyright. I think it's applied properly here.
Of course, I'm applying my own ethical views to politics. Politics/government and ethics have no relation to each other.
I never said she did. I said one can change their mind. Of course, the article didn't say she changed her mind, just toned it down a bit.
My take on politicians actually changing their mind is:
A) They haven't been bought yet, and are in fact still capable of changing their mind on issues as the rest of us are.
B) They've just been bought by the highest paying corporate taskmaster, and their changed view reflects the wants of whoever just payed them off. Joe Biden comes to mind.
Actually, my intuition in politicians is that most are bought and paid for by corporate interests.
There's more to this then just defamation. There's a reason I can't duplicate any website and re-post it anywhere. Any number of business and commerce websites come to mind, Amazon, Google, Yahoo, CNN, etc. Your argument, "Someone has every right to repost someone else's previous website and use it however s/he sees fit", is not thought out very well because, it makes the internet effectively useless.
Now, if Reid wants to dissect an old version of her website for commentary purposes, that's fair use.
It is wrong if Reid is proclaiming that his version is the current state of things. Especially if using her site content verbatim.
I didn't see anything in the article to indicate multiple site changes, so your assertion to her being indecisive seems groundless. By changing her website, if anything she's being evasive on what she's previously said. I can't think of a single American politician who doesn't do that, Reid included.
A web page is not journalism unless it's intended to be, like a blog or journalism website.
A person has every option to change their website as their opinions differ. It's no weakness of character to change one's mind. Quite the opposite, in fact.
To make a copy of an old website in a journalistic sense and make the point that it was once this way, is one thing. To do so to proclaim someone still holds some old view in light of a new one, is the usual political trickery on Reid's part.
I'm curious to see how a fair use defense based on bittorrent's use of pieces would be possible in any case. Since no single piece is ever intended to be utilized without the whole, the argument for fair use falls flat.
Either the judge can decide to require individual filings [with associated filing fees]
OR
decide that individual fillings make the law unenforceable and allow this.
If the judge requires individual filings, and entertainment [shortsightedly] follows through, the court load may spur a law change. Since congress is bought and paid for, the changed law will be to the citizen's detriment.
The whole jest of the lawyers argument is, since there was no crosswalk on the other side, Google should not have given the instruction to cross at all. I can see the logic there, even if Google is not liable.
You wouldn't buy a GPS for the car that instructed you to drive in the middle of a 'pedestrians only' walk area just because it was a shortest route.
If Google can't map the sidewalks more accurately, their product is worthless. The accuracy standard for this application should be high, since the consequences are more dire. At least when the GPS is wrong, you have the protection of a vehicle around you.
Litigation as a revenue stream can't be sustained by the courts
I've seen a lot of arguments based on morality or why a law should be repealed because so many break it. But there is one argument no one has touched unless I missed it, and it applies to the patent system as well.
If a law is in place that makes it lucrative to use litigation as a revenue stream, the law needs to change to make that not the case.
Practicality is going to put a screeching halt to all this. If ALL the content creators file mass lawsuits, and the a patient 'nuclear war' begins, our court system will not sustain such a situation for long. It was not designed for that.
The makers of the 'Hurt Locker' just filed 5000 lawsuits as a revenue source. Content creators are merely shifting costs from them to the court system. Apple just started on the patient end of things.
Either the laws will change to make such litigation unnecessary, or the filing costs will escalate to the point that it won't be cost effective to exercise your rights in court.
At that point, every other argument will be irrelevant.
If the 17 year old had done this to someone else, the penalty probably wouldn't be considered as unusual. But because it's:
1) an adult doing it
2) one of the parents
it's OK? What a load of crap. It's the typical, 'kids only have the rights adults decide to give them' mentality. If we wish to teach children to respect the law, we must face the consequences when we ourselves do not.
Sony Electronics was the king of the hill with the Walkman and related products, then Sony Entertainment got in the way with IP issues and locked everything down. Proprietary formats is just DRM concealed.
Sony should split those two companies apart from each other. Of course, if Sony Electronics did what it did best, Sony Entertainment would then sue their innovation into non-existence.
On the post: Senate Candidate Angle Accuses Senator Reid Of Copyright Infringement For Displaying Angle's Website
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing Mike's point
On the post: Senate Candidate Angle Accuses Senator Reid Of Copyright Infringement For Displaying Angle's Website
Re: Re: Re: Re: hrmm
How do you tell the fakes, then? Thousands of perfect copies of www.Techdirt.com out there, and a percentage have been 'doctored'. If that occurred, I think Mike would have something to say about the practicality of his policy, if his policy even goes that far to allow a mirrored website. Mike, you want to comment on if that would be allowed?
Mike is a H*LL lot more ethical then your average politician. If all the politicians do the copy verbatim thing, a few would eventually modify it and then have the disclaimer in micro-print at the bottom, that the page is "commentary or editorializing". All in an effort to misrepresent their opponent.
You know they will, that's the point. If your gonna argue this issue, address that. Enough with the easy answers, already.
On the post: Senate Candidate Angle Accuses Senator Reid Of Copyright Infringement For Displaying Angle's Website
Re: Re: Missing Mike's point
There are those saying obeying the C&D letter is stifling political speech. I get that.
But I also think it's wrong and misleading to copy another site verbatim. I can't think of any other law that covers copying verbatim other then copyright. I think it's applied properly here.
Of course, I'm applying my own ethical views to politics. Politics/government and ethics have no relation to each other.
On the post: Senate Candidate Angle Accuses Senator Reid Of Copyright Infringement For Displaying Angle's Website
Re: Re: Re: re: dont want you rwebsite seen
My take on politicians actually changing their mind is:
A) They haven't been bought yet, and are in fact still capable of changing their mind on issues as the rest of us are.
B) They've just been bought by the highest paying corporate taskmaster, and their changed view reflects the wants of whoever just payed them off. Joe Biden comes to mind.
On the post: Senate Candidate Angle Accuses Senator Reid Of Copyright Infringement For Displaying Angle's Website
Re: Re: hrmm
There's more to this then just defamation. There's a reason I can't duplicate any website and re-post it anywhere. Any number of business and commerce websites come to mind, Amazon, Google, Yahoo, CNN, etc. Your argument, "Someone has every right to repost someone else's previous website and use it however s/he sees fit", is not thought out very well because, it makes the internet effectively useless.
Now, if Reid wants to dissect an old version of her website for commentary purposes, that's fair use.
On the post: Senate Candidate Angle Accuses Senator Reid Of Copyright Infringement For Displaying Angle's Website
Re: Re: Re: Too late
I didn't see anything in the article to indicate multiple site changes, so your assertion to her being indecisive seems groundless. By changing her website, if anything she's being evasive on what she's previously said. I can't think of a single American politician who doesn't do that, Reid included.
On the post: Senate Candidate Angle Accuses Senator Reid Of Copyright Infringement For Displaying Angle's Website
Re: re: dont want you rwebsite seen
It's using a historical website to proclaim someone's views have not ever changed in an effort to purposely mislead others, as Reid is doing.
Assuming that Angle is sincere on her changed views on [whatever] issues, that makes Reid the dishonest one.
On the post: Senate Candidate Angle Accuses Senator Reid Of Copyright Infringement For Displaying Angle's Website
Re: hrmm
On the post: Senate Candidate Angle Accuses Senator Reid Of Copyright Infringement For Displaying Angle's Website
Re: Too late
A web page is not journalism unless it's intended to be, like a blog or journalism website.
A person has every option to change their website as their opinions differ. It's no weakness of character to change one's mind. Quite the opposite, in fact.
To make a copy of an old website in a journalistic sense and make the point that it was once this way, is one thing. To do so to proclaim someone still holds some old view in light of a new one, is the usual political trickery on Reid's part.
On the post: Senate Candidate Angle Accuses Senator Reid Of Copyright Infringement For Displaying Angle's Website
Missing Mike's point
On the post: US Copyright Group Says BitTorrent's Architecture Explains Why It's Ok To Lump 5,000 Defendants Into One Lawsuit
Re:
On the post: US Copyright Group Says BitTorrent's Architecture Explains Why It's Ok To Lump 5,000 Defendants Into One Lawsuit
There's a choice to be made here
OR
decide that individual fillings make the law unenforceable and allow this.
If the judge requires individual filings, and entertainment [shortsightedly] follows through, the court load may spur a law change. Since congress is bought and paid for, the changed law will be to the citizen's detriment.
On the post: Lawyer Explains Reasoning For Suing Google Over Walking Directions: It Was Dark
Re: Re: The lawsuit is wrong but.....
On the post: Lawyer Explains Reasoning For Suing Google Over Walking Directions: It Was Dark
The lawsuit is wrong but.....
The whole jest of the lawyers argument is, since there was no crosswalk on the other side, Google should not have given the instruction to cross at all. I can see the logic there, even if Google is not liable.
You wouldn't buy a GPS for the car that instructed you to drive in the middle of a 'pedestrians only' walk area just because it was a shortest route.
If Google can't map the sidewalks more accurately, their product is worthless. The accuracy standard for this application should be high, since the consequences are more dire. At least when the GPS is wrong, you have the protection of a vehicle around you.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Litigation as a revenue stream can't be sustained by the courts
If a law is in place that makes it lucrative to use litigation as a revenue stream, the law needs to change to make that not the case.
Practicality is going to put a screeching halt to all this. If ALL the content creators file mass lawsuits, and the a patient 'nuclear war' begins, our court system will not sustain such a situation for long. It was not designed for that.
The makers of the 'Hurt Locker' just filed 5000 lawsuits as a revenue source. Content creators are merely shifting costs from them to the court system. Apple just started on the patient end of things.
Either the laws will change to make such litigation unnecessary, or the filing costs will escalate to the point that it won't be cost effective to exercise your rights in court.
At that point, every other argument will be irrelevant.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Re: Re: US Lawmakers Target The Pirate Bay, Other Sites
On the post: Michigan Politician Proposes Bill To Regulate Journalists So He Can Tell You Which Reporters To Trust
They don't like us paying attention
On the post: How Depressing Must Your Job Be If Its Focus Is On Breaking What The Technology Allows
Re:
On the post: Mom Who Used Son's Facebook Account Found Guilty Of Online Harassment
The 'busting an adult' double standard
1) an adult doing it
2) one of the parents
it's OK? What a load of crap. It's the typical, 'kids only have the rights adults decide to give them' mentality. If we wish to teach children to respect the law, we must face the consequences when we ourselves do not.
On the post: Has Sony Finally Realized That Open Platforms Are Good?
Sony Entertainment is the problem
Sony should split those two companies apart from each other. Of course, if Sony Electronics did what it did best, Sony Entertainment would then sue their innovation into non-existence.
Next >>