This coming from someone who promised to leave the site, then came back within the period he promised not to visit the site and openly trolled everyone, is not a credible statement.
That's the best personal attack you can muster? Sounds about right.
No, this is something you made up out of nowhere. Mike attempts to present the facts the best he could and allows the reader to determine for himself what alleged facts to believe, what not to believe, and how to interpret the facts.
I disagree that Mike does "the best he could." I think he hears a couple of things and spins into the most ridiculous version of the "truth" that he can. This post is a prime example.
It's not that people take what was alleged to have happened as 'fact' it's that Mike presents us with the facts the best he could that
He presents it as fact, and people here accept it as such. There's no hedging on his part. He claims that Aistars said those things. His headline insists that she said it, and that these other unnamed people agreed. The whole post is bullshit.
and the reader is to be the judge of what they think happened. They can use different factors such as Mike's history, his reputation and judgement, his reasoning/logic, and the reader's own reasoning and logic to determine what they think might have happened. That's the point of having this presented in a discussion, so that we can discuss it.
And the comments make clear that no one other than me questions what he's said. They accept his account, as unsupported as it may be, because it feeds into the TD narrative that "they" are clueless. The only thing this post shows is that Mike doesn't care about getting the facts right and that the people here can't wait to agree.
and who are you that I should take seriously or believe a word you say?
I'm just commenting. I don't expect you to believe me without proof. If I were writing a post where I claimed that so-and-so had said something, I'd back it up. I'd link to that article that supported my claims, even if it were behind a paywall. I'd name that person who was there. I'd base my claims on the quotes that I provided, not based on some crazy, extremist takeaway that the provided quotes don't support. I think you give Mike way too much credit. I think you give the readers here way too much credit. Everyone here gulps up Mike's claims wholeheartedly. Anyone who dares to challenge him is summarily "reported" for the blasphemy of thinking for himself and sharing that opinion. TD is the worst echo chamber I've ever seen. Hands down.
I think you should stop perpetuating this internet pissing contest you have with ANYONE who takes even the *slightest* exception to what you say.
So Dark Helmet can attempt to call me out with two completely wrong assumptions, and you don't think there's anything wrong with that? I disagree. I think he should man up and admit his mistake. I would.
What a joke. You don't admit shit. You're not really in any position to make demands.
How is it a "joke"?
Dark Helmet claimed that I had made some claim that I refused to defend. He cited this as proof that I'm a troll. But the reality is that someone else made that claim and wouldn't defend it. Dark Helmet claimed that my question about IP rights was easily dismissed since Mike supports trademark rights to some extent. But the reality is that my question was specifically about copyright rights.
Don't you think Dark Helmet should admit that he was wrong? I do. And it's very, very telling that he won't. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. Why isn't Dark Helmet admitting that he's wrong here? And not just wrong once, but twice. Why aren't you asking him to admit his mistake?
You should take it up with Bloomberg Law who reported the very same quotes Mike did via a reporter in attendance. So we've got two reports of Aistars actually making those comments vs you - a confessed and admitted troll - insisting they didn't happen. Guess who's credible.
Mike says Aistars thinks the "criminal elements are secretly leading the copyright reform effort," yet he didn't cite anything from Aistars or Bloomberg that backs that up. Mike says Aistars thinks that "there is no legitimate interest in copyright reform, but that it's really all coming from that criminal element," yet he didn't cite anything from Aistars or Bloomberg that backs that up. You appear to have read the Bloomberg piece. Can you quote us any language from it that backs up either of those two claims?
Also Techdirt is not a journalistic source. Yes it may engage in 'journalism' from time to time but it's an opinion blog. Mike is merely giving his opinion.
I think this is nonsense. Mike expects things presented as fact to be accepted as fact. The headline and the article present the comments from Aistars as a factual account of what she said.
and who are you to doubt their accuracy? Why should I care about whether or not you doubt their accuracy? From the things that I see coming from IP extremists alone (in the comments on this blog) I find it very likely that what was said is accurate and not out of context.
And that's part of the problem. Mike wrote it, and lots of people take it as fact and believe it. I spoke to someone who was there, and they assure me that Aistars did not say that this criminal element is leading the reform movement and she did not say that no innovators are seeking reform. Mike presents this unsupported straw man just to knock it down. And he expects people to believe what he says. I have to wonder if he even believes it.
The thing is, it HAS been answered, just not in a concrete, pin-you-down and lock-you-into-a-label sort of way you want.
I think he purposefully avoids taking a firm position precisely because he doesn't want to be pinned down.
My personal answer is this:
If empirical evidence shows that exclusive rights for creators is the best system for the creator and society as a whole - the answer is yes.
If empirical evidence shows that exclusive rights for creators isn't the best system for the creator and society as a whole - the answer is no.
Now, you supply all the empirical evidence required and I will give you a yes or no answer.
As it stands now, from what I have gleaned, my answer is no. A couple of hundred years ago when the first copyright laws were written and when the length of copyright was sane and the Public Domain was being replenished regularly, my answer would have been yes.
I appreciate you sharing your views. I guess my first question to you is how we determine what this "best system" would look like. What you think is best likely differs from what I think is best. And the problem with empiricism generally is that it's hard to measure these things, assuming you could even identify them, and it's nearly impossible to compare them, even if we could measure them. I think the empirical approach raises more questions than it answers, and as far as foundations go, it's not a very good one.
see USL v. BSD where the counterclaims by University of California, Berkeley involved removal of the copyright notices, which were the normal BSD type attribution license, and their restoration in the settlement. So yes, attribution can be brought to court.
Thanks for the link. If I understand that correctly, it's talking about a license condition. If the condition is not met, it's infringement. But that doesn't make the license condition an exclusive right. It's a condition, that if not met, means that the exclusive copyright right is violated. But the condition itself is not an exclusive right. What's enforced is the exclusive right the condition attaches to, not the condition itself. Regardless, the point is that Mike, as far as I know, has never supported any exclusive rights for authors and artists.
I do not think it would be a First Amendment problem since you comment is still viewable. If a government person deleted the comment then I would agree with you.
I disagree. It's a speech restriction since it makes the speech more difficult to see. Being that it's a content-based restriction, the test would be strict scrutiny. I fail to see what compelling governmental interest could possibly justify making unpopular speech more difficult to see, so I think it would violate the First Amendment. That said, do you think Mike would approve of the government doing this? Do you think he'd think that it doesn't violate the First Amendment?
The reason that I won't answer is because there's no point to it. Your responses to the answers are always the same (which is essentially to pretend that it wasn't an answer) and then continue to ask the same questions ad nauseum. It's a disingenuous, rhetorical game that there can never be an end to.
So you've seen the answer many times, yet you can't repeat it and/or point to it. I'm convinced.
Again you ask an impossible question, as the answer requires that you read and understand what Mike has said about copyright in the various articles he has published.
Why's it impossible? Mike has definitively stated that he thinks there should absolutely never be any criminal liability for infringement. Seems like he can form an opinion there. But then as to whether there should ever be civil liability for infringement, he's completely unable to form an opinion? That doesn't make sense. I have read his posts, and I've been trying to figure this out for years. I know his answer will be imperfect. Everyone's opinions are imperfect. I know he doesn't know for a fact what the absolute best system would be. Nobody does. I just want his opinion, yes or no or whatever it may be, as to whether he thinks that authors should have any exclusive rights. He simply will not answer that question. And everyone who claims that he has answered it, so far, has been unwilling/unable to explain what his answer is.
Attribution is the exclusive right that belongs to an author, and is the only right that does not lapse, so long as the authors name is known. Also it is the only right that cannot be sold, or otherwise transferred. It is a natural right, along with the right to publish, destroy, or leave it for other to decide as to whether a work should be published. As a right, attribution, and control of first publication, are as old as the invention of writing. What you insist on calling rights are the artificial rights, created by law, to control copying. As such these are much more restrictions on other peoples rights, with the maximalists trying to extend these restriction to what owners of copies are allowed to do with copies.
I'm talking about actual rights that can actually be enforced in an actual court of law. There are no attribution rights in the U.S., save for the limited ones in Section 106A for certain works of visual art. I don't think those rights apply to "The Oatmeal." So that's not an example of Mike supporting anyone's exclusive rights (the ones that are actually enforceable, not the natural ones that you're referring to which aren't legally cognizable).
First, your questions have been answered repeatedly over the years and yet you pretend that they have not (because you don't like the answers, I think).
Yes, you've claimed before that the answer is obvious and that it's been stated many times. I'll ask you the same question I've asked you before when you've claimed this: What's the answer? It should be easy for you to tell me the answer since you've seen it so many times. Let's have links and quotes, if you don't mind. Thanks.
Considering how often these "dissenting views" are personal attacks and general trolling mike would be well justified in outright deleting the comments entirely.
Every time I click to expand the reported stuff to see what you claim is "censored" comments I'm greeted with trollish bullshit
I have seen numerous comments "reported" that aren't trollish. Look at the very first comment above (#1). There's no reason why that should have been "reported." I merely explained that Mercatus is not CPIP, and I asked whether Mike had read the article. Give me a break with the ridiculous race to hide any view that isn't popular here. It's just sad. Especially for a site that purports to value free speech and dissenting views.
Strictly speaking Censorship is when a government prevents you from publishing, or speaking your point of view. You like many people with extreme views scream censorship when somebody else will not let you speak in a meeting that they arranged, or carry your speech at their expense. Neither of those actions are censorship, and you come across as a petulant child who is not given exactly what they want. You can still logon to this site, so nobody is trying very hard to prevent you speaking on this site. Often you comments are hidden, and can be shown by a single click, because they do not contribute much to the discussion. That is not censorship, just marking them as comments that can be ignored by those people interested in a sensible discussion.
You (if you're the same person) haven't answered my question, which is whether this would violate the First Amendment as censorship if the government did it. I think it clearly would. I disagree that only the government can censor. Of course, whether it's censorship when people "report" posts here that they don't like depends on what one means by censorship. I take a broad view of censorship, one that includes actions by private individuals. I believe Mike does too. Do you think this is censorship under Mike's broad use of the term?
So does that mean you'll not continue rational discussions with the rest of us?
I'd think you'd enjoy a intelligent discussion with anyone that could provide a challenge.
Of course. Check my profile. I'm happy to have substantive discussions. There's not much about this post to talk about, though, since it contains no substance.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the best personal attack you can muster? Sounds about right.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Haha. So even RD admits that I am "right," yet Dark Helmet can't be bothered to admit that he was wrong. I love it.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree that Mike does "the best he could." I think he hears a couple of things and spins into the most ridiculous version of the "truth" that he can. This post is a prime example.
It's not that people take what was alleged to have happened as 'fact' it's that Mike presents us with the facts the best he could that
He presents it as fact, and people here accept it as such. There's no hedging on his part. He claims that Aistars said those things. His headline insists that she said it, and that these other unnamed people agreed. The whole post is bullshit.
and the reader is to be the judge of what they think happened. They can use different factors such as Mike's history, his reputation and judgement, his reasoning/logic, and the reader's own reasoning and logic to determine what they think might have happened. That's the point of having this presented in a discussion, so that we can discuss it.
And the comments make clear that no one other than me questions what he's said. They accept his account, as unsupported as it may be, because it feeds into the TD narrative that "they" are clueless. The only thing this post shows is that Mike doesn't care about getting the facts right and that the people here can't wait to agree.
and who are you that I should take seriously or believe a word you say?
I'm just commenting. I don't expect you to believe me without proof. If I were writing a post where I claimed that so-and-so had said something, I'd back it up. I'd link to that article that supported my claims, even if it were behind a paywall. I'd name that person who was there. I'd base my claims on the quotes that I provided, not based on some crazy, extremist takeaway that the provided quotes don't support. I think you give Mike way too much credit. I think you give the readers here way too much credit. Everyone here gulps up Mike's claims wholeheartedly. Anyone who dares to challenge him is summarily "reported" for the blasphemy of thinking for himself and sharing that opinion. TD is the worst echo chamber I've ever seen. Hands down.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So Dark Helmet can attempt to call me out with two completely wrong assumptions, and you don't think there's anything wrong with that? I disagree. I think he should man up and admit his mistake. I would.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is it a "joke"?
Dark Helmet claimed that I had made some claim that I refused to defend. He cited this as proof that I'm a troll. But the reality is that someone else made that claim and wouldn't defend it. Dark Helmet claimed that my question about IP rights was easily dismissed since Mike supports trademark rights to some extent. But the reality is that my question was specifically about copyright rights.
Don't you think Dark Helmet should admit that he was wrong? I do. And it's very, very telling that he won't. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. Why isn't Dark Helmet admitting that he's wrong here? And not just wrong once, but twice. Why aren't you asking him to admit his mistake?
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike says Aistars thinks the "criminal elements are secretly leading the copyright reform effort," yet he didn't cite anything from Aistars or Bloomberg that backs that up. Mike says Aistars thinks that "there is no legitimate interest in copyright reform, but that it's really all coming from that criminal element," yet he didn't cite anything from Aistars or Bloomberg that backs that up. You appear to have read the Bloomberg piece. Can you quote us any language from it that backs up either of those two claims?
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you explain why you think I'm a "lier"? (By the way, you might to learn to spell that word as proper spelling makes you seem more credible.)
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Crickets.
Try again?
Crickets.
Can you really not admit a mistake, Dark Helmet?
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re:
I think this is nonsense. Mike expects things presented as fact to be accepted as fact. The headline and the article present the comments from Aistars as a factual account of what she said.
and who are you to doubt their accuracy? Why should I care about whether or not you doubt their accuracy? From the things that I see coming from IP extremists alone (in the comments on this blog) I find it very likely that what was said is accurate and not out of context.
And that's part of the problem. Mike wrote it, and lots of people take it as fact and believe it. I spoke to someone who was there, and they assure me that Aistars did not say that this criminal element is leading the reform movement and she did not say that no innovators are seeking reform. Mike presents this unsupported straw man just to knock it down. And he expects people to believe what he says. I have to wonder if he even believes it.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, John wasn't replying to me. He was replying to this comment: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141019/18125628883/copyright-maximalists-lobbyists-insist-crimin al-elements-are-secretly-leading-copyright-reform-effort.shtml#c50 John asked *that* poster to back up *that* poster's claim that Mike smears "creators who stand up for their rights on a daily basis..."
Care to retract?
But, as to AJ/antidirt's stupid little challenge, Techdirt HAS positively reported on people standing up for their IP when it's done well. For instance: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130214/11232521985/how-to-resolve-trademark-issue-politely-witho ut-legal-threats.shtml
You've moved the goalposts. I asked about *copyright* rights, not trademark rights, in this comment: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141019/18125628883/copyright-maximalists-lobbyists-insist-crimin al-elements-are-secretly-leading-copyright-reform-effort.shtml#c223 Here's what I said: "Can you point to a single post by Mike where he (1) said that he thinks authors should have any exclusive rights in their works in the first place, or (2) spoke positively about someone enforcing their exclusive rights?"
Try again?
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think he purposefully avoids taking a firm position precisely because he doesn't want to be pinned down.
My personal answer is this:
If empirical evidence shows that exclusive rights for creators is the best system for the creator and society as a whole - the answer is yes.
If empirical evidence shows that exclusive rights for creators isn't the best system for the creator and society as a whole - the answer is no.
Now, you supply all the empirical evidence required and I will give you a yes or no answer.
As it stands now, from what I have gleaned, my answer is no. A couple of hundred years ago when the first copyright laws were written and when the length of copyright was sane and the Public Domain was being replenished regularly, my answer would have been yes.
I appreciate you sharing your views. I guess my first question to you is how we determine what this "best system" would look like. What you think is best likely differs from what I think is best. And the problem with empiricism generally is that it's hard to measure these things, assuming you could even identify them, and it's nearly impossible to compare them, even if we could measure them. I think the empirical approach raises more questions than it answers, and as far as foundations go, it's not a very good one.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for the link. If I understand that correctly, it's talking about a license condition. If the condition is not met, it's infringement. But that doesn't make the license condition an exclusive right. It's a condition, that if not met, means that the exclusive copyright right is violated. But the condition itself is not an exclusive right. What's enforced is the exclusive right the condition attaches to, not the condition itself. Regardless, the point is that Mike, as far as I know, has never supported any exclusive rights for authors and artists.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree. It's a speech restriction since it makes the speech more difficult to see. Being that it's a content-based restriction, the test would be strict scrutiny. I fail to see what compelling governmental interest could possibly justify making unpopular speech more difficult to see, so I think it would violate the First Amendment. That said, do you think Mike would approve of the government doing this? Do you think he'd think that it doesn't violate the First Amendment?
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you've seen the answer many times, yet you can't repeat it and/or point to it. I'm convinced.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why's it impossible? Mike has definitively stated that he thinks there should absolutely never be any criminal liability for infringement. Seems like he can form an opinion there. But then as to whether there should ever be civil liability for infringement, he's completely unable to form an opinion? That doesn't make sense. I have read his posts, and I've been trying to figure this out for years. I know his answer will be imperfect. Everyone's opinions are imperfect. I know he doesn't know for a fact what the absolute best system would be. Nobody does. I just want his opinion, yes or no or whatever it may be, as to whether he thinks that authors should have any exclusive rights. He simply will not answer that question. And everyone who claims that he has answered it, so far, has been unwilling/unable to explain what his answer is.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What you insist on calling rights are the artificial rights, created by law, to control copying. As such these are much more restrictions on other peoples rights, with the maximalists trying to extend these restriction to what owners of copies are allowed to do with copies.
I'm talking about actual rights that can actually be enforced in an actual court of law. There are no attribution rights in the U.S., save for the limited ones in Section 106A for certain works of visual art. I don't think those rights apply to "The Oatmeal." So that's not an example of Mike supporting anyone's exclusive rights (the ones that are actually enforceable, not the natural ones that you're referring to which aren't legally cognizable).
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, you've claimed before that the answer is obvious and that it's been stated many times. I'll ask you the same question I've asked you before when you've claimed this: What's the answer? It should be easy for you to tell me the answer since you've seen it so many times. Let's have links and quotes, if you don't mind. Thanks.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every time I click to expand the reported stuff to see what you claim is "censored" comments I'm greeted with trollish bullshit
I have seen numerous comments "reported" that aren't trollish. Look at the very first comment above (#1). There's no reason why that should have been "reported." I merely explained that Mercatus is not CPIP, and I asked whether Mike had read the article. Give me a break with the ridiculous race to hide any view that isn't popular here. It's just sad. Especially for a site that purports to value free speech and dissenting views.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can still logon to this site, so nobody is trying very hard to prevent you speaking on this site. Often you comments are hidden, and can be shown by a single click, because they do not contribute much to the discussion. That is not censorship, just marking them as comments that can be ignored by those people interested in a sensible discussion.
You (if you're the same person) haven't answered my question, which is whether this would violate the First Amendment as censorship if the government did it. I think it clearly would. I disagree that only the government can censor. Of course, whether it's censorship when people "report" posts here that they don't like depends on what one means by censorship. I take a broad view of censorship, one that includes actions by private individuals. I believe Mike does too. Do you think this is censorship under Mike's broad use of the term?
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd think you'd enjoy a intelligent discussion with anyone that could provide a challenge.
Of course. Check my profile. I'm happy to have substantive discussions. There's not much about this post to talk about, though, since it contains no substance.
Next >>