What if somebody came by and put a padlock on the front door of my house?
I bought the house, I own, I am allowed into it. Sadly, I cannot get into my house because somebody (without asking me or giving me the key) has put a lock on it.
Can I break that lock legally?
(SPOILER: The answer is: "Of course!". And from there we make extension to other items we have paid for, ie music.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass l
Holy shit. Please stop typing like an idiot. For a person who claims to be educated, intelligent and logical you have the worst spelling, grammar and typing habits I've seen.
Thirteen year old girls on myspace write better than you.
But you only have to do that for a very short time as you explore all your trusted sites.
Sure, I allow techdirt. Google syndication I don't really need; it's just ads. Google-analytics is an absolute nono ... that's the click and mouse tracking junk.
I've got all my trusted sites allowed and everything else blocked by default.
It's really not that hard to train a new user to understand it. You teach them to first allow only temporarily the domain they are visiting, and if every thing seems ok, you allow it permanently.
If they accidentally allow all on the page, its not worse than browsing without it.
If they are too stupid to right click an icon and permit scripts, get off my computer and go home.
He comes off as a huge jerk that I don't want to be in charge of running anything.
He pretends like everyone is making general claims. There are tons of specific recommendations and concerns. He chooses to ignore them.
It's too bad that Malini (KEI) backed down when they were discussing consumer rights. Tepp said "speak in positives, not negatives" so let's do that. Insert words like "Individual privacy rights shall take precedence over all provisions laid out in this text." There's positive consumer protection for you.
Just because all the cool kids didn't want to stay for your talk is no reason to get angry and hit the other children.
Also, is your resume up to date? You can laugh now, but the anti-major sentiment just grows every day (and night, yes). Soon that fat paycheck you've come to love may just bounce.
It's disingenuous to pretend this is a one-sided debate.
Secondly, I thought it was obvious that I was citing the US Constitution in the latter part. I guess not. Anyone who purports to be familiar with copyright ought to be familiar with that particular ... since it is, after all, the inception point.
"I would argue , that IF copyright and patent laws stifle creation and inovation -- (which I do not grant you)-- that is the price we pay for having copyright and patent laws."
That makes absolutely no sense. That the stated purpose of these legal structures. If the don't serve that purpose, then are are unconstitutional and must be repealed. That the laws promote the progress is a NECESSARY CONDITION for their existence.
I have read that, a week ago when it was posted. Unfortunately, it is completely unrelated to this discussion.
Creators are granted certain rights. Consumer hold certain rights through fair use. Creators rights do not extend to REMOVING consumers rights. DRM blocks consumer activity that is within our rights.
Ergo, we must have the right to break DRM in order to make our other rights meaningful.
Re: Q: The artist/creator was already compensated in the original sale. Why should they be paid _again_?
And this is a _mistake_ that will come back to haunt them.
These corporate copyright holders are desperate for cashflow, and are overreaching. It's creating massive distrust both in the public eye, and in the minds of he actual creators who don't have their heads in their asses and can see where the industry is going.
Radio, covers, blogs, youtube and filesharing all serve as PROMOTION for the music. If anything youtube should be demanding payments from the MAFIAA for so heavily promoting their product AND footing the bandwidth bill. The symbiotic relationship with no payment is likely the best/easiest for both parties.
There's been tons of research put out lately that challenges the assumption that expanding copyright laws leads to greater creativity. At some point, it becomes a disincentive, because creators can rest on their laurels, rather than continuing to push the art.
To link that to a historical reference, how about the US Constitution? Which allows, "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
If copyright cannot be PROVEN to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" we should get rid of it. Copyright and patent law in their current form are doing more to STIFLE rather than PROMOTE the progress in their fields.
Also, I made several other comments. Perhaps you can address those. Search the page by username (I suggest threaded view).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
The answer is because such a tax would be unjustifiable and unfair. It assumes that the consumer is going to break the law, and is being charged to compensate for that.
But what about the (vast majority) of consumers with no intention of breaking any laws? They still have to pay such a tax. How is that fair? How does that place the blame/consequences on the appropriates parties? Answer: it doesn't.
This con has long been in play for the powerline ethernet market.
The units advertised as 200Mbps are really just 100Mbps duplex (and don't perform anywhere close to that threshold anyway).
That said, I love my powerline ethernet for my HTPC/PS3. It's vastly superior to a flaky wireless connection, or running a cable through the middle of the room...
On the post: Canadian DMCA Introduced; Digital Lock Provision Trumps Any And All User Rights
Re: @Richard
I bought the house, I own, I am allowed into it. Sadly, I cannot get into my house because somebody (without asking me or giving me the key) has put a lock on it.
Can I break that lock legally?
(SPOILER: The answer is: "Of course!". And from there we make extension to other items we have paid for, ie music.)
On the post: Didn't Take Long: Lots Of People Getting Sued By US Copyright Group Claim Innocence
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Citizen and the ACLU in one of US Copyright Group's mass l
Thirteen year old girls on myspace write better than you.
On the post: More Casinos Succeeding With The 'That Jackpot You Won Was Really A Computer Glitch' Claim
pay up - too bad for the casino
its their responsibility, and nobody elses, to keep their own machines in working order
On the post: Dutch Court Says Just Publishing Links To A Movie Is Illegal And Must Be Blocked
How is this different than NewzBin?
Same setup (just bout as close as you can get). Same misplaced blame. Yet NewzBin is somehow guilty, and FTD is not?
Secondary liability / inducement is just wrong all around. I wish you'd be consistent on that.
NewzBin post (however brief): http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100331/0152258801.shtml
On the post: Messing With Copy/Paste Could Present Security Issues
Re: NoScript is
Sure, I allow techdirt. Google syndication I don't really need; it's just ads. Google-analytics is an absolute nono ... that's the click and mouse tracking junk.
I've got all my trusted sites allowed and everything else blocked by default.
It's really not that hard to train a new user to understand it. You teach them to first allow only temporarily the domain they are visiting, and if every thing seems ok, you allow it permanently.
If they accidentally allow all on the page, its not worse than browsing without it.
If they are too stupid to right click an icon and permit scripts, get off my computer and go home.
On the post: US Copyright Official Pretends That Concerns About ACTA Are Unfounded; Mocks Legitimate Concerns
He pretends like everyone is making general claims. There are tons of specific recommendations and concerns. He chooses to ignore them.
It's too bad that Malini (KEI) backed down when they were discussing consumer rights. Tepp said "speak in positives, not negatives" so let's do that. Insert words like "Individual privacy rights shall take precedence over all provisions laid out in this text." There's positive consumer protection for you.
On the post: The Increasing Irrelevance Of The Major Record Labels
Re:
Also, is your resume up to date? You can laugh now, but the anti-major sentiment just grows every day (and night, yes). Soon that fat paycheck you've come to love may just bounce.
On the post: UK Regulator Says Digital Economy Act Only Applies To Big Wireline ISPs
Re: Join ISP 1a
I assume you mean in the sense of yet another another pointless, un-winnable war against something most people accept?
On the post: Swedish Police Say Anti-Piracy Law Has Harmed Ability To Catch Criminals
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My right to privacy outweighs your fight against piracy.
On the post: Swedish Police Say Anti-Piracy Law Has Harmed Ability To Catch Criminals
Re:
Drinking alcohol was against the law. That was a dumb law. People ignored it, correctly. It was repealed.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) Harvard Business: http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-132.pdf
2) Gladwell: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/bookclub/2010/02/malcolm-gladwell-selects-drive.html
3) Levine: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
4) US GAO: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423
It's disingenuous to pretend this is a one-sided debate.
Secondly, I thought it was obvious that I was citing the US Constitution in the latter part. I guess not. Anyone who purports to be familiar with copyright ought to be familiar with that particular ... since it is, after all, the inception point.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Re: copyright is a natural right
That makes absolutely no sense. That the stated purpose of these legal structures. If the don't serve that purpose, then are are unconstitutional and must be repealed. That the laws promote the progress is a NECESSARY CONDITION for their existence.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: If it were, fair use wouldn't exist.
Creators are granted certain rights. Consumer hold certain rights through fair use. Creators rights do not extend to REMOVING consumers rights. DRM blocks consumer activity that is within our rights.
Ergo, we must have the right to break DRM in order to make our other rights meaningful.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Q: The artist/creator was already compensated in the original sale. Why should they be paid _again_?
These corporate copyright holders are desperate for cashflow, and are overreaching. It's creating massive distrust both in the public eye, and in the minds of he actual creators who don't have their heads in their asses and can see where the industry is going.
Radio, covers, blogs, youtube and filesharing all serve as PROMOTION for the music. If anything youtube should be demanding payments from the MAFIAA for so heavily promoting their product AND footing the bandwidth bill. The symbiotic relationship with no payment is likely the best/easiest for both parties.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To link that to a historical reference, how about the US Constitution? Which allows, "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
If copyright cannot be PROVEN to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" we should get rid of it. Copyright and patent law in their current form are doing more to STIFLE rather than PROMOTE the progress in their fields.
Also, I made several other comments. Perhaps you can address those. Search the page by username (I suggest threaded view).
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Because they want to keep the tools illegal
But what about the (vast majority) of consumers with no intention of breaking any laws? They still have to pay such a tax. How is that fair? How does that place the blame/consequences on the appropriates parties? Answer: it doesn't.
It's a lazy, stupid solution.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: If it were, fair use wouldn't exist.
On the post: Can Someone Explain Why Circumvention For Non-Infringing Purposes Is Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate : If they did they might read them or give them away or lend them or borrow them. The writer had no control over this.
The artist/creator was already compensated in the original sale. Why should they be paid _again_?
To use an earlier example, VW doesn't expect (and won't get) a cut of my earnings when I resell my Jetta. I've already paid them.
On the post: Startup Still Clamoring For Free Spectrum To Build Out Wireless Broadband
Other example of adding up/down stream speeds
The units advertised as 200Mbps are really just 100Mbps duplex (and don't perform anywhere close to that threshold anyway).
That said, I love my powerline ethernet for my HTPC/PS3. It's vastly superior to a flaky wireless connection, or running a cable through the middle of the room...
Next >>