Do you agree that every legitimate notice represents an infringer who is abusing the law, yet Techdirt never bothers to mention or condemn that? If so, why do you think that is?
Because people break laws all the time. You can't live in the United States without breaking laws. It isn't possible. If I look closely I can guarantee I can find some law that you've broken within the last week, if not the last day.
Between copyright law, road law, business law, and just insane law, I will find something to charge you with. Heck, you're probably breaking copyright law by using Techdirt's "Insider" graphic without permission as a derivative work. Do you know the artist that created that particular 'T' logo graphic? Did you ask permission to modify it? Maybe Mike should DMCA all your posts and save us the trouble!
One of the legal requirements for a DMCA takedown notice is the "good faith belief" that the content in question is a copyright you hold or one you are authorized to speak for. Falsely issueing a DMCA notice is punishable as perjury under federal law.
So let me ask you this...is a computer capable of establishing a "good faith belief" that something is infringing? How, if no human is reviewing whether or not the content is infringing, can you legally state you have not commited perjury by a false takedown?
So why are you not bothering to mention or condemn this abuse of the law? It's fine for companies to mass perjure themselves via automated takedown requests but it's not OK for people to infringe on copyright?
How can you call someone else out for ignoring part of the law when you're doing the same exact thing? Keep in mind that these companies are violating someone else's copyright when they takedown legal material that they do not own the copyright to. When did "well, they started it!" become a legal or moral defense?
We don't need to know everything, if we do, the enemy does. Think about that for a while...
No, we don't need to know details. What you're talking about is called Operational Security (OPSEC). OPSEC relates to very specific things.
Here's an example. If I post on Facebook that I'm getting deployed to Afghanistan, that's not a violation of OPSEC. There are plenty of unclassified channels where an enemy could learn that information. Now, if I said I'm deploying on X date on Y flight with Z number of people, that's where the problem comes in.
The vast majority of classified information involves specifics of known information. For example, it's not classified that we have electronic warfare devices that are used to remotely explode IEDs using frequency jamming. You can read about it on Wikipedia. The exact effective radius of devices currently in use on military vehicles, however, is classified.
The issue people have with transparency is that we're hiding general information, not because knowledge of it would allow the enemy to counteract it, but because if people knew about it they would not approve of it. That is an illegal reason to classify government information. So when we find out that the government is doing it on a massive scale, and actively trying to surpress that information, not because it would aid the enemy, but because the American people would not approve, we're a little upset.
I don't need to know the effective range of our counter-IED vehicles, and I don't need to know the 10 digit grid of our nuclear submarines, and I don't need to know the names of our operatives in Iran. I do need to know when my government is torturing people, spying on citizens not suspected of any crime, and in general abusing its power.
The fact is that terrorists already assumed we had the capability to track their communications. Our military does this regularly; it's why we use callsigns on encrypted radio communications. We don't know if the enemy has broken our encryption, but if they have, we're not going to make it easy for them to find out more. Extremist organizations would have to be insane to operate under the assumption that their electronic communications were perfectly safe.
So who's really upset about the whole thing? The American population. Did this hurt the U.S. reputation? Certainly. But that's because it's bad, and because we shouldn't have been doing it, which is not a reason to classify information.
There isn't a problem with secrecy. There's a problem with illegal and immoral behavior being allowed because we're too afraid of the terrorist threat to challenge our own government.
Weird, when I heard Apple was going to encrypt their OS I just assumed it was to make jailbreaking harder and a criminal beach of the CFAA rather than a civil violation of the DMCA. Because the OS was encrypted they could argue that the users "exceeded authorized access" by breaking the encryption.
If they're encrypting the data that's much better; I just figured it would be the operating system. Heaven forbid users improve the product they bought...that would be stealing or something!
Yes, I have studied property law, which is why I know that many theft statutes apply to intangible property.
You apparently have a different definition of "studied" than I do. I usually consider this to mean comprehension.
If you read the Crow v. Wainright decision you linked it rather specifically points out that statues that treat copyrighted material as theft are invalid under federal law. From the link:
"On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 and works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any state."
So, you are correct, states do have statues for the theft of intangible property. It's just all invalid under federal law, since states are forbidden from establishing their own copyright law under the Copyright Clause of the Constitution.
Either way it doesn't fit with the actual definition of theft, which is "the taking of someone else's property with the intent to permanently deprive them of it." You cannot permanently deprive someone of intellectual property by infringement. Therefore, by definition, copyright infringement cannot be theft. It doesn't matter how many idiots have made stupid laws that attempt to change reality.
This is like when people try to explain how killing chickens is murder. Murder, by definition, involves killing humans (and only illegal killing of humans). You can call it murder all day, and a state could pass a "chicken murder" statue, but it still would not fit the definition of the word.
Ultimately, though, this is all a straw man argument, because the original article never said anything about ignoring author's rights. It simply said it was in the best interest of authors to permit it, due to economics. You're arguing against an imaginary point that you think the author is making.
All ownership involves the owner's right to administer the uses of the owned property to the exclusion of others. It's not prior restraint in the First Amendment meaning of the term, if that's what you mean. It's simply respecting the rights of owners to determine how they want their property to be used.
The only issue is that copyright owners don't actually have that right. They have very specific rights granted to their intangible property by copyright statute. These rights are not the same as the rights granted to a property owner of a tangible property.
Copyright owners have the right of reproduction, distribution, creation of derivative works, and public performance/display, within limitations set forth by statute, such as the duration of copyright and fair use (among other limitations).
Nowhere do they have the right to "determine how they want their property to be used." The classic example of the difference between tangible and intangible property rights involves books; if I buy a book, I possess the tangible property rights to that book, but not the intangible property right. I cannot copy the book (again, with certain limits) or mass distribute it, but I can sell the book or use its pages as toilet paper and the copyright holder has no right to stop me.
As other people have pointed out, respect is earned, and is not a right. You can keep using tangible property terms, such as property use and theft, but they never apply to intangible goods.
In the time it took JK Rawlings to write the second Harry Potter book, the market would have been flooded with poorly written Harry Potter books and no one would have cared about hers.
Interesting theory. Completely imaginary, but interesting.
People already do this, for free. You don't think there's Harry Potter smut fiction out there? Heck, there's Harry Potter porn (see Rule 34). I seriously doubt it affected her sales in any negative way.
Unless they infringed on her trademark or otherwise tried to pass off their work as hers (by putting JK Rowling as the author even though she didn't write it) they can write whatever they want and it's not going to affect the original work. Your theory isn't backed up by what's already happening, "legal" or not. Adding a price isn't going to somehow make people prefer knock-offs more.
Either way, cheap smut isn't going to be "all over the shelves" because publishers probably aren't going to pick it up, and online communities are great at self-reviewing quality material.
I've seen this concern before and it's both not substantiated by data and completely irrational.
A little technicality? State laws can vary widely. Either way, the original charge for personification was already dropped so that's not even a factor. The law in New York is irrelevant because it's not even going to court.
The "plain view" thing is also a pretty major technicality. While John is correct that evidence seized in the course of the search, even if the evidence was for an unrelated crime, is admissible, I can't think of any reason for them to search in there unless the laptop was hidden (which would be very surprising, since the individual being searched had no reason to believe they were committing a crime...because they weren't).
We're not talking about child porn here, where he could have saved the data on a flash drive, we're talking about a Twitter account, where most of the data is going to be saved in temporary files for the browser. Again, this was most likely out in the open, probably on a desk.
As I said in my initial post, it's possible they had reason to believe his Twitter data was hidden in a gift bag in his roommate's closet...but I'd be pretty surprised to see that one stick.
All of which was pointed out in the original article. The article goes one step further, saying the whole warrant should be dropped because no laws were broken and the police knew it, but even if the probable cause sticks I'd be surprised (and disappointed) if the evidence obtained sticks as well.
I would have compared it to YouTube. If I post a video of my dog playing fetch, and someone watches it, I can't get mad later because it's fairly obvious that it's a public contribution. If someone ripped it off my hard drive without my knowledge, however, it's completely different.
The funny part is everyone knows what privacy is. We learn it when we're children and it's an inherent human desire. We have doors on our toilet stalls and laws forbidding recording in bathrooms because people innately understand privacy.
If a store added video cameras in bathrooms "for your safety" to make sure you aren't dying or getting blown up by terrorists making bombs in the stall, would you be OK with that?
Of course not. It's obvious. It doesn't matter that it's a "public store" and "by dropping your pants in a public area" you've consented to being recorded on the pot. We keep trying to twist the concept around to make the point obtuse but ultimately people know what it is and when it's been violated.
The documentation you listed was for a case tried under New York law and does not necessarily set the same rules for the law being tried in Illinois.
Either way it's irrelevant. You cannot use evidence not covered under the scope of your search warrant unless it was in plain view. The police are going to have to prove they had reasonable suspicion that evidence for a fake twitter account was hidden in a gift bag in his roommate's closet. Since this was (most likely) outside the scope of the warrant, since they were looking for Daniel's computer, I'd be very surprised to see if the evidence wasn't dropped.
So, there may have been probable cause enough for the warrant, but it would be hard to argue that the evidence was within the scope of the warrant.
"Members of the military are expected to obey all lawful orders."
THIS, very much so. If a military member performs and illegal action on orders they have still performed an illegal action and both the person giving the order and the one who performed it will be prosecuted.
The responsibility of the police is to the law and to the people, NOT to elected officials. If the elected officials aren't happy with that, they can try to change the law, but they don't get to break it because they got elected.
If you think you've located the answer, then just tell us what the answer is. You can't.
Translation: Show me where Mike says God exists or doesn't exist. You can't.
Why? Because your question is irrelevant. You can demand he (or anyone who understands this issue) answers your stupid question all you want, but you won't get an answer, because the answer is neither.
Keep pouding on your false dichotomy. You clearly did not read anything I linked, and if you did, you didn't understand it enough to realize you're asking the wrong question.
This is like watching someone argue with their college professor about whether or not the cat in the box is dead or alive. You can demand an answer all day, but until you get the basic principles, your question is meaningless.
Oh, and the rest of the entire website, but those are good starting points.
Your question is irrelevant because you're asking the question I mentioned earlier..."do you believe God exists or does not exist?" to an agnostic. I can't speak for Mike, because I'm not him, but I've read a lot of his work, and I think the best way I'd describe his position is "IP-agnostic."
He's not for IP, and he's not against IP, at least not from any moral standpoint. He believes in the third option...that enforcement of IP laws are counter-productive and actively harm the free market and the creation of new works. He is against the abuse of copyright, and use of copyright to restrict freedom and opportunity. Much like how an agnostic isn't for or against the concept of a God but believes it isn't important, and rather looks at the academic impact of religion and the lack thereof, and how it can be utilized for good and how to reduce its abuse.
But you won't accept that answer, much like any religious fanatic cannot and will not accept that someone could simply not believe that the existence of God is relevant. They can only be with you or against you. No other option exists.
I know you won't understand this, and I know I'm feeding the troll. Maybe, just maybe, you'll be so upset you'll actually bother to research some of the stuff I just wrote, rather than answer on emotion. Or maybe this will make sense to someone else reading this that was on the fence, and now has a chance to understand the world a bit deeper than before.
One of the greatest tragedies in television history. I would love to go back and see the cheesy goodness of the original Doctor Who.
I shall probably never get the chance. If, however, the Doctor ever shows up on my door and asks me where I want to go, you now know the first place I'm going =).
Yeah, let's take a very complex topic and break it down to a simple "yes or no" choice. There's no right answer to your question because you ignore all the other possible positions. This is the same as asking an agnostic "do you believe in God or not? You either believe He exists or you don't!" It ignores that there are other options.
In your question, what is your definition of infringement? Is it the current law's definition of infringement? What if Mike belived there should be civil penalties for infringement, but that current law considers uses to be infringing that he believes should not be considered infringement? Is he then for or against?
It also assumes that infringement is inherently something that needs recourse. This is not necessarily true, yet your question requires him to respond in a black-and-white way to a question with a large amount of complexity and variation in the way you answer.
It's not that Mike isn't clear on his positions, it's just that you're apparently so focused on your assumptions that you can't see them. He may respond, or he may never read what you wrote because he might have other things he's doing rather than reading every comment on every article here.
Either way your question isn't answerable because it assumes a shallow understanding of the topics at hand.
You're absolutely right, these companies are doomed...but not because of piracy or the internet (directly). They're doomed because they aren't bothering to compete and instead crying to legislators to makes laws banning competition. That may result in a short term gain (possibly, but not likely) but they're hemmoraging money on lawyers and lobbyists rather than spending that money to compete.
They're making plenty of money...it's not our fault they're pissing it all away for no reason.
The M27 (IAR) also has fully automatic fire, although I suppose you could consider it an automatic weapon (although it typically fires from a standard 30-round magazine).
Full auto has its place, specifically in supression. I would just never use it in an area where you're worried about collateral damage (like anywhere police are operating).
On the post: Revealed: How To Get The IFPI To Issue Bogus DMCA Takedowns On Just About Anything, With No Questions Asked And No Review
Re: Re: Re:
Because people break laws all the time. You can't live in the United States without breaking laws. It isn't possible. If I look closely I can guarantee I can find some law that you've broken within the last week, if not the last day.
Between copyright law, road law, business law, and just insane law, I will find something to charge you with. Heck, you're probably breaking copyright law by using Techdirt's "Insider" graphic without permission as a derivative work. Do you know the artist that created that particular 'T' logo graphic? Did you ask permission to modify it? Maybe Mike should DMCA all your posts and save us the trouble!
One of the legal requirements for a DMCA takedown notice is the "good faith belief" that the content in question is a copyright you hold or one you are authorized to speak for. Falsely issueing a DMCA notice is punishable as perjury under federal law.
So let me ask you this...is a computer capable of establishing a "good faith belief" that something is infringing? How, if no human is reviewing whether or not the content is infringing, can you legally state you have not commited perjury by a false takedown?
So why are you not bothering to mention or condemn this abuse of the law? It's fine for companies to mass perjure themselves via automated takedown requests but it's not OK for people to infringe on copyright?
How can you call someone else out for ignoring part of the law when you're doing the same exact thing? Keep in mind that these companies are violating someone else's copyright when they takedown legal material that they do not own the copyright to. When did "well, they started it!" become a legal or moral defense?
On the post: Journalists Attack Obama Administration For Being Ridiculously Secretive And Vindictive
Re: I really don't see an issue with the secrecy
No, we don't need to know details. What you're talking about is called Operational Security (OPSEC). OPSEC relates to very specific things.
Here's an example. If I post on Facebook that I'm getting deployed to Afghanistan, that's not a violation of OPSEC. There are plenty of unclassified channels where an enemy could learn that information. Now, if I said I'm deploying on X date on Y flight with Z number of people, that's where the problem comes in.
The vast majority of classified information involves specifics of known information. For example, it's not classified that we have electronic warfare devices that are used to remotely explode IEDs using frequency jamming. You can read about it on Wikipedia. The exact effective radius of devices currently in use on military vehicles, however, is classified.
The issue people have with transparency is that we're hiding general information, not because knowledge of it would allow the enemy to counteract it, but because if people knew about it they would not approve of it. That is an illegal reason to classify government information. So when we find out that the government is doing it on a massive scale, and actively trying to surpress that information, not because it would aid the enemy, but because the American people would not approve, we're a little upset.
I don't need to know the effective range of our counter-IED vehicles, and I don't need to know the 10 digit grid of our nuclear submarines, and I don't need to know the names of our operatives in Iran. I do need to know when my government is torturing people, spying on citizens not suspected of any crime, and in general abusing its power.
The fact is that terrorists already assumed we had the capability to track their communications. Our military does this regularly; it's why we use callsigns on encrypted radio communications. We don't know if the enemy has broken our encryption, but if they have, we're not going to make it easy for them to find out more. Extremist organizations would have to be insane to operate under the assumption that their electronic communications were perfectly safe.
So who's really upset about the whole thing? The American population. Did this hurt the U.S. reputation? Certainly. But that's because it's bad, and because we shouldn't have been doing it, which is not a reason to classify information.
There isn't a problem with secrecy. There's a problem with illegal and immoral behavior being allowed because we're too afraid of the terrorist threat to challenge our own government.
On the post: Citizen Organizing Small Get-Together 'Rocky Run' Sent C&D By MGM Because Of Course She Was
Re:
On the post: FUD: Former FBI Guy Lies, Claiming New Mobile Encryption Would Have Resulted In Dead Kidnap Subject
If they're encrypting the data that's much better; I just figured it would be the operating system. Heaven forbid users improve the product they bought...that would be stealing or something!
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You apparently have a different definition of "studied" than I do. I usually consider this to mean comprehension.
If you read the Crow v. Wainright decision you linked it rather specifically points out that statues that treat copyrighted material as theft are invalid under federal law. From the link:
"On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 and works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any state."
So, you are correct, states do have statues for the theft of intangible property. It's just all invalid under federal law, since states are forbidden from establishing their own copyright law under the Copyright Clause of the Constitution.
Either way it doesn't fit with the actual definition of theft, which is "the taking of someone else's property with the intent to permanently deprive them of it." You cannot permanently deprive someone of intellectual property by infringement. Therefore, by definition, copyright infringement cannot be theft. It doesn't matter how many idiots have made stupid laws that attempt to change reality.
This is like when people try to explain how killing chickens is murder. Murder, by definition, involves killing humans (and only illegal killing of humans). You can call it murder all day, and a state could pass a "chicken murder" statue, but it still would not fit the definition of the word.
Ultimately, though, this is all a straw man argument, because the original article never said anything about ignoring author's rights. It simply said it was in the best interest of authors to permit it, due to economics. You're arguing against an imaginary point that you think the author is making.
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll ask you the same question. Show me a case in which an intellectual property was infringed where the defendent was charged with theft.
I'll wait.
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Re: Re:
The only issue is that copyright owners don't actually have that right. They have very specific rights granted to their intangible property by copyright statute. These rights are not the same as the rights granted to a property owner of a tangible property.
Copyright owners have the right of reproduction, distribution, creation of derivative works, and public performance/display, within limitations set forth by statute, such as the duration of copyright and fair use (among other limitations).
Nowhere do they have the right to "determine how they want their property to be used." The classic example of the difference between tangible and intangible property rights involves books; if I buy a book, I possess the tangible property rights to that book, but not the intangible property right. I cannot copy the book (again, with certain limits) or mass distribute it, but I can sell the book or use its pages as toilet paper and the copyright holder has no right to stop me.
As other people have pointed out, respect is earned, and is not a right. You can keep using tangible property terms, such as property use and theft, but they never apply to intangible goods.
Sorry.
On the post: What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
Re: Trolls
Interesting theory. Completely imaginary, but interesting.
People already do this, for free. You don't think there's Harry Potter smut fiction out there? Heck, there's Harry Potter porn (see Rule 34). I seriously doubt it affected her sales in any negative way.
Unless they infringed on her trademark or otherwise tried to pass off their work as hers (by putting JK Rowling as the author even though she didn't write it) they can write whatever they want and it's not going to affect the original work. Your theory isn't backed up by what's already happening, "legal" or not. Adding a price isn't going to somehow make people prefer knock-offs more.
Either way, cheap smut isn't going to be "all over the shelves" because publishers probably aren't going to pick it up, and online communities are great at self-reviewing quality material.
I've seen this concern before and it's both not substantiated by data and completely irrational.
On the post: Judge Says Raid On Twitter User Perfectly Fine Because Officers Can Enforce Non-Existent Laws Provided They Have 'Probable Cause'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: there WAS probable cause
The "plain view" thing is also a pretty major technicality. While John is correct that evidence seized in the course of the search, even if the evidence was for an unrelated crime, is admissible, I can't think of any reason for them to search in there unless the laptop was hidden (which would be very surprising, since the individual being searched had no reason to believe they were committing a crime...because they weren't).
We're not talking about child porn here, where he could have saved the data on a flash drive, we're talking about a Twitter account, where most of the data is going to be saved in temporary files for the browser. Again, this was most likely out in the open, probably on a desk.
As I said in my initial post, it's possible they had reason to believe his Twitter data was hidden in a gift bag in his roommate's closet...but I'd be pretty surprised to see that one stick.
All of which was pointed out in the original article. The article goes one step further, saying the whole warrant should be dropped because no laws were broken and the police knew it, but even if the probable cause sticks I'd be surprised (and disappointed) if the evidence obtained sticks as well.
On the post: NSA Cheerleader Ben Wittes Takes A Written Swing At The Anti-NSA Crowd And Misses His Target Entirely
Re:
The funny part is everyone knows what privacy is. We learn it when we're children and it's an inherent human desire. We have doors on our toilet stalls and laws forbidding recording in bathrooms because people innately understand privacy.
If a store added video cameras in bathrooms "for your safety" to make sure you aren't dying or getting blown up by terrorists making bombs in the stall, would you be OK with that?
Of course not. It's obvious. It doesn't matter that it's a "public store" and "by dropping your pants in a public area" you've consented to being recorded on the pot. We keep trying to twist the concept around to make the point obtuse but ultimately people know what it is and when it's been violated.
On the post: Judge Says Raid On Twitter User Perfectly Fine Because Officers Can Enforce Non-Existent Laws Provided They Have 'Probable Cause'
Re: Re: Re: there WAS probable cause
Either way it's irrelevant. You cannot use evidence not covered under the scope of your search warrant unless it was in plain view. The police are going to have to prove they had reasonable suspicion that evidence for a fake twitter account was hidden in a gift bag in his roommate's closet. Since this was (most likely) outside the scope of the warrant, since they were looking for Daniel's computer, I'd be very surprised to see if the evidence wasn't dropped.
So, there may have been probable cause enough for the warrant, but it would be hard to argue that the evidence was within the scope of the warrant.
On the post: Judge Says Raid On Twitter User Perfectly Fine Because Officers Can Enforce Non-Existent Laws Provided They Have 'Probable Cause'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
THIS, very much so. If a military member performs and illegal action on orders they have still performed an illegal action and both the person giving the order and the one who performed it will be prosecuted.
The responsibility of the police is to the law and to the people, NOT to elected officials. If the elected officials aren't happy with that, they can try to change the law, but they don't get to break it because they got elected.
On the post: Hollywood Insiders: Directors, Actors, Producers, Camera People And More Demand Peter Sunde Be Freed & Treated With Dignity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Translation: Show me where Mike says God exists or doesn't exist. You can't.
Why? Because your question is irrelevant. You can demand he (or anyone who understands this issue) answers your stupid question all you want, but you won't get an answer, because the answer is neither.
Keep pouding on your false dichotomy. You clearly did not read anything I linked, and if you did, you didn't understand it enough to realize you're asking the wrong question.
This is like watching someone argue with their college professor about whether or not the cat in the box is dead or alive. You can demand an answer all day, but until you get the basic principles, your question is meaningless.
On the post: Hollywood Insiders: Directors, Actors, Producers, Camera People And More Demand Peter Sunde Be Freed & Treated With Dignity
Re: Still Not Sure What His Jailing Was Supposed To Achieve
Sigh, now I'm depressed because I remember another fantastic piece of art destroyed by greedy idiots =(.
On the post: Hollywood Insiders: Directors, Actors, Producers, Camera People And More Demand Peter Sunde Be Freed & Treated With Dignity
Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080220/020252302.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/article s/20061129/010043.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080324/000718629.shtml
https://www.techdir t.com/articles/20080313/031128532.shtml
Oh, and the rest of the entire website, but those are good starting points.
Your question is irrelevant because you're asking the question I mentioned earlier..."do you believe God exists or does not exist?" to an agnostic. I can't speak for Mike, because I'm not him, but I've read a lot of his work, and I think the best way I'd describe his position is "IP-agnostic."
He's not for IP, and he's not against IP, at least not from any moral standpoint. He believes in the third option...that enforcement of IP laws are counter-productive and actively harm the free market and the creation of new works. He is against the abuse of copyright, and use of copyright to restrict freedom and opportunity. Much like how an agnostic isn't for or against the concept of a God but believes it isn't important, and rather looks at the academic impact of religion and the lack thereof, and how it can be utilized for good and how to reduce its abuse.
But you won't accept that answer, much like any religious fanatic cannot and will not accept that someone could simply not believe that the existence of God is relevant. They can only be with you or against you. No other option exists.
I know you won't understand this, and I know I'm feeding the troll. Maybe, just maybe, you'll be so upset you'll actually bother to research some of the stuff I just wrote, rather than answer on emotion. Or maybe this will make sense to someone else reading this that was on the fence, and now has a chance to understand the world a bit deeper than before.
Best of luck!
On the post: LA School District Reluctantly Gives Up The Grenade Launchers The Pentagon Gave Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: starting
=)
On the post: Only Surviving Recording Of The Very First Superbowl Is Because A Fan Recorded It, But You Can't See It, Because Copyright
Re: History
I shall probably never get the chance. If, however, the Doctor ever shows up on my door and asks me where I want to go, you now know the first place I'm going =).
On the post: Hollywood Insiders: Directors, Actors, Producers, Camera People And More Demand Peter Sunde Be Freed & Treated With Dignity
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
Education is fun!
Yeah, let's take a very complex topic and break it down to a simple "yes or no" choice. There's no right answer to your question because you ignore all the other possible positions. This is the same as asking an agnostic "do you believe in God or not? You either believe He exists or you don't!" It ignores that there are other options.
In your question, what is your definition of infringement? Is it the current law's definition of infringement? What if Mike belived there should be civil penalties for infringement, but that current law considers uses to be infringing that he believes should not be considered infringement? Is he then for or against?
It also assumes that infringement is inherently something that needs recourse. This is not necessarily true, yet your question requires him to respond in a black-and-white way to a question with a large amount of complexity and variation in the way you answer.
It's not that Mike isn't clear on his positions, it's just that you're apparently so focused on your assumptions that you can't see them. He may respond, or he may never read what you wrote because he might have other things he's doing rather than reading every comment on every article here.
Either way your question isn't answerable because it assumes a shallow understanding of the topics at hand.
On the post: New Study Confirms: Internet Is Contributing To Massive Profit Levels At Legacy Entertainment Firms
Re:
They're making plenty of money...it's not our fault they're pissing it all away for no reason.
On the post: LA School District Reluctantly Gives Up The Grenade Launchers The Pentagon Gave Them
Re: Re: In the land of the blind.
Full auto has its place, specifically in supression. I would just never use it in an area where you're worried about collateral damage (like anywhere police are operating).
Next >>