What is with the loaded, one-sided questions, AJ? (BTW: When did you stop beating your wife?) Why would Mike answer either of those questions if he is not 100% sure that our current copyright scheme is the *best* way to do things? Your questions limit him to what we currently have and completely eliminate other solutions.
Really? Mike states opinions all of the time even when he's not 100% sure. This post is a good example.
Mike has explained (to you specifically, even) that he feels that artists should be compensated based on his personal morals and also that he's not convinced that our current copyright laws are the *best* way to do that or the *best* way to benefit our society.
Mike won't answer the question as to whether he thinks authors and artists should have any exclusive rights. He has made clear that the *only* thing that's wrong with infringement is that the rightholder doesn't like it. He's also made clear that he thinks there should no such thing as criminal infringement. If he can form an opinion about criminal infringement, surely he can form one about civil infringement. It seems obvious that he doesn't think they should have any rights, yet he won't ever just say that. I don't buy for one minute that it's because he can't formulate an opinion on the matter. Mike clearly has lots and lots of opinions, all of them based on incomplete information. I think it's just that he doesn't want to admit it. He's really worried about being labeled as anti-copyright or pro-piracy, for some weird reason.
I love the irony that in the comments to a post where Mike pretends like he's so worried about there being no "real discussion" about these issues, all the dissenting views are being quickly "reported" and hidden from view. I'd love to discuss the issues with Mike. I think we both know that'll never happen. He's not willing to have that "real discussion" he pretends to want.
Yes actually. It was a few articles about the Oatmeal wanting recognition for his comics and ended up being sued. There are string of articles and I don't remember which one it was exactly but you can do a search for Oatmeal in Techdirt for the full listing.
Was that about exclusive rights, or about attribution (which is not an exclusive right)?
Yes, one of Honest Mike's famous tricks is to allow your post to appear uncensored if you're reading it from the IP it was posted from.
I restarted my computer, and now all the "reported" comments are showing up as such. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's Mike himself desperately trying to hide all the dissenting views.
I would disagree with you since he actually confirmed that information with an attendee. Something many journalist are lacking these days. Since that attendee wasn't named, he/she probably wanted to remain anonymous. If I couldn't get it right from the source then I think the attendee is a far better source than the paywalled news source.
Without any information about this supposed attendee, we can't judge reliability. And what did he confirm? A couple of phrases pulled out of context? And who are these other "lobbyists" who supposedly "insist" all these terrible things? What did they actually say? This is just shoddy reporting. No real reporter would have published this.
Well of course he didn't link to an article behind a paywall: everyone (except inferior people like you) knows that doing so is inconsiderate and rude.
If the government had a person assigned to TD whose job it is to "report" and hide from view posts that he doesn't like, would you think it's censorship then? Do you think that would be allowed by the First Amendment? If not, why not?
Lol at this being censored. This place has really gone off the rails.
Was it "reported"? It's showing up regularly in my feed. But, yeah, people here don't like dissenting views. Wouldn't want the group-think to be challenged!
Please provide an example of Techdirt smearing anyone just because they're standing up for their rights. I don't remember this happening. When I see critical articles, the criticism isn't because someone is standing up for their rights, it's because they're trampling on the rights of others.
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?
Pay for the article that isn't even identified in the post? What article is it? Did Mike even read the article before commenting on it? Did Mike put his money where his mouth is? I'm happy to read it, and I would have read it, as well as watched the video of the panel discussion, before publishing a post about it. But that's just me. I prefer substance to FUD.
Dude, you are one clear example of such group. I would appreciate dissenting opinions and people bringing into attention some inconsistency or lack of source/evidence such as you try to do it but there's plenty of comments from you that show you are just some troll and you are not looking for reasonable discussion. So far I have yet to see baseless FUD pieces from TD and even when there was such a thing TD published updates and apologies for the mistakes. When will you admit you are in the wrong?
Let us see this video indeed and then watch you try to flip something out into an attack at Mike.
Would any of the real journalists that Mike routinely berates have posted this piece? I sincerely doubt it. I don't know what Aistars said. I merely doubt that this post is accurate. If the video shows that Mike's portrayal of what she said is wrong, do you really think he'll post a correction and/or retraction? I seriously doubt it. And can you really not see how this is baseless FUD? Do you really think he showed that "copyright maximalists and lobbyists insist" these things? I don't. It's sensationalism, as are so many of Mike's posts. It's hilarious that he laments how "real discussion" is "nearly impossible." As far as I can tell, Mike will be the last person in the copyright debate to have a "real discussion." Instead, we get hit pieces like this. Is Mike doing anything towards a "real discussion" with this post? Of course not. It's the opposite of that.
It's hard to discuss with people that brand everybody that disagree with them as criminals. These are the types that should actually be left out of the process. But alas we live in a somewhat democratic world and they too must have the right to spew their nonsense.
I think you're giving Mike too much credit. We don't really know what was said by Aistars. Mike mentioned an article behind a paywall that he didn't bother to link to and that he may or may not have read, and he also mentioned some unnamed person that supposedly was at the event. Where are these alleged quotes from Aistars coming from? And even if they're accurate, which I doubt they are, what was the context? The article appears to me to be poorly sourced and woefully incomplete, and its purpose seems to be nothing but another personal attack against someone Mike doesn't like. For a guy that frequently berates the journalistic integrity of others, I'm not seeing any actual journalism here (journalism!). It appears that the video of this panel will be posted soon, so then we can all see what Aistars really said and the context she said it in. Until then, this strikes me as another baseless TD FUD piece.
George Mason University -- which not too long ago put out an entire book about the need for copyright reform -- apparently also wants to present "the other side."
That book was from the Mercatus Center, which focuses on markets ("mercatus" means marketplace). This conference was by the CPIP, which focuses on protecting IP. Both centers are at GMU, but they're run by different people and have different agendas.
A permanently paywalled articled alerted me to some of the claims made on one panel
Do you have any cites where 18 U.S.C. § 2 was used successfully in a copyright case? In Rojadirecta the USG handed the domain names back and dropped the case, basically because their whole case was weak to begin with.
If 18 U.S.C. § 2 hasn't been successfully tied to criminal copyright infringement then Mike is correct in saying that aiding and abetting doesn't apply to criminal copyright infringement, especially with the fact that Congress deliberately removed it from the copyright statutes in 1976.
I responded to you earlier, but the spam filter caught it. The short answer is, and I don't have time to find the cites right now, is that the aiding and abetting provision was removed from the Copyright Act because it was redundant with 18 USC 2. Section 2 applies across the board, and it makes it a crime to aid and abet anyone who violates a federal criminal law. Congress didn't remove the mention from the Copyright Act because it suddenly decided to make aiding and abetting criminal infringement legal. It removed it because it's already made illegal under 18 USC 2. There's no reason why Section 2 doesn't apply to criminal infringement. Moreover, this is just sleight of hand. Even if the aiding and abetting charges didn't support the forfeiture, the direct infringement and conspiracy to commit direct infringement charges do. The argument that the assets aren't forfeitable because Section 2 doesn't apply is silly. They're forfeitable even if Section 2 doesn't apply.
If 18 U.S.C. § 2 hasn't been successfully tied to criminal copyright infringement then Mike is correct in saying that aiding and abetting doesn't apply to criminal copyright infringement, especially with the fact that Congress deliberately removed it from the copyright statutes in 1976.
I don't have time at the moment to look up the cites, but the mention of aiding and abetting in the Copyright Act was removed because it was redundant with 18 USC 2. Section 2 says that anyone who aids and abets another who commits a federal crime is guilty as if he had committed the crime himself. This applies across the board, including to criminal copyright infringement. Congress didn't remove it because they wanted to suddenly make it legal to aid and abet a criminal infringer. They removed it because 18 USC 2 already makes it a crime.
Do you mean the part in Dotcom's brief where it's argued that 18 USC § 2 doesn't apply in copyright cases because Congress specifically eliminated that in the Copyright Act of 1976:
Yes. Here's the paragraph as Mike quoted it:
But that is no conceivable basis for criminal prosecution, much less resulting forfeiture. Congress specifically removed from the Copyright Act language about aiding and abetting criminal infringement. See Irina D. Manta, The Puzzle of Criminal Sanctions for Intellectual Property Infringement, 24 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 469, 481 (2011) (“Several years later, countering what had been a trend of expansion in the area of criminal sanctions, the Copyright Act of 1976 eliminated the provisions for aiding and abetting . . .”) Judicial reinsertion of the deleted language, particularly in the criminal context, would chill innovation, creating the prospect of criminal sanctions despite, for instance, compliance with express DMCA safe harbors. Even assuming arguendo that such a criminal prosecution might ever be permitted, neither 18 U.S.C. § 2323 nor 18 U.S.C. § 981 authorizes civil asset forfeiture for proceeds traceable to aiding and abetting criminal conduct. There is, accordingly, no jurisdiction for entertaining a request for civil forfeiture as pleaded here.
And then here's the full paragraph from the brief:
Seeking another back door through which to prosecute the Megaupload defendants for alleged crimes they did not directly commit, the Government tries to combine the criminal copyright statute, 17 U.S.C. § 506, with the general aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2. See Sup. Ind. Counts Four, Five, Six, Seven, and Eight. But that is no conceivable basis for criminal prosecution, much less resulting forfeiture . Congress specifically removed from the Copyright Act language about aiding and abetting criminal infringement . See Irina D. Manta, The Puzzle of Criminal Sanctions for Intellectual Property Infringement , 24 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 469, 481 (2011) (“Several years later, countering what had been a trend of expansion in the area of criminal sanctions, the Copyright Act of 1976 eliminated the pro visions for aiding and abetting . . .”) Judicial reinsertion of the deleted language, particularly in the criminal context, would chill innovation, cr eating the prospect of criminal sanctions despite, for instance, compliance with express DMCA safe harbors. E ven assuming arguendo that such a criminal prosecution might ever be permitted , neither 18 U.S.C. § 2323 nor 18 U.S.C. § 981 authorizes civil ass et forfeiture for proceeds traceable to aiding and abetting criminal conduct. There is, accordingly, no jurisdiction for entertaining a request for civil forfeiture as pleaded here.
Mike cut out the first sentence (I bolded it) which mentions 18 USC 2. This is the statute he won't acknowledge, and it's the one that has been pointed out to him many times. I doubt the omission was unintentional.
He's arguing that it's not novel: "But still. It appears the unique 'design' element is that this toothpick has those lines up top. But I've had toothpicks like that many times in the past. It's hardly a new design." Then he shows a picture of other toothpicks that he thinks anticipate the toothpick that received a design patent. The point of saying it's not new and showing the other toothpicks is to argue that the patent is invalid.
The confusion still frequently persists today. Therefore the judge may not even have been aware of why they chose the arbitrary 10%, but it probably 'felt' right to them and their subconscious because that's the benchmark for plagiarism.
If you read the opinion, the 10% thing comes from certain classroom best practices that are repeated in the legislative history but that do not carry the force of law. I actually think bright line rules would be a good thing when it comes to fair use, but that's not the way it works.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? Mike states opinions all of the time even when he's not 100% sure. This post is a good example.
Mike has explained (to you specifically, even) that he feels that artists should be compensated based on his personal morals and also that he's not convinced that our current copyright laws are the *best* way to do that or the *best* way to benefit our society.
Mike won't answer the question as to whether he thinks authors and artists should have any exclusive rights. He has made clear that the *only* thing that's wrong with infringement is that the rightholder doesn't like it. He's also made clear that he thinks there should no such thing as criminal infringement. If he can form an opinion about criminal infringement, surely he can form one about civil infringement. It seems obvious that he doesn't think they should have any rights, yet he won't ever just say that. I don't buy for one minute that it's because he can't formulate an opinion on the matter. Mike clearly has lots and lots of opinions, all of them based on incomplete information. I think it's just that he doesn't want to admit it. He's really worried about being labeled as anti-copyright or pro-piracy, for some weird reason.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Was that about exclusive rights, or about attribution (which is not an exclusive right)?
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I restarted my computer, and now all the "reported" comments are showing up as such. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's Mike himself desperately trying to hide all the dissenting views.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re:
Without any information about this supposed attendee, we can't judge reliability. And what did he confirm? A couple of phrases pulled out of context? And who are these other "lobbyists" who supposedly "insist" all these terrible things? What did they actually say? This is just shoddy reporting. No real reporter would have published this.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, citing one's sources is so rude.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re:
If the government had a person assigned to TD whose job it is to "report" and hide from view posts that he doesn't like, would you think it's censorship then? Do you think that would be allowed by the First Amendment? If not, why not?
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re:
Was it "reported"? It's showing up regularly in my feed. But, yeah, people here don't like dissenting views. Wouldn't want the group-think to be challenged!
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re:
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?
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re:
Put your money where your mouth is.
Pay for the article that isn't even identified in the post? What article is it? Did Mike even read the article before commenting on it? Did Mike put his money where his mouth is? I'm happy to read it, and I would have read it, as well as watched the video of the panel discussion, before publishing a post about it. But that's just me. I prefer substance to FUD.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re:
Let us see this video indeed and then watch you try to flip something out into an attack at Mike.
Would any of the real journalists that Mike routinely berates have posted this piece? I sincerely doubt it. I don't know what Aistars said. I merely doubt that this post is accurate. If the video shows that Mike's portrayal of what she said is wrong, do you really think he'll post a correction and/or retraction? I seriously doubt it. And can you really not see how this is baseless FUD? Do you really think he showed that "copyright maximalists and lobbyists insist" these things? I don't. It's sensationalism, as are so many of Mike's posts. It's hilarious that he laments how "real discussion" is "nearly impossible." As far as I can tell, Mike will be the last person in the copyright debate to have a "real discussion." Instead, we get hit pieces like this. Is Mike doing anything towards a "real discussion" with this post? Of course not. It's the opposite of that.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re:
I think you're giving Mike too much credit. We don't really know what was said by Aistars. Mike mentioned an article behind a paywall that he didn't bother to link to and that he may or may not have read, and he also mentioned some unnamed person that supposedly was at the event. Where are these alleged quotes from Aistars coming from? And even if they're accurate, which I doubt they are, what was the context? The article appears to me to be poorly sourced and woefully incomplete, and its purpose seems to be nothing but another personal attack against someone Mike doesn't like. For a guy that frequently berates the journalistic integrity of others, I'm not seeing any actual journalism here (journalism!). It appears that the video of this panel will be posted soon, so then we can all see what Aistars really said and the context she said it in. Until then, this strikes me as another baseless TD FUD piece.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
That book was from the Mercatus Center, which focuses on markets ("mercatus" means marketplace). This conference was by the CPIP, which focuses on protecting IP. Both centers are at GMU, but they're run by different people and have different agendas.
A permanently paywalled articled alerted me to some of the claims made on one panel
Did you actually read the "articled"?
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If 18 U.S.C. § 2 hasn't been successfully tied to criminal copyright infringement then Mike is correct in saying that aiding and abetting doesn't apply to criminal copyright infringement, especially with the fact that Congress deliberately removed it from the copyright statutes in 1976.
I responded to you earlier, but the spam filter caught it. The short answer is, and I don't have time to find the cites right now, is that the aiding and abetting provision was removed from the Copyright Act because it was redundant with 18 USC 2. Section 2 applies across the board, and it makes it a crime to aid and abet anyone who violates a federal criminal law. Congress didn't remove the mention from the Copyright Act because it suddenly decided to make aiding and abetting criminal infringement legal. It removed it because it's already made illegal under 18 USC 2. There's no reason why Section 2 doesn't apply to criminal infringement. Moreover, this is just sleight of hand. Even if the aiding and abetting charges didn't support the forfeiture, the direct infringement and conspiracy to commit direct infringement charges do. The argument that the assets aren't forfeitable because Section 2 doesn't apply is silly. They're forfeitable even if Section 2 doesn't apply.
On the post: GitHub Promises To Alert Users To DMCA Notices Before Taking Content Down
Do they? Can you actually explain the argument?
On the post: Not Just Governments Hacking Your Computers Via YouTube Videos; Malicious Ads Found On Popular Videos
Re:
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't have time at the moment to look up the cites, but the mention of aiding and abetting in the Copyright Act was removed because it was redundant with 18 USC 2. Section 2 says that anyone who aids and abets another who commits a federal crime is guilty as if he had committed the crime himself. This applies across the board, including to criminal copyright infringement. Congress didn't remove it because they wanted to suddenly make it legal to aid and abet a criminal infringer. They removed it because 18 USC 2 already makes it a crime.
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. Here's the paragraph as Mike quoted it:And then here's the full paragraph from the brief:Mike cut out the first sentence (I bolded it) which mentions 18 USC 2. This is the statute he won't acknowledge, and it's the one that has been pointed out to him many times. I doubt the omission was unintentional.
On the post: Roca Labs Exec Claims Marc Randazza Bribed Nevada Politician To Get Anti-SLAPP Law Passed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's arguing that it's not novel: "But still. It appears the unique 'design' element is that this toothpick has those lines up top. But I've had toothpicks like that many times in the past. It's hardly a new design." Then he shows a picture of other toothpicks that he thinks anticipate the toothpick that received a design patent. The point of saying it's not new and showing the other toothpicks is to argue that the patent is invalid.
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Important Fair Use Win Concerning University 'E-Reserves' -- But Potentially For Good Reasons
Re: Re: Re:
If you read the opinion, the 10% thing comes from certain classroom best practices that are repeated in the legislative history but that do not carry the force of law. I actually think bright line rules would be a good thing when it comes to fair use, but that's not the way it works.
Next >>