Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
But I still feel like copyright skeptics (of which I am one!) are being a little disingenuous when they say even blatant cases of infringement shouldn't have judicial recourse.
Not disingenuous, just consistent.
There is no such thing as "intellectual property", only real property. In light of that, there is no level of violence that can be legitimately used against a person who arranges the bits on his hard drive in a particular fashion or writes a particular passage on a piece of paper he owns.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
No, it's a dick move, honestly.
But I'm not willing to use violence to solve it. A good public shaming and some grassroots support for artists would go a long way. Also, I want to go back to something you said:
you abandon ever following up on the work
Why would you do that? It's easier than ever to spread the truth about who actually wrote the book in question, and if people want more, you're the only one who can give it to them. That's when you capitalize on demand.
Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
You write a book. I copy the book with only minor tweaks. I market it better than you and profit, your version is crowded out of the market, you abandon ever following up on the work. Fair?
Yep!
(But I agree with you that it's an excellent post, so at least we have that in common.)
So the government could make a law that prevents private citizens from purchasing a printing press, airtime, video cameras, or pens and paper when those things were going to be used to talk about politics close to an election?
I'd love to hear both your moral and your legal rationale for such a ridiculous position.
Again, how does this have anything to do with what I was discussing (how rich people and big corporations could speak under McCain-Feingold, but not less well-off people)?
You're simply reiterating the same thing over and over like a magic ward of protection.
Corporate contributions to political campaigns did not change. They are the same as they always were. Goldman Sachs cannot give the Romney or Obama campaigns a billion dollars, with or without McCain-Feingold, before or after Citizens United.
It could, if it wanted, use that billion to make its own political ads. That's the only thing Citizens United really changed. A SuperPAC is just an organization of interested parties who want to produce their own speech.
Furthermore, I don't know what this rabbit hole has to do with the post of mine you were responding to.
The person responding to me was apparently irate that "rich people" can influence elections. I merely pointed out that rich people could influence elections under McCain-Feingold, even rich corporations could do so under McCain-Feingold, and that a lot of people affected by McCain-Feingold were the very people who needed to be able to speak as a group to have any voice at all.
Then you went off about how corporations are not people. K.
"Corporations are made of people, each one of which has free speech rights that should be protected" is different from the "corporations are people" nonsense that detractors of the decision like to spout. Answer me this:
If me and my friends get together, form a non-profit to pool our resources, and make a movie that includes political commentary, should the US government be allowed to stop me? Yes or no.
The supreme court said no. Does that mean my non-profit can sign up for social security tomorrow? Corporations are not people, but I am, and my free speech rights should be respected regardless of how many other people I band together with to create that speech.
Forgive me for noticing that the McCain-Feingold law didn't ameliorate our lawmakers being wholly owned by the corporations, in fact made it worse, and therefor find your praise of it incongruous with your stated goals.
As I said, the situation is far more nuanced than you want to portray it.
Not really.
1. As long as you allow government fingers in business, business will have its fingers in government. When the people give more power to the government to take on big business, it only gives big business that control the government more power over the people.
"We need the FDA to protect us from corporations selling shoddy goods!" people say, and then you find that the upper echelons of Big Pharma have a revolving door with the FDA, where they can use their newly-found power to rubber stamp their own products and run competitors out of business.
But this time will be different, I'm sure.
2. Censorship is never the answer to bad speech, because the power you cede to political censors will eventually ensure that only bad speech remains. The answer to bad speech is more good speech.
It's fine; Just give the government a little control over speech, and I'm sure it will all turn out fine in the end.
After all, it's not like the people creating the laws are already wholly owned by the corporations, so I'm sure they'll keep your best interests at heart while they craft the laws, and in no way will it come back to hurt you rather than the corporations.
Sleep tight, citizen, your government is working for you.
Rupert Murdoch could fund a movie praising Romney entirely out of his own pocket, and that would be perfectly legal under McCain-Feingold.
I, however, am not rich, so I probably couldn't fund an entire movie criticizing Romney out of my own pocket. But I'm in luck! I can band together with other like-minded people, we could pool our funds and create an LLC to make the movie! Oh wait, that was illegal under McCain-Feingold.
But hey, even though Murdoch (as a private citizen) can make political movies, at least we cut out the big corporations like Fox News, rght? Surely they also wouldn't be allowed to make political comments close to an election? Wait, that was allowed under McCain-Feingold too.
Free speech only for the rich and their rich corporations, brought to you by McCain-Feingold. Thank god we have the government here to protect us from the wealthy elites through censorship!
If you had subtracted the trollish-ness from your post, you could actually have made a worthwhile point in all that.
Imagine Lamar Smith runs for president, and close to the election, Mike posts an article reminding people about SOPA and Lamar's unwavering support of it. Should the government step in to make Mike take the post down, pay a huge fine, and/or go to jail? After all, Techdirt is a corporation, and we don't want corporations influencing politics*, right?
*Except, of course, the corporations that the people who currently control the justice system allow to influence politics, like Fox and MSNBC.
On the post: Why Do Copyright Industry Profits Get To Be The Yardstick For Civil Liberties?
Re:
Yawn. Get some new material, shilltroll.
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
There is no such thing as "intellectual property", only real property. In light of that, there is no level of violence that can be legitimately used against a person who arranges the bits on his hard drive in a particular fashion or writes a particular passage on a piece of paper he owns.
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
But I'm not willing to use violence to solve it. A good public shaming and some grassroots support for artists would go a long way. Also, I want to go back to something you said:
Why would you do that? It's easier than ever to spread the truth about who actually wrote the book in question, and if people want more, you're the only one who can give it to them. That's when you capitalize on demand.
On the post: A Perspective On The Complexities Of Copyright And Creativity From A Victim Of Infringement
Re: Re: Response to: DandonTRJ on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:28pm
(But I agree with you that it's an excellent post, so at least we have that in common.)
On the post: Friendly Pirate Challenges Minecraft Creator To Quake 3 Battle
On the post: New York Convinces Game Companies To Kick Registered Sex Offenders Off Gaming Services
Re: Re: Thanks for speaking out on this
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gah
I'd love to hear both your moral and your legal rationale for such a ridiculous position.
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gah
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It works both ways.
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gah
You're simply reiterating the same thing over and over like a magic ward of protection.
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gah
It could, if it wanted, use that billion to make its own political ads. That's the only thing Citizens United really changed. A SuperPAC is just an organization of interested parties who want to produce their own speech.
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gah
The person responding to me was apparently irate that "rich people" can influence elections. I merely pointed out that rich people could influence elections under McCain-Feingold, even rich corporations could do so under McCain-Feingold, and that a lot of people affected by McCain-Feingold were the very people who needed to be able to speak as a group to have any voice at all.
Then you went off about how corporations are not people. K.
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gah
If me and my friends get together, form a non-profit to pool our resources, and make a movie that includes political commentary, should the US government be allowed to stop me? Yes or no.
The supreme court said no. Does that mean my non-profit can sign up for social security tomorrow? Corporations are not people, but I am, and my free speech rights should be respected regardless of how many other people I band together with to create that speech.
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gah
Not really.
1. As long as you allow government fingers in business, business will have its fingers in government. When the people give more power to the government to take on big business, it only gives big business that control the government more power over the people.
"We need the FDA to protect us from corporations selling shoddy goods!" people say, and then you find that the upper echelons of Big Pharma have a revolving door with the FDA, where they can use their newly-found power to rubber stamp their own products and run competitors out of business.
But this time will be different, I'm sure.
2. Censorship is never the answer to bad speech, because the power you cede to political censors will eventually ensure that only bad speech remains. The answer to bad speech is more good speech.
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gah
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re: Re: Gah
After all, it's not like the people creating the laws are already wholly owned by the corporations, so I'm sure they'll keep your best interests at heart while they craft the laws, and in no way will it come back to hurt you rather than the corporations.
Sleep tight, citizen, your government is working for you.
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re: Re: Gah
I, however, am not rich, so I probably couldn't fund an entire movie criticizing Romney out of my own pocket. But I'm in luck! I can band together with other like-minded people, we could pool our funds and create an LLC to make the movie! Oh wait, that was illegal under McCain-Feingold.
But hey, even though Murdoch (as a private citizen) can make political movies, at least we cut out the big corporations like Fox News, rght? Surely they also wouldn't be allowed to make political comments close to an election? Wait, that was allowed under McCain-Feingold too.
Free speech only for the rich and their rich corporations, brought to you by McCain-Feingold. Thank god we have the government here to protect us from the wealthy elites through censorship!
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re:
Imagine Lamar Smith runs for president, and close to the election, Mike posts an article reminding people about SOPA and Lamar's unwavering support of it. Should the government step in to make Mike take the post down, pay a huge fine, and/or go to jail? After all, Techdirt is a corporation, and we don't want corporations influencing politics*, right?
*Except, of course, the corporations that the people who currently control the justice system allow to influence politics, like Fox and MSNBC.
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re:
Next >>