I wasn't even saying he's wrong. I was just wondering how he knew that Twitter had no effect on elections. That seems like a big claim in my mind, and noticeably he didn't explain how he'd determined it. I've read lots of articles on this very site about the huge impact Twitter can have, so it seems a bit strange to me to claim that in this instance, it has none.
Reading the complaint, I think it's April's Fools Day or something. Why can't they just send a proper takedown notice? Obviously they know how to. They've litigated these notices. They know what a fucking notice is. But what do they do? Read this from the complaint:
31. On March 25, 2009, Perfect 10 sent to Giganews approximately 800 Perfect 10 copyrighted images, a number of which displayed Perfect 10 copyright notices. Perfect 10 notified Giganews that Giganews was infringing a vast collection of third party copyright works, Perfect 10 rights of publicity, and Perfect 10 copyrighted works. Giganews wrote back claiming that it could not find the allegedly infringing images based on that notice, which was simply not correct. Giganews could have found each and every one of those images by using its own search function to search for the image identifiers provided with Perfect 10’s notice. Once it found an infringing Perfect 10 image in a particular group of such images (called an “article”), it could have blocked other Perfect 10 images displaying Perfect 10 copyright notices in that same group, but failed to do so. Six months later, Giganews was still selling access to many thousands of Perfect 10 copyrighted images that display Perfect 10 copyright notices.
32. On August 11, 2010, Perfect 10 sent to Giganews examples of obviously infringing episodes of the TV series America Idol, Big Bang Theory, CSI Miami, and How I Met Your Mother. Perfect 10 explained to Giganews that such materials were obviously infringing and that Perfect 10 could not compete with entities like Giganews, which steal and sell massive quantities of obviously copyrighted works, in competition against Perfect 10, who pays for materials it sells. Nevertheless, Giganews has continued to store, copy, distribute, and sell access to massive quantities of similar infringing materials.
It sounds like they didn't even send them a notice. They sent them 800 Perfect 10 images. Huh? Why would they do that? Did they really not even send DMCA notices? (I wish they'd send me 800 Perfect 10 images, but that's neither here nor there.) Obviously this is some sort of strategy on their part.
What I don't get is this. Giganews provides access to alt.binaries newsgroups, and everyone knows what those are used for. Giganews is about piracy. I'm sure many here will defend them, but I think if you're being honest, you'll acknowledge that Usenet is used primarily for infringement. Giganews knows this. Their business model depends on it. I get suing for contributory infringement, but I just don't get the faulty notices--or the lack of notices. Clearly they just want to sue, and I don't begrudge them that, but why be so stupid about the notices? And why send them free porn and then complain that they didn't do anything with it? That just makes Perfect 10 look bad, not the defendants.
I read fine. Where in the article does she say anything along the lines of that copyright is "supposed to protect someone from being upset"? Where does she even say that we need fashion copyright laws? She doesn't.
When did I ask you to "prove that there's no evidence"? I don't recall asking that.
Here's what I said: "Do you have any evidence that there is a "complete and total lack of evidence," or is this just meta-FUD?"
That's not asking you to prove there's no evidence.
No matter... Now you're claiming that you have evidence, but you don't want to share with the class. I guess it's "magical, double-secret" evidence. Got it.
Your rebuttal didn't actually rebut or answer my question. In no way did you explain how the author is saying that copyright law is supposed to protect someone from being upset, which was Mike's claim.
But how in the world does the anecdote about the twins show that the author believes fashion copyright law is "supposed to protect someone from being upset"? It doesn't. Nowhere in the article does the author suggest this. It's a complete and total strawman.
As I've indicated, even if there were fashion copyright law, the sister court still wear the same dress. The whole premise is logically flawed.
Mike, care to explain the connection? Or shall we call on the insects, stage left?
Wait... really? That's not at all what you said. I said that there's no evidence to support a position -- which is exactly what you're saying we should presume... and then you whine that I'm assuming there's no evidence because I haven't proven there's no evidence?
*head explodes*
Nice try, but no cigar. I'm saying that the presumption should be that's no evidence either way. You're saying that the evidence shows there is no connection. Big difference. Next time I'll try and explain it more s l o w l y.
However, since you seem incapable of understanding, feel free to do your own research, and you will quickly learn that the various attempts to judge if there's an impact have found *no evidence* that there's an impact.
So wait, now there are "various attempts." Now we're getting somewhere. That's all I was asking. How did you determine that there is no impact? Now you're saying there have been "attempts" that have failed to show this purported impact. Cool. You didn't mention that in the article. Care to point us to them so we can judge them for ourselves? Or are you filing that under "completely and totally debunked" and "super double-secret"?
As multiple people have pointed out, you're asking me to prove a negative. That's ridiculous. Please, please, please, if you're going to use the name FUDbuster, stop spreading FUD.
Funny how you are deflecting and not answering the question. No surprise there.
I've asked simply this: What is the basis for your claim that there is a lack of evidence? How did you make this determination?
Don't try and turn this into proving a negative. It's not. I'm simply asking you to explain how you arrived at your conclusion that there is no evidence.
Share I warm up the crickets? I expect either no answer, or more childish name-calling. Anything but answer the question, right?
Where to begin. First, she opened up her article with the anecdote of the twins so it must hold some prominence in her argument.
In the U.S., design pirates sailing the white-capped waves of bridal lace and silk face few or no obstacles.
Of course, most manufacturer who find themselves "inspired" by Kate's gown are old hands at the imitation game, and they know their local laws well
She does call people who copy fashion pirates, thus trying to compare them to people who copy movies and music. Then she goes on to put the word inspired in quotes to show they are merely copying, thus implying that is a bad thing.
So you see, the article is entirely about fashion and copyright. If you are going to misrepresent the article and Mike's discussion of it, you are going to have to do a better job. People, other than you obviously, can read for themselves.
And exactly how does the author use the anecdote about the twins to demonstrate a need for fashion copyright?
"I just read her article, and nowhere did I see her say that the anecdote about the twins was in support of any argument about the need for fashion copyright. I don't follow your reasoning.
Nor did she claim that it did. She said it was possibly a faux pas."
"For the legions of bridal, prom, and special occasion designers queuing up to copy Kate's bridal gown, the issues of identicality are less social and more economic and legal. How can copies be made at the greatest speed and lowest price? And how close is too close, legally speaking?"
That quote is about Kate's wedding gown. What does that have to do with the anecdote about the twins? How does the anecdote about the twins support Mike's contention that it was for the purpose of "supporting fashion copyright"? It doesn't. What Mike claimed did not follow from the anecdote. Even if there were fashion copyright, and the twin's dress was copyrighted, the other twin, presumably, could still purchase the same dress. I don't see the connection that Mike is trying to make there.
Copyright has never concerned itself with the idea that someone might "feel bad" that someone else copied them.
She didn't claim that it was.
"As copyists 'round the globe scream for their seamstresses, dismiss their beaders, and buy as much lace as possible, they'll need to be wary of being caught in their own netting -- although it's more often the fabric mills that are responsible for printed patterns and lace designs sold to clothing manufacturers.
Again, no support there. Mike claimed that the anecdote about the twins was somehow for the purpose of showing the need for fashion copyright so that someone won't "feel bad." How does the part you quoted address this claim? I don't see it.
It seems bizarre that Scafidi would so misrepresent the very basis of copyright law in an attempt to make an emotional argument to push for an unnecessary change to copyright law that would do plenty of harm without really helping anyone.
It seems bizarre that you would so misrepresent this article in an attempt to make an argument to blast copyright law.
In the U.S., design pirates sailing the white-capped waves of bridal lace and silk face few or no obstacles. Intellectual property law only rarely protects dress designs, though the instant fame of Kate's dress could support a trade dress argument. (Contrary to the New York Times article on the subject, no "subtle modifications" are required by current U.S. copyright law -- at least until the eventual passage of the IDPPPA or a similar bill.)
Again, no help there. Mike's claim is based on the notion that the anecdote about the twins was for the purpose of showing a need for fashion copyright. It wasn't. The quote you've provided is a statement of fact about the current state of fashion copyright law. The author is not even making an argument there. She's simply stating what the law is.
I believe Mike did an accurate job of stating the article. You might want to re-read it for increased understanding.
You've demonstrated absolutely nothing. Internet pat on the back. Better luck next time.
But in a recent blog post, she seems to explain her reason for supporting fashion copyright: because she doesn't want people to feel bad.
I just read her article, and nowhere did I see her say that the anecdote about the twins was in support of any argument about the need for fashion copyright. I don't follow your reasoning.
Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with copyright.
Nor did she claim that it did. She said it was possibly a faux pas.
Copyright law has never been about helping people avoid "awkard" silences and angry siblings. Copyright has never concerned itself with the idea that someone might "feel bad" that someone else copied them.
She didn't claim that it was.
It seems bizarre that Scafidi would so misrepresent the very basis of copyright law in an attempt to make an emotional argument to push for an unnecessary change to copyright law that would do plenty of harm without really helping anyone.
It seems bizarre that you would so misrepresent this article in an attempt to make an argument to blast copyright law.
Snore. Slow news day? You really are stretching credulity here.
And how does Mike know there is a lack of evidence? All I'm asking for is the basis for Mike's claim. He claimed there is no evidence. Where did he look? How did he reach this conclusion?
If someone were to say "the Andromeda galaxy is made of cheese curd" and someone else said "there's no proof of that", you can't argue "how do you know there's no proof!". Show the proof or shut up.
Sure, I can ask them "how do you know there's no proof." They could then explain that there's no proof of that because astrophysicists have pointed their fancy machines at the galaxy and told them that there's no evidence of cheese curd there.
Spin it all you want, but Mike made a claim and provided no basis for his claim. I'm simply asking if there is a basis for his claim, and if so, what is is that basis. It's not that hard to understand.
If I said Groove Tiger is one groovy dude, and then Dark Helmet says that you're not, a person could ask Dark Helmet to explain why he thinks you're not groovy. That person isn't asking Dark Helmet to prove the impossible. He's simply asking Dark Helmet how he determined that I'm wrong about your grooviness.
You just keep on going, don't you? I haven't sided with Righthaven. I've been perfectly clear that I don't think either side is necessarily right. Nor do I think they're necessarily wrong. You do understand the difference, don't you? I'm waiting for the briefs from both sides, and then I'll do some more research, and then my opinion will become more firm. Sorry, but I don't work under whatever scheme it is you think I to work under.
So, how exactly do you show evidence of a lack of evidence? While you're at it, can you explain how this differs from proving a negative?
Simple, you say, "I know there is no basis for their claim because of X." Mike is saying that their claim has no basis. I am wondering how he determined this. What reliable information is Mike relying on to support his claim? If none, then he's just as bad as the people he claims to be debunking.
I'm not ignoring the original implied assertion. He's saying that the claim that there is a negative influence is baseless. I'm asking how he knows that. Good grief, I'm just wondering if he made it up (which I suspect he did) or if he's actually making an informed claim. In other words, what is the basis for Mike's claim?
To give you an intelligent answer, I'd have to look at different cases and fact patterns to see how courts treated them. From there, I could describe the contours and, by analogy, perhaps give you the answer you seek. That's a bit a work, and I don't really see the point in spending hours doing it just to satisfy you. I don't have an intelligent answer that I can give you, for those reasons.
On the post: Canadians Ignore Ban On Tweeting Election Results
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Perfect 10 Sues Again: This Time It Goes After Usenet Provider Giganews
Re: Re:
Seriously, though. If this is some sort of strategy, I don't get the strategy.
1. Find websites with money that only have a contributory role in the infringement, at best (Giganews, Google, CCBill, etc.)
2. Send them free porn and/or faulty takedown notices.
3. ????
4. Profit.
I don't get it.
On the post: Perfect 10 Sues Again: This Time It Goes After Usenet Provider Giganews
Reading the complaint, I think it's April's Fools Day or something. Why can't they just send a proper takedown notice? Obviously they know how to. They've litigated these notices. They know what a fucking notice is. But what do they do? Read this from the complaint:It sounds like they didn't even send them a notice. They sent them 800 Perfect 10 images. Huh? Why would they do that? Did they really not even send DMCA notices? (I wish they'd send me 800 Perfect 10 images, but that's neither here nor there.) Obviously this is some sort of strategy on their part.
What I don't get is this. Giganews provides access to alt.binaries newsgroups, and everyone knows what those are used for. Giganews is about piracy. I'm sure many here will defend them, but I think if you're being honest, you'll acknowledge that Usenet is used primarily for infringement. Giganews knows this. Their business model depends on it. I get suing for contributory infringement, but I just don't get the faulty notices--or the lack of notices. Clearly they just want to sue, and I don't begrudge them that, but why be so stupid about the notices? And why send them free porn and then complain that they didn't do anything with it? That just makes Perfect 10 look bad, not the defendants.
On the post: Copyright Law Is Not Supposed To Protect Someone From Being Upset
Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Law Is Not Supposed To Protect Someone From Being Upset
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Canadians Ignore Ban On Tweeting Election Results
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's what I said: "Do you have any evidence that there is a "complete and total lack of evidence," or is this just meta-FUD?"
That's not asking you to prove there's no evidence.
No matter... Now you're claiming that you have evidence, but you don't want to share with the class. I guess it's "magical, double-secret" evidence. Got it.
On the post: Copyright Law Is Not Supposed To Protect Someone From Being Upset
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Law Is Not Supposed To Protect Someone From Being Upset
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I've indicated, even if there were fashion copyright law, the sister court still wear the same dress. The whole premise is logically flawed.
Mike, care to explain the connection? Or shall we call on the insects, stage left?
On the post: Canadians Ignore Ban On Tweeting Election Results
Re: Re: Re: Re:
*head explodes*
Nice try, but no cigar. I'm saying that the presumption should be that's no evidence either way. You're saying that the evidence shows there is no connection. Big difference. Next time I'll try and explain it more s l o w l y.
However, since you seem incapable of understanding, feel free to do your own research, and you will quickly learn that the various attempts to judge if there's an impact have found *no evidence* that there's an impact.
So wait, now there are "various attempts." Now we're getting somewhere. That's all I was asking. How did you determine that there is no impact? Now you're saying there have been "attempts" that have failed to show this purported impact. Cool. You didn't mention that in the article. Care to point us to them so we can judge them for ourselves? Or are you filing that under "completely and totally debunked" and "super double-secret"?
On the post: Canadians Ignore Ban On Tweeting Election Results
Re: Re:
Funny how you are deflecting and not answering the question. No surprise there.
I've asked simply this: What is the basis for your claim that there is a lack of evidence? How did you make this determination?
Don't try and turn this into proving a negative. It's not. I'm simply asking you to explain how you arrived at your conclusion that there is no evidence.
Share I warm up the crickets? I expect either no answer, or more childish name-calling. Anything but answer the question, right?
On the post: Copyright Law Is Not Supposed To Protect Someone From Being Upset
Re: Re:
In the U.S., design pirates sailing the white-capped waves of bridal lace and silk face few or no obstacles.
Of course, most manufacturer who find themselves "inspired" by Kate's gown are old hands at the imitation game, and they know their local laws well
She does call people who copy fashion pirates, thus trying to compare them to people who copy movies and music. Then she goes on to put the word inspired in quotes to show they are merely copying, thus implying that is a bad thing.
So you see, the article is entirely about fashion and copyright. If you are going to misrepresent the article and Mike's discussion of it, you are going to have to do a better job. People, other than you obviously, can read for themselves.
And exactly how does the author use the anecdote about the twins to demonstrate a need for fashion copyright?
On the post: Copyright Law Is Not Supposed To Protect Someone From Being Upset
Re: Re:
Nor did she claim that it did. She said it was possibly a faux pas."
"For the legions of bridal, prom, and special occasion designers queuing up to copy Kate's bridal gown, the issues of identicality are less social and more economic and legal. How can copies be made at the greatest speed and lowest price? And how close is too close, legally speaking?"
That quote is about Kate's wedding gown. What does that have to do with the anecdote about the twins? How does the anecdote about the twins support Mike's contention that it was for the purpose of "supporting fashion copyright"? It doesn't. What Mike claimed did not follow from the anecdote. Even if there were fashion copyright, and the twin's dress was copyrighted, the other twin, presumably, could still purchase the same dress. I don't see the connection that Mike is trying to make there.
Copyright has never concerned itself with the idea that someone might "feel bad" that someone else copied them.
She didn't claim that it was.
"As copyists 'round the globe scream for their seamstresses, dismiss their beaders, and buy as much lace as possible, they'll need to be wary of being caught in their own netting -- although it's more often the fabric mills that are responsible for printed patterns and lace designs sold to clothing manufacturers.
Again, no support there. Mike claimed that the anecdote about the twins was somehow for the purpose of showing the need for fashion copyright so that someone won't "feel bad." How does the part you quoted address this claim? I don't see it.
It seems bizarre that Scafidi would so misrepresent the very basis of copyright law in an attempt to make an emotional argument to push for an unnecessary change to copyright law that would do plenty of harm without really helping anyone.
It seems bizarre that you would so misrepresent this article in an attempt to make an argument to blast copyright law.
In the U.S., design pirates sailing the white-capped waves of bridal lace and silk face few or no obstacles. Intellectual property law only rarely protects dress designs, though the instant fame of Kate's dress could support a trade dress argument. (Contrary to the New York Times article on the subject, no "subtle modifications" are required by current U.S. copyright law -- at least until the eventual passage of the IDPPPA or a similar bill.)
Again, no help there. Mike's claim is based on the notion that the anecdote about the twins was for the purpose of showing a need for fashion copyright. It wasn't. The quote you've provided is a statement of fact about the current state of fashion copyright law. The author is not even making an argument there. She's simply stating what the law is.
I believe Mike did an accurate job of stating the article. You might want to re-read it for increased understanding.
You've demonstrated absolutely nothing. Internet pat on the back. Better luck next time.
On the post: Copyright Law Is Not Supposed To Protect Someone From Being Upset
I just read her article, and nowhere did I see her say that the anecdote about the twins was in support of any argument about the need for fashion copyright. I don't follow your reasoning.
Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with copyright.
Nor did she claim that it did. She said it was possibly a faux pas.
Copyright law has never been about helping people avoid "awkard" silences and angry siblings. Copyright has never concerned itself with the idea that someone might "feel bad" that someone else copied them.
She didn't claim that it was.
It seems bizarre that Scafidi would so misrepresent the very basis of copyright law in an attempt to make an emotional argument to push for an unnecessary change to copyright law that would do plenty of harm without really helping anyone.
It seems bizarre that you would so misrepresent this article in an attempt to make an argument to blast copyright law.
Snore. Slow news day? You really are stretching credulity here.
On the post: Canadians Ignore Ban On Tweeting Election Results
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If someone were to say "the Andromeda galaxy is made of cheese curd" and someone else said "there's no proof of that", you can't argue "how do you know there's no proof!". Show the proof or shut up.
Sure, I can ask them "how do you know there's no proof." They could then explain that there's no proof of that because astrophysicists have pointed their fancy machines at the galaxy and told them that there's no evidence of cheese curd there.
Spin it all you want, but Mike made a claim and provided no basis for his claim. I'm simply asking if there is a basis for his claim, and if so, what is is that basis. It's not that hard to understand.
If I said Groove Tiger is one groovy dude, and then Dark Helmet says that you're not, a person could ask Dark Helmet to explain why he thinks you're not groovy. That person isn't asking Dark Helmet to prove the impossible. He's simply asking Dark Helmet how he determined that I'm wrong about your grooviness.
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Mike: Copyright isn't property. Copyright is a bundle of rights.
Law Dictionary: Property is a bundle of rights.
The Universe: Crickets.
LMFAO!
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RIghthaven
Find somebody else to play with. This is boring.
On the post: Canadians Ignore Ban On Tweeting Election Results
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simple, you say, "I know there is no basis for their claim because of X." Mike is saying that their claim has no basis. I am wondering how he determined this. What reliable information is Mike relying on to support his claim? If none, then he's just as bad as the people he claims to be debunking.
On the post: Canadians Ignore Ban On Tweeting Election Results
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Canadians Ignore Ban On Tweeting Election Results
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Unsealed Righthaven Agreement Has Other Judges Questioning Legitimacy Of Righthaven's Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RIghthaven
Next >>