"vivarlamor: A student paper? Only marginally better than a techdirt self-link."
The paper I cited was written by Professor of Law John Tehranian. Am I missing some technicality that makes it a "student paper" or are you being blatantly dishonest?
"There are a few abolitionists around here, but most regulars are not abolitionist"
I'm probably the nearest thing to an abolitionist amongst the regulars. My stance is that IP law should be based on necessity and arguably benefits. Often those who take the middle road presuppose the necessity of IP law and struggle for an arbitrary number of years to reduce copyright to. If people aren't constantly asking the question 'do we need it at all', then I worry that the analysis determining what IP law gets reformed to will be aimed at keeping an effective status quo while placating those calling for reform.
I'm happy to debate whether or not we should have IP law, but until that debate starts I'll pitch my tent on the side of getting rid of it. It's OK to call me an abolitionist, that is a fair label for where I'm coming from. However, it is not a fair label for Mike or the Techdirt community as a whole.
"Because in Mike's "mock", he sort of missed the point. He made a vague reference "should be in jail", but the guys actual words "in the right place" are much clearer and more direct"
Where was that point in the post he replied to? All the original post said was that Mike left out his opinion, not that he didn't use the exact same wording.
I also notice that you haven't addressed either of my points: you've not explained how he was 'only mocking', but have provided evidence that he was actually making a point (even if you didn't agree with it); and you've not explained why you objected to him being snide despite the original comment being snide.
I guess we'll have to add another one: why do you require Mike to address every point in a post he replies to, but won't address one point in a post you reply to?
I find her statement about Torrent Finder especially encouraging: "Further, I think it's just stunning to think that they would believe that linking sites�they went after Torrent Finder. It's a search engine! What's that got to do with this? I mean, if they're right that they can simply seize that search engine, they can seize Yahoo or Google or Facebook".
Nice to see her pointing that out. One of the biggest issues with the seizures is the fact that applied equally their justification covers pretty much anything, especially Techdirt and TorrentFreak (for discussing the issues); and Google (for operating a search engine).
"SOmeone calls you out on something, you do sometimes respond.....but only to mock them, never really address the concern."
Since when is pointing out that someone's wrong 'only mocking' them? Plus, how is it that you call Mike out for being snide, when the original commenter asked Mike to learn the difference between fact and opinion; did you need the extra irony?
"That's an interesting theory, and many noble philosophers have embraced it."
I would be interested in knowing which philosophers so that I may better understand that view. In my mind there is no basis for the right to exclude to determine what is property and it seems too much to hope for the Anon's here to explain their views to me.
'Generally speaking, these same philosophers would have regarded "intellectual property" a contradiction.'
This reminds me of a previous comment I made about Locke:
If anything, intellectual property impedes on the Lockean idea of property rights. In his Second Treatise Of Government, Locke states: "every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his". As you copy someone their idea also becomes part of you, no less part of you than if you had come up with an idea yourself. Should you labour to create a physical manifestation of that copy then Locke's philosophy would let you claim that as your property.
Also, a key point that doesn't seem to have come up yet is the distinction between copyright and copyrighted material. I believe the former is property and the latter is an entitlement (often to control other people's property).
A book is property of whoever owns the physical book, while the right to copy that book is property of the copyright holder.
This distinction is perhaps most obvious when people talk about theft of intellectual property, because theft would involve transferring the rights rather than infringing on them.
"Where does email addressed to a seized domain go?"
It seems that there are no MX (mail exchanger record) entries set for seized domains, but the standard protocol is to fall back and try the A record (normal IP address). The IP address in the A record does not appear to have any mail services running on it.
"I've noticed that there seems to be little discussion about the fact that by seizing at the domain level you break more than just the web site. You take the MX records away as well. Which of course makes it impossible for anyone to email you."
I did touch on that fact in response to someone who claimed a sub domain is the same as a 'folder site'. It's a great point: even if people can access a site by IP address, they would not be able to use email.
Were you the one who, instead of providing proof, claimed that you had proof and said that you'd provide it if Karl would agree to stop posting? Because that seems more like grasping at opportunities to insult Karl for not being a lawyer than debunking.
"You're just a little troll who tries to interject little snarky comments. LOL!"
You're right. I was trying for snarky and failed miserably with thoughtfully.
"They're not mutually exclusive."
I wasn't suggesting that they are. I was suggesting that it would be helpful for you to explain how he could be manipulating with lies while being completely uninformed. It seems like a neat trick.
"There are are a ton of anonymous posters here that call you out for your horsesh*t"
You're claiming that Mike can't tell the difference between anonymous posters without looking at IPs, but insist that there are a ton of anonymous posters here; How can you tell?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artificial Scarcity Is Gone... And That's A Good Thing
"Cracking DRM is not so different than hacking into techdirt."
You mean, apart from Techdirt being hosted on someone else's computer and DRM usually not? Hey, if you hack your browser to make your own crystal ball then I'm sure Mike wouldn't complain.
"If you feel the need to mock anyone whose opinion differs from your own, maybe you should re-evaluate just how confident you feel about your own position."
Not just anyone. We'd be specific but you're posting anonymously.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Resources Need to be Protected
'To clarify, "exclusive" is meant to signify the right to "exclude", and not "sole".'
Thank you, but it still doesn't make sense. If property is the right to exclude then you're still denying the concept of the commons and public property. If everybody in the world owns something equally then why would that suddenly cease to be property, rather than become the property of everyone? Still a frivolous distinction.
On the post: No Info Can Be Found About Mysterious Report Claiming Australia As A 'Nation Of Pirates'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy violates creators' rights. It gives money to pirate websites that have no rights. What else is there?
Do you mean 'aren't going to pay for some movies, songs, etc.' or 'aren't going to pay for any movies, songs, etc'? It's an important distinction.
On the post: Administration's New IP Enforcement Recommendations Will Only Serve To Make IP Less Respected
Re: Re: Re:
The paper I cited was written by Professor of Law John Tehranian. Am I missing some technicality that makes it a "student paper" or are you being blatantly dishonest?
On the post: Administration's New IP Enforcement Recommendations Will Only Serve To Make IP Less Respected
Re: Re: Re: Odd Headline
I'm probably the nearest thing to an abolitionist amongst the regulars. My stance is that IP law should be based on necessity and arguably benefits. Often those who take the middle road presuppose the necessity of IP law and struggle for an arbitrary number of years to reduce copyright to. If people aren't constantly asking the question 'do we need it at all', then I worry that the analysis determining what IP law gets reformed to will be aimed at keeping an effective status quo while placating those calling for reform.
I'm happy to debate whether or not we should have IP law, but until that debate starts I'll pitch my tent on the side of getting rid of it. It's OK to call me an abolitionist, that is a fair label for where I'm coming from. However, it is not a fair label for Mike or the Techdirt community as a whole.
On the post: Administration's New IP Enforcement Recommendations Will Only Serve To Make IP Less Respected
Re:
How about this one?
On the post: Administration Forces PJ Crowley Out Of The State Dept. After He Admits That Manning Is Being Mistreated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where was that point in the post he replied to? All the original post said was that Mike left out his opinion, not that he didn't use the exact same wording.
I also notice that you haven't addressed either of my points: you've not explained how he was 'only mocking', but have provided evidence that he was actually making a point (even if you didn't agree with it); and you've not explained why you objected to him being snide despite the original comment being snide.
I guess we'll have to add another one: why do you require Mike to address every point in a post he replies to, but won't address one point in a post you reply to?
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Again Explains How And Why Domain Seizures Violate The Law
Search Engines
Nice to see her pointing that out. One of the biggest issues with the seizures is the fact that applied equally their justification covers pretty much anything, especially Techdirt and TorrentFreak (for discussing the issues); and Google (for operating a search engine).
On the post: Administration Forces PJ Crowley Out Of The State Dept. After He Admits That Manning Is Being Mistreated
Re: Re: Re:
Since when is pointing out that someone's wrong 'only mocking' them? Plus, how is it that you call Mike out for being snide, when the original commenter asked Mike to learn the difference between fact and opinion; did you need the extra irony?
On the post: If Copyright Is 'Property' Why Aren't People Outraged When The Gov't Seizes Content From The Public?
Re: Re:
I would be interested in knowing which philosophers so that I may better understand that view. In my mind there is no basis for the right to exclude to determine what is property and it seems too much to hope for the Anon's here to explain their views to me.
'Generally speaking, these same philosophers would have regarded "intellectual property" a contradiction.'
This reminds me of a previous comment I made about Locke:
If anything, intellectual property impedes on the Lockean idea of property rights. In his Second Treatise Of Government, Locke states: "every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his". As you copy someone their idea also becomes part of you, no less part of you than if you had come up with an idea yourself. Should you labour to create a physical manifestation of that copy then Locke's philosophy would let you claim that as your property.
Also, a key point that doesn't seem to have come up yet is the distinction between copyright and copyrighted material. I believe the former is property and the latter is an entitlement (often to control other people's property).
A book is property of whoever owns the physical book, while the right to copy that book is property of the copyright holder.
This distinction is perhaps most obvious when people talk about theft of intellectual property, because theft would involve transferring the rights rather than infringing on them.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Weird, because if you mean the "locating copyright" article then both of you had the same snowflake.
"And you're just a trouble-maker. :)"
Is that a step up or down from "little troll"?
On the post: More Reasons Why Homeland Security Seizing Domain Names Is Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re: What about MX records
It seems that there are no MX (mail exchanger record) entries set for seized domains, but the standard protocol is to fall back and try the A record (normal IP address). The IP address in the A record does not appear to have any mail services running on it.
On the post: More Reasons Why Homeland Security Seizing Domain Names Is Unconstitutional
Re: What about MX records
I did touch on that fact in response to someone who claimed a sub domain is the same as a 'folder site'. It's a great point: even if people can access a site by IP address, they would not be able to use email.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Were you the one who, instead of providing proof, claimed that you had proof and said that you'd provide it if Karl would agree to stop posting? Because that seems more like grasping at opportunities to insult Karl for not being a lawyer than debunking.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're right. I was trying for snarky and failed miserably with thoughtfully.
"They're not mutually exclusive."
I wasn't suggesting that they are. I was suggesting that it would be helpful for you to explain how he could be manipulating with lies while being completely uninformed. It seems like a neat trick.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How can he be manipulating with lies if he has no idea what he is talking about?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're claiming that Mike can't tell the difference between anonymous posters without looking at IPs, but insist that there are a ton of anonymous posters here; How can you tell?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
I'm not sure I follow, do you mean because of monopolies on broadcasting?
On the post: Dear Hollywood: It's Time To Realize Artificial Scarcity Is Gone... And That's A Good Thing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artificial Scarcity Is Gone... And That's A Good Thing
You mean, apart from Techdirt being hosted on someone else's computer and DRM usually not? Hey, if you hack your browser to make your own crystal ball then I'm sure Mike wouldn't complain.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Could you please be more specific?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Not just anyone. We'd be specific but you're posting anonymously.
On the post: If Copyright Is 'Property' Why Aren't People Outraged When The Gov't Seizes Content From The Public?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Public Resources Need to be Protected
Thank you, but it still doesn't make sense. If property is the right to exclude then you're still denying the concept of the commons and public property. If everybody in the world owns something equally then why would that suddenly cease to be property, rather than become the property of everyone? Still a frivolous distinction.
Next >>