copyright law "addresses a substantial or important governmental interest." This is, plainly speaking, ridiculous. The argument effectively says that the government can violate the basic principles of the First Amendment any time it wants, so long as it s
MIKE : [C]opyright law "addresses a substantial or important governmental interest." This is, plainly speaking, ridiculous. The argument effectively says that the government can violate the basic principles of the First Amendment any time it wants, so long as it shows a "substantial or important government interest." But that makes no sense.
ME : Only to a Pirate does this not make sense.
Mike you live in the Dark Side.
The Copyright Jedis will get you --
in court EVERY TIME.
The question -- the ONLY question -- is whether or not it actually creates incentive to create.
MIKE : The question -- the ONLY question -- is whether or not it actually creates incentive to create.
Me : WRONG !
The only question is the law !!, And how to make sure all follow it -- to protect fully the "ARTISTs Rights" -- copyrights -- of use of their work.
Economics is meaningless when talking ART .
Copyrights is all about "Artist control" of their IP.
YOU :Consumers are not "responsible" to "creators" or publishers one iota.
ME : True. you do not want . don't buy it
------------
YOU :Should the work be overpriced, simply awful or whatever I'm under no obligation to acquire it.
Me : True.
But to "acquire it"
w/o paying ,
or beyond legal
"fair use"----
that is Piracy .
Nice, but inaccurate dig. First of all, our business model is not eyeball based. Sure, we have some ads, but that represents a small part of the business model.
MIKE :"Nice, but inaccurate dig. First of all, our business model is not eyeball based. Sure, we have some ads, but that represents a small part of the business model. "
Me : Maybe is you upped the "level of discourse" here with respected "academic moderation" of comments-
-- then maybe ; "we have some ads, but that represents a small part of the business model. " ;
Will THEN change to big bucks from lexus , black label , and fine watches.
===============
Maybe goats will fly too.
CR :"There's your "new model." Of course, you need contrarian voices on here now and again to create controversy, inspire comments and draw eyeballs for your verizon/AmEx sugar daddies."
Re: Re: Creativity on a personal level is expanding daily. // The economics of having millions of people making their own art will change the salability of creativity, but as a culture we will likely be better for it.
Re: Creativity on a personal level is expanding daily. // The economics of having millions of people making their own art will change the salability of creativity, but as a culture we will likely be better for it.
SL : "The economics of having millions of people making their own art will change the saleability [cor. sp] of creativity, but as a culture we will likely be better for it."
Me : exactly 100% plus
$$$ who cares.
Control of use .
who. when. where. how. why.
As long as i have full artistic control
i is cool.
Full Copyrights for Art.
It is not just a good idea.
It is the bedrock of our Constitutional Economic System for Artists.
---------------
--------
patents on drugs and cellphones ?
Knowing what you don’t know? Is this supposedly the hallmark of an intelligent person? //// Re: Re: TP, I don't need to answer every one of your ridiculous asinine questions.
ERROL MORRIS: Knowing what you don’t know? Is this supposedly the hallmark of an intelligent person?
DAVID DUNNING: That’s absolutely right. It’s knowing that there are things you don’t know that you don’t know. [4]
Re: Can we stop referring to "weaker copyright" and instead refer to "stronger content-user rights" ?
either way it is un-realistic and out of touch terminology .
--------------------------------------------
Copyright now , copyrights stronger ,, copyright 4ever.
( it is in the U.S, Constitution. Look it up)
Jay , just say you disagree with me . Period.
--------------------------------------
It is not just Mike towards me , but SL too.
Suzanne L. is a music pro ,, being doing this before mike could even write, speak or was born for that matter.
( sorry SL, but you were on earth and a young women when the Beatles made it first big -- as you have written elsewhere on other websites,, just want the children to show a little well deserved respect towards you )
The words and accusations Mike wrote towards SL are gross.
Calling her "ridiculous"
Suzzanne L. is an "established academic of" &" professional in" the Music Industry.
She eats off of writing an these issues.
Mike's attitude toward SL is quite very immature.
He should be ashamed.
------------------------------------
If he had a boss -- he would get fired.
And that is the problem.
Mike feels is is answerable to no one on copyright.
Amanda Palmer, who celebrated her release from Roadrunner with a free track, amongst many other free tracks?
YOU ::"Amanda Palmer, who celebrated her release from Roadrunner with a free track, amongst many other free tracks?"
ME : EXACTLY MY POINT !!!
10x over !
Ms. Palmer -- a musical genius 100% plus -- was EXERCISING her FULL RIGHTs of ARTISTIC Control , in telling her label to bug off. ( right on Amanda !!)
---------------------------
In my " perfect world", ARTISTS would be given the RIGHT to negate ANY contract on use or sale of their MUSIC --- at will.
Many musicians if empowered enough -- Modonna -- write their own contract,, and the labels just have to bid. [ soon ,,mom :) ]
On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright
Re: Re: The question -- the ONLY question -- is whether or not it actually creates incentive to create.
On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright
Re: I used to think that the Judicial branch was very strong...
Political Power ( i.e. civil rights of voting)
unused , is power abused.
On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright
Re: Re: Re: They don't care about the Constitution
Good understanding of Constitutional law.
The Pirates will mis-understand as usual
On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright
Re: Re: I'm starting to see the side of the copyright abologists
Me : except your games are immoral & illegal
On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm starting to see the side of the copyright abologists
pretty simple.
On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright
Re: Re: So what happens if...You're as bad as Obama, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright
Which part of "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" does this court not understand?
Me : free speech is not absolute.
i.e.:
* Yelling "fire" in a movie theater .
* Liable
* UN-Truth in Political advertising . ( debatable , to what extent)
* Jokes about bombs in Airports and "public arenas" .
* threatening POTUS w/ violence.
* Stealing Copyrighted works outside of "Fair Use".
All very limited speech.
-------------
=======================
*
On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright
copyright law "addresses a substantial or important governmental interest." This is, plainly speaking, ridiculous. The argument effectively says that the government can violate the basic principles of the First Amendment any time it wants, so long as it s
ME : Only to a Pirate does this not make sense.
Mike you live in the Dark Side.
The Copyright Jedis will get you --
in court EVERY TIME.
On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright
The question -- the ONLY question -- is whether or not it actually creates incentive to create.
Me : WRONG !
The only question is the law !!, And how to make sure all follow it -- to protect fully the "ARTISTs Rights" -- copyrights -- of use of their work.
Economics is meaningless when talking ART .
Copyrights is all about "Artist control" of their IP.
On the post: Content Creators Coming To Terms With The Fact That Their Works Will Be Shared
Re: Re: 1/2 right
ME : True. you do not want . don't buy it
------------
YOU :Should the work be overpriced, simply awful or whatever I'm under no obligation to acquire it.
Me : True.
But to "acquire it"
w/o paying ,
or beyond legal
"fair use"----
that is Piracy .
And that is illegal
On the post: Content Creators Coming To Terms With The Fact That Their Works Will Be Shared
Nice, but inaccurate dig. First of all, our business model is not eyeball based. Sure, we have some ads, but that represents a small part of the business model.
Me : Maybe is you upped the "level of discourse" here with respected "academic moderation" of comments-
-- then maybe ; "we have some ads, but that represents a small part of the business model. " ;
Will THEN change to big bucks from lexus , black label , and fine watches.
===============
Maybe goats will fly too.
On the post: Content Creators Coming To Terms With The Fact That Their Works Will Be Shared
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1/2 right
Me : right on!
On the post: Content Creators Coming To Terms With The Fact That Their Works Will Be Shared
Re: Re: Creativity on a personal level is expanding daily. // The economics of having millions of people making their own art will change the salability of creativity, but as a culture we will likely be better for it.
FREE VIDEO : Beatles Doing Others: 10 Cover Songs that Shaped the Fab Four’s Music
Enjoy .
[ this is really cool stuff. hot tracks. best band ever.]
The Beatles want you too have some fun FOR FREE.
On the post: Content Creators Coming To Terms With The Fact That Their Works Will Be Shared
Re: Creativity on a personal level is expanding daily. // The economics of having millions of people making their own art will change the salability of creativity, but as a culture we will likely be better for it.
Me : exactly 100% plus
$$$ who cares.
Control of use .
who. when. where. how. why.
As long as i have full artistic control
i is cool.
Full Copyrights for Art.
It is not just a good idea.
It is the bedrock of our Constitutional Economic System for Artists.
---------------
--------
patents on drugs and cellphones ?
it is a different horse.
not my thing.
On the post: Content Creators Coming To Terms With The Fact That Their Works Will Be Shared
Knowing what you don’t know? Is this supposedly the hallmark of an intelligent person? //// Re: Re: TP, I don't need to answer every one of your ridiculous asinine questions.
DAVID DUNNING: That’s absolutely right. It’s knowing that there are things you don’t know that you don’t know. [4]
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/?src=me&ref=gen eral
On the post: Updated Research Showing, Yet Again, That Weaker Copyright Has Benefited Culture And Society
Re: Can we stop referring to "weaker copyright" and instead refer to "stronger content-user rights" ?
--------------------------------------------
Copyright now , copyrights stronger ,, copyright 4ever.
( it is in the U.S, Constitution. Look it up)
On the post: Updated Research Showing, Yet Again, That Weaker Copyright Has Benefited Culture And Society
Re: People will keep making music
on a non-issue,,
that Mike invented,,
because Mike is,,
Untalented, the Untrained, the Lazy,
and AMONG Those
with "TOO MUCH
Time to Kill"-- ie. techdirt.
On the post: Updated Research Showing, Yet Again, That Weaker Copyright Has Benefited Culture And Society
Music Creation for the Untalented, the Untrained, the Lazy, and Those with Some Time to Kill
[ except of course me & you , SL . :) ]
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: Enough
--------------------------------------
It is not just Mike towards me , but SL too.
Suzanne L. is a music pro ,, being doing this before mike could even write, speak or was born for that matter.
( sorry SL, but you were on earth and a young women when the Beatles made it first big -- as you have written elsewhere on other websites,, just want the children to show a little well deserved respect towards you )
The words and accusations Mike wrote towards SL are gross.
Calling her "ridiculous"
Suzzanne L. is an "established academic of" &" professional in" the Music Industry.
She eats off of writing an these issues.
Mike's attitude toward SL is quite very immature.
He should be ashamed.
------------------------------------
If he had a boss -- he would get fired.
And that is the problem.
Mike feels is is answerable to no one on copyright.
Not Me. Not SL ,
and most of all not fact .
and law &
human history
Honestly , that is a very sick way to debate.
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Amanda Palmer, who celebrated her release from Roadrunner with a free track, amongst many other free tracks?
ME : EXACTLY MY POINT !!!
10x over !
Ms. Palmer -- a musical genius 100% plus -- was EXERCISING her FULL RIGHTs of ARTISTIC Control , in telling her label to bug off. ( right on Amanda !!)
---------------------------
In my " perfect world", ARTISTS would be given the RIGHT to negate ANY contract on use or sale of their MUSIC --- at will.
Many musicians if empowered enough -- Modonna -- write their own contract,, and the labels just have to bid. [ soon ,,mom :) ]
Next >>