It's fairly clear to me, and to anyone who isn't willfully seeking as many disagreements as possible, that the email quoting example refers to a maximalist interpretation of copyright law.
Boing Boing points us to a paper from John Tehranian, called Infringement Nation: Copyright Reform and the Law/Norm Gap (pdf), which attempts to show how far out of whack copyright laws are, with the simple tale of a hypothetical law professor (coincidentally named John, of course) going about a normal day, tallying up every big of copyright infringement he engages in. Replying to an email with quoted text? Infringement! Reply to 20 emails? You're looking at $3 million in statutory damages. Doodle a sketch of a building? Unauthorized derivative work. Read a poem outloud? Unauthorized performance. Forward a photograph that a friend took? Infringement! Take a short film of a birthday dinner with some friends and catch some artwork on the wall in the background? Infringement!
Mike is NOT treating the claim as one made by "maximalists," he's repeating what Tehranian said without a whiff of disagreement. He shows no skepticism whatsoever.
The rest of Mike's post shows how serious he is:
While the paper calls this "infringement nation," it clearly goes beyond our nation. We are living in the "infringement age," where it's impossible not to infringe on copyrights every single day -- yet many people still don't understand why it makes sense to change copyright laws to make them more reasonable.
Mike is clearly NOT saying that the "maximalists" think it's infringing. He obviously wants others to think it's true. It's the "infringement age," for God's sake! It's "impossible not to infringe"!! He's arguing that it's true as the basis for his final claim: "it makes sense to change copyright laws." The entire claim about the emails being infringing is so that he can advocate for changing the law. "Maximalists" have nothing to do with it. It's "true" and copyright is really SCARY!
It's just bullshit. And he's repeated several times when making the same argument: Everyone infringes implies copyright is broken implies fuck copyright. This argument comes up over and over again.
For example:
Nearly seven years ago, we wrote about a paper from law professor John Tehranian, in which he detailed just how much he likely accidentally infringed on copyright law each and every day, just doing normal things. *** To help promote the book, Bell has recorded an amusing video not all that different from Tehranian's premise, highlighting just how much accidental infringement you do on a daily basis -- and, yes, it includes the singing of Happy Birthday, so I'm surprised Warner hasn't killed the video yet. *** Now, some will argue that this is silly because no one is actually going after these kinds of "incidental" infringements, but Bell's point is pretty clear: "the fact that no one thinks copyright law should be fully enforced, demonstrates the need for reform." In fact, he notes that pretty much everyone agrees that full enforcement is "undesirable and counterproductive." And, really that should be a clear sign of just how flawed the law itself is.
Law professor John Tehranian did some research a few years ago, into how much of his normal daily activity could be considered copyright infringement, and realized that under today's insane statutory damages rules, he had a daily liability of $12.45 million -- and that wasn't because he was downloading music. It was just everyday activities that people do all the time.
A couple years ago, we wrote about a research paper looking at how often you infringe on copyrights in an average day to show just how ridiculous copyright law has become.
Second, it shows that everyone infringes all the time. Whether meaning to or not, it's actually fairly difficult to avoid infringing on copyrights. That's not to say that accidental copyright infringement is what's happening with file sharers or with Sony's use of the music here, but under the law, it's pretty much all the same. The fact that, as noted above, some of the biggest copyright system defenders are found out to infringe should highlight this issue pretty clearly. Even when you are a strong believer in copyright, there are going to be some situations in which you screw up and break the law. Given how frequently this happens, it certainly seems like the problem is with the law rather than all the people.
Can you explain why you think he is referring to the "maximalist interpretation of copyright law"? Or are you just trying to "willfully seeking as many disagreements as possible" with me?
Mike has made it quite clear that he's answered you to his satisfaction and sees no point in further engaging with you, and the bulk of readers here seem to agree. So it's time for you to walk away.
What are you even talking about? He's answered which question "to his satisfaction"? I've asked hundreds of different substantive questions.
For example, recently I've asked him why he claims that replying to an email while quoting the person you're replying to is infringement. He's never answered that. He's pointed to that earlier post where he made that claim many times. Do you believe that Mike really believes that is infringement? I don't. He's got the broadest definition of fair use there is. The context is always when he's making the completely unsubstantiated claim that "everyone infringes all the time." When he's making that claim, everything is infringing.
Of course, he claims that everyone infringes when it suits him, but then when it's someone like Dotcom or Fung, he can't understand how they could possibly be infringers. Post a cover to YouTube? Criminal infringement. Dotcom scrapes YouTube. Never happened. Brush it under the rug and pretend like it's not there. What infringement?
There's no consistency, and I'm calling him out for it. The fact that he doesn't stand up for himself as I call dishonest on his own boards speaks volumes. I'll continue to call him out and belittle him because I think it's hilarious that he won't even defend himself. He can't defend himself, because he knows it's bullshit.
I love that you guys keep pulling out that link. To me, that's just Mike making a bunch of excuses. Excuses are all he ever has. What he doesn't have are any direct and honest answers to direct and honest questions. And I doubt he ever will.
Can you give me links to exact posts *of mine* that you think prove I don't want to have a debate with Mike? I sincerely doubt it. Spell it out. Be explicit. I'm not running away. I will address any question directly and honestly. Mike NEVER will do this.
True, but almost certainly borne out of frustration trying to engender an honest conversation with persons who proclaim their willingness to debate, and then shut down all debate when things being said do not support their pre-conceived views.
This is the problem in a nutshell. Thank you. I've never seen a group of people so incredibly hostile to other points of view--all the while professing to value multiple viewpoints.
You think "Bawk! Cluck! Moo!" are substantive things?
That really says a lot about you.
Why are you pretending like that's all I ever said? There have been hundreds of substantive issues I've called Mike out on where he either didn't respond or ran away when he realized he couldn't score a point. I said "bawk" and "cluck" because he's a chicken--too chicken to ever stand behind his ridiculous claims. I said "moo" because I thought it was disgusting how he milked the Swartz tragedy. I welcome Mike to discuss any issue, any time, and with anybody he wants to back him up. The very notion that *I* don't want to have this substantive discussion is fucking hilarious. Nothing scares Mike more.
I love these year-end posts where you pretend like you're not completely bitter about everything. The problem is, the other 99.99% of your posts tell a different story. I think you're a smart guy, and you might even be a nice guy, but I just don't get the constant whining and sensationalism. You make some of most ridiculous claims I've ever seen, and then when called out in the comments, your twits pile on and you run away. Your "community" is a fucking joke. The hostility shown to anyone who dares challenge the group-think is embarrassing. You should be ashamed at the way your flock abuses dissenters. But I'm sure you just love it, because they take the heat off of you. How about writing some stuff that you can actually defend with a straight face? How about some honesty and integrity? How about setting an example in the comments? Year after year, you just become more and more unreasonable. You should hear what they say about you. It ain't pretty. Happy New Year, Mike.
You are a known troll who has proven time and time again that you are not interested in discussion and do not deserve answers.
LOL! He does NOT really believe that replying to an email with quotes is infringement. He's so dishonest that he keeps saying it anyway. Keep making excuses for him. I'm sure he appreciates it.
You are a known troll who has proven time and time again that you are not interested in discussion and do not deserve answers.
LOL! He does NOT really believe that replying to an email with quotes is infringement. He's so dishonest that he keeps saying it anyway. Keep making excuses for him. I'm sure he appreciates it.
Yeah, asking Mike to explain why he keeps pretending like replying to an email with quotes is infringing is just terrible. We should just ignore his lies! Copyright is scary!!
For the record, do you really think it's infringement to quote an email when replying? Don't run away! Tell us what you really believe. And if you don't really think it's infringing, please explain why you said otherwise. Thanks. (I know you won't really answer. Bawk!)
Wow, Mike. Your tinfoil hat is on extra-tight today. Sony might have failed to properly license a clip, and that means "the entire copyright system is broken"? LMAO. And it "shows that everyone infringes all the time"? ROFLMAO. I can't believe you still link back to that post on Tehranian's ridiculous claims. In that post, you said: "Replying to an email with quoted text? Infringement!" Do you really believe that, Mike? Of course you don't. But you repeat it over and over again. Why? Because you're not an honest person. Seriously, Mike. If you don't believe that's true, why do you keep saying it?
The confusion of ideas here feels like watching a Uwe Boll film.
The point is that Mike pretends like little infractions on YouTube are going to put regular people behind bars, but then he pretends like the major allegations against Dotcom & Co. for scraping YouTube don't even exist. There's no consistency because Mike is not an honest person.
63. It was further part of the Conspiracy that members of the Conspiracy reproduced copyrighted works directly from third-party websites, including from YouTube.com, to make them available for reproduction and distribution on Megavideo.com., and to create the false impression that Megavideo.com hosted primarily user generated content instead of copyright- infringing content.
***
e. For the 180 days up to and including October 31, 2007, members of the Conspiracy infringed copyrights, in the Eastern District of Virginia and elsewhere, by reproducing and distributing by electronic means at least ten copies and phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works from the Youtube.com platform which had a total retail value of more than $2,500 for purposes of commercial advantage and private financial gain,
***
k. In approximately April 2006, members of the Mega Conspiracy copied videos directly from Youtube.com to make them available on Megavideo.com.
l. On or about April 10, 2006, VAN DER KOLK sent an e-mail to ORTMANN asking “Do we have a server available to continue downloading of the Youtube’s vids? ... Kim just mentioned again that this has really priority.”
m. On or about April 10, 2006, VAN DER KOLK sent an e-mail to ORTMANN indicating “Hope [Youtube.com is] not implementing a fraud detection system now... * praying *”.
n. On or about April 10, 2006, ORTMANN sent an e-mail to VAN DER KOLK in reply to the “fraud detection” message indicating “Even if they did, the usefulness of their non-popular videos as a jumpstart for Megavideo is limited, in my opinion.”
o. On or about April 10, 2006, VAN DER KOLK sent an e-mail to ORTMANN in reply to the “jumpstart for Megavideo” message indicating that “Well we only have 30% of their videos yet.. In my opinion it's nice to have everything so we can descide and brainstorm later how we're going to benefit from it.”
***
w. On or about February 11, 2007, VAN DER KOLK sent an e-mail to ORTMANN indicating that “Kim really wants to copy Youtube one to one.”
qqqq. On or about January 27, 2011, ECHTERNACH forwarded an e-mail to VAN DER KOLK and BENCKO that an employee from the Megateam in the Philippines wrote that asked about access to Youtube. In that e-mail, the employee admits, “Even video resource sites such as Youtube which is our source for videos which we upload to Megavideo.”
***
97. For the 180 days up to and including October 31, 2007, in the Eastern District of Virginia and elsewhere, the defendants,
KIM DOTCOM, MEGAUPLOAD LIMITED, VESTOR LIMITED, FINN BATATO, JULIUS BENCKO, SVEN ECHTERNACH, MATHIAS ORTMANN, ANDRUS NOMM, and BRAM VAN DER KOLK
did willfully, and for purposes of commercial advantage and private financial gain, infringe copyrights from the Youtube.com platform, by reproducing and distributing by electronic means, during a 180-day period, at least ten copies and phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works which had a total retail value of more than $2,500.
There are several other claims of direct criminal infringement by Dotcom & Co, but Mike will NEVER admit that these claims even exist. He'll defend his pirate heroes to the bitter end. Honesty be damned.
Of course, at a bigger level, we're now nearly three years since the US government completely shut down this company, and it's still not clear that it had any legal basis to do so.
LOL! Huh?!?! So you think that Justin Bieber is a criminal for uploading covers to YouTube, but you can't understand how Dotcom & Co. can be criminal infringers for scraping all of the videos off of YouTube? I know, I know. You have no interest whatsoever in discussing the actual claims made by the government. Best just to pretend that your hero has done no wrong. It's sad, but I get that it's your thing.
Maybe in your world that is how you work. But then again , I wouldnt invest in a business that after how many years of existence is dependent on Flattr.
Billionaire burn! Ouch.
thats funny. The one certainty about me is that no one tells me what to think and I dont follow anyone's doctrine.
On the post: Techdirt 2014: The Numbers.
Re: Missing Statistics
LMAO!
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What makes you think that? Here's the original post from 2007: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071119/015956.shtml
Mike says:Mike is NOT treating the claim as one made by "maximalists," he's repeating what Tehranian said without a whiff of disagreement. He shows no skepticism whatsoever.
The rest of Mike's post shows how serious he is:Mike is clearly NOT saying that the "maximalists" think it's infringing. He obviously wants others to think it's true. It's the "infringement age," for God's sake! It's "impossible not to infringe"!! He's arguing that it's true as the basis for his final claim: "it makes sense to change copyright laws." The entire claim about the emails being infringing is so that he can advocate for changing the law. "Maximalists" have nothing to do with it. It's "true" and copyright is really SCARY!
It's just bullshit. And he's repeated several times when making the same argument: Everyone infringes implies copyright is broken implies fuck copyright. This argument comes up over and over again.
For example: Source: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140430/17244727083/how-many-times-day-do-you-violate-copyright-l aws-without-even-realizing-it.shtml
Another:https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131104/01464225115/once-again-riaa-shows-how-easy-it-is-to- infringe-copyrights.shtml
And another:Source: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090512/0041554839.shtml
And, the post from last week:Source: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141227/05571829528/sonys-own-copyright-infringement-shows-how-br oken-our-copyright-system-is-today.shtml
Can you explain why you think he is referring to the "maximalist interpretation of copyright law"? Or are you just trying to "willfully seeking as many disagreements as possible" with me?
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What are you even talking about? He's answered which question "to his satisfaction"? I've asked hundreds of different substantive questions.
For example, recently I've asked him why he claims that replying to an email while quoting the person you're replying to is infringement. He's never answered that. He's pointed to that earlier post where he made that claim many times. Do you believe that Mike really believes that is infringement? I don't. He's got the broadest definition of fair use there is. The context is always when he's making the completely unsubstantiated claim that "everyone infringes all the time." When he's making that claim, everything is infringing.
Of course, he claims that everyone infringes when it suits him, but then when it's someone like Dotcom or Fung, he can't understand how they could possibly be infringers. Post a cover to YouTube? Criminal infringement. Dotcom scrapes YouTube. Never happened. Brush it under the rug and pretend like it's not there. What infringement?
There's no consistency, and I'm calling him out for it. The fact that he doesn't stand up for himself as I call dishonest on his own boards speaks volumes. I'll continue to call him out and belittle him because I think it's hilarious that he won't even defend himself. He can't defend himself, because he knows it's bullshit.
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I love that you guys keep pulling out that link. To me, that's just Mike making a bunch of excuses. Excuses are all he ever has. What he doesn't have are any direct and honest answers to direct and honest questions. And I doubt he ever will.
Can you give me links to exact posts *of mine* that you think prove I don't want to have a debate with Mike? I sincerely doubt it. Spell it out. Be explicit. I'm not running away. I will address any question directly and honestly. Mike NEVER will do this.
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the problem in a nutshell. Thank you. I've never seen a group of people so incredibly hostile to other points of view--all the while professing to value multiple viewpoints.
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That really says a lot about you.
Why are you pretending like that's all I ever said? There have been hundreds of substantive issues I've called Mike out on where he either didn't respond or ran away when he realized he couldn't score a point. I said "bawk" and "cluck" because he's a chicken--too chicken to ever stand behind his ridiculous claims. I said "moo" because I thought it was disgusting how he milked the Swartz tragedy. I welcome Mike to discuss any issue, any time, and with anybody he wants to back him up. The very notion that *I* don't want to have this substantive discussion is fucking hilarious. Nothing scares Mike more.
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
On the post: Sony's Own Copyright Infringement Shows How Broken Our Copyright System Is Today
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong deduction
LOL! He does NOT really believe that replying to an email with quotes is infringement. He's so dishonest that he keeps saying it anyway. Keep making excuses for him. I'm sure he appreciates it.
On the post: Sony's Own Copyright Infringement Shows How Broken Our Copyright System Is Today
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong deduction
LOL! He does NOT really believe that replying to an email with quotes is infringement. He's so dishonest that he keeps saying it anyway. Keep making excuses for him. I'm sure he appreciates it.
On the post: Sony's Own Copyright Infringement Shows How Broken Our Copyright System Is Today
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong deduction
On the post: Sony's Own Copyright Infringement Shows How Broken Our Copyright System Is Today
Re: Re:
On the post: Sony's Own Copyright Infringement Shows How Broken Our Copyright System Is Today
Re: Re: Wrong deduction
For the record, do you really think it's infringement to quote an email when replying? Don't run away! Tell us what you really believe. And if you don't really think it's infringing, please explain why you said otherwise. Thanks. (I know you won't really answer. Bawk!)
On the post: Sony's Own Copyright Infringement Shows How Broken Our Copyright System Is Today
On the post: New Zealand Supreme Court Says Raid On Dotcom's Home Legal Enough To Get A Pass
Re: Re:
The point is that Mike pretends like little infractions on YouTube are going to put regular people behind bars, but then he pretends like the major allegations against Dotcom & Co. for scraping YouTube don't even exist. There's no consistency because Mike is not an honest person.
On the post: New Zealand Supreme Court Says Raid On Dotcom's Home Legal Enough To Get A Pass
Re: Re:
It's all in the superseding indictment: http://www.justice.gov/usao/vae/victimwitness/mega_files/Certified%20Mega%20Superseding%20Indictment %20(2-16-2012).pdf or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/megaupload-indictment.pdf
There are several other claims of direct criminal infringement by Dotcom & Co, but Mike will NEVER admit that these claims even exist. He'll defend his pirate heroes to the bitter end. Honesty be damned.
On the post: New Zealand Supreme Court Says Raid On Dotcom's Home Legal Enough To Get A Pass
LOL! Huh?!?! So you think that Justin Bieber is a criminal for uploading covers to YouTube, but you can't understand how Dotcom & Co. can be criminal infringers for scraping all of the videos off of YouTube? I know, I know. You have no interest whatsoever in discussing the actual claims made by the government. Best just to pretend that your hero has done no wrong. It's sad, but I get that it's your thing.
On the post: Sony Goes One Ridiculous Step Further: Threatens To Sue Twitter Over Leaked Email Screenshots
On the post: Sony Goes One Ridiculous Step Further: Threatens To Sue Twitter Over Leaked Email Screenshots
On the post: Mark Cuban Again Illustrates He Has No Idea What Net Neutrality Is Or Why It's Important
Re: Re: Re:
Billionaire burn! Ouch.
thats funny. The one certainty about me is that no one tells me what to think and I dont follow anyone's doctrine.
This is why you're my favorite Shark.
On the post: White House Admits That It Still Supports Parts Of SOPA: Wants To Make Streaming A Felony
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>