Depending on what you're doing, it may be fair use protected by the First Amendment, but it could also be unauthorized copying of protected expression. Either way, it doesn't infringe your First Amendment rights. You're still free to speak freely. Censorship would be prohibiting you from talking about the presidential candidates (subject matter) or your support of a particular candidate (point of view). Copyright laws get the minimum amount of scrutiny when challenged on First Amendment grounds because ideas aren't locked up.
Going by how you constantly overlook how many times enforcement has fucked this case up we're pretty sure you don't understand anything about how the government has done this...
Rather than just being an angry asshole, why don't you say something productive? Can you explain how the government has seized his property when the government doesn't possess or control the servers the data is on?
It's not amazing to me. Copyright is used only for censorship. That's the entire mechanism of copyright: legal suppression of media. It's better called censor-right.
I look at it more from a First Amendment perspective. The reason copyright laws don't violate the First Amendment is because they don't lock up subject matters or points of view. Copyright doesn't block ideas. As you well know, Nina, you're free to talk about whatever subject matter you want, and you're free to take any point of view on a given subject matter that you want. Copyright doesn't prevent you from doing that. So I think it's disingenuous to call copyright "censorship." To the extent that copyright doesn't allow you to copy what others have already done verbatim, it nonetheless doesn't prevent you from speaking freely about anything you want. To call it "censorship" when it doesn't stop you from making point about any subject you want seems silly.
That a motion to dismiss isn't get granted and the judge agrees to hold a hearing represents a failure? I'd guess that motions to dismiss are granted way less than half the time. When there's a doubt, jurisprudence demands a full hearing. But when you have nothing but straws to grasp at, this looks like a huge get.
I don't see how the case is not a success so far for the U.S. Dotcom et al. are all indicted and awaiting extradition. All those mistakes occurred in NZ and have no bearing on the case in the U.S. Seems like the anti-copyright apologists guild is just trying to spin this as a loss for the U.S. Anything to spread FUD on a copyright case, I suppose. No surprise there. The only way Dotcom can win this thing is on a technicality. On the merits, he's toast. I have no doubt that the jury will convict. So yeah, trying to spin this as a win for Dotcom and a loss for the U.S. is silly pirate-apologism.
I've read different accounts of what transpired. Some say the judge ordered the deletion of the entire account (which I doubt), and some say the judge said delete the offensive post (which I believe and support). Either way, we don't each get to decide which part of a judge's orders we feel like obeying. She drove drunk and then she disobeyed a direct order from a judge. Two days in jail seems like she got off easy...
I didn't specify what that meant, but I thought is was clear that I'd stop with the "Hey Mike, why don't you address this?" type posts. In other words, I wouldn't direct posts to him specifically.
I'm happy to keep up my end of the bargain, but if he's going to bait me with comments directed specifically at me, as he's done in these very comments more than once, then I'm going to take that as an invitation to not leave him alone and I'm going to assume that he doesn't want me to keep my end of the bargain.
Why else would he direct a comment at me unless he wanted me to respond?
Anyway, I'll let it slide here since I believe there is some good faith misunderstanding. Suffice it to say that I have responses to all of his comments as the constitutionality of copyright is my most favorite topic in the whole world, and I've thought about it more than probably anything else.
That said, you're exactly right to point out that the Constitution doesn't say we all get to decide for ourselves what promotes the progress. Congress gets to decide. Sour as some may be about the choices made, the issue does not then become constitutional.
Except that logically they come to the same thing.
They don't. The Court is saying that Congress can decide what it means to promote the progress and how to strike the balance that it wants, i.e., how much it wants to promote the progress. That's not the same thing as maximizing the progress, whatever that even means.
I never said it was a constitutional right. It's a statutory right. Says so right in Title 17 of the U.S. Code. So I don't get your point.
Nor do I understand your claim that copyright is not "contributing to any progress." That claim is so ridiculous and so extreme, that I don't even know where to begin. Is copyright providing the economic incentive for authors to create new works? Yep. That means it's working.
Though i will say that unless current copyright provides a net positive to the public, it would technically be unconstitutional.
That sounds nice and all, but then how do you decide how to measure it? What factors are important? What factors aren't? The "promote the progress" standard changes depending on who you ask what it means. It's not some empirical result that can be measured. That's mostly why the Court has signaled that it will just defer to Congress's view on the matter. Congress decides what promotes the progress. The Court has never, and I doubt will ever, tell Congress that their decision vis-a-vis a copyright law doesn't promote the progress. So when anti-copyright zealots harp on the purpose of copyright being to promote the progress, they're leaving out the inconvenient truth that that limitation has little to no teeth.
I didn't see the word solely in my copy of the Constitution.
I don't think the debate is over that so much. I think the issue that gets ignored by the "break the internet!" crowd is the fact that Congress gets to decide what promotes the progress. Moreover, the Constitution does not say that that progress has to be maximized. It just merely must be promoted, whatever Congress decides that means. And the Supreme Court has made clear that substantive copyright laws are only going to be reviewed under the rational basis test (assuming fair use and the idea/expression dichotomy are left intact). So that means whatever Congress decides for all practical purposes will ipso facto be promoting the progress sufficiently for constitutional purposes. Just because some zealots would prefer that it were promoted differently or better, it doesn't mean that the current system is unconstitutional.
As petitioners point out, we have described the Copyright Clause as “both a grant of power and a limitation,” Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 5, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966), and have said that “[t]he primary objective of copyright” is “[t]o promote the Progress **785 of Science,” Feist, 499 U.S., at 349, 111 S.Ct. 1282. The “constitutional command,” we have recognized, is that Congress, to the extent it enacts copyright laws at all, create a “system” that “promote[s] the Progress of Science.” Graham, 383 U.S., at 6, 86 S.Ct. 684.
We have also stressed, however, that it is generally for Congress, not the courts, to decide how best to pursue the Copyright Clause's objectives. See Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S., at 230, 110 S.Ct. 1750 (“Th[e] evolution of the duration of copyright protection tellingly illustrates the difficulties Congress faces .... [I]t is not our role to alter the delicate balance *213 Congress has labored to achieve.”); Sony, 464 U.S., at 429, 104 S.Ct. 774 (“[I]t is Congress that has been assigned the task of defining the scope of [rights] that should be granted to authors or to inventors in order to give the public appropriate access to their work product.”); Graham, 383 U.S., at 6, 86 S.Ct. 684 (“Within the limits of the constitutional grant, the Congress may, of course, implement the stated purpose of the Framers by selecting the policy which in its judgment best effectuates the constitutional aim.”). The justifications we earlier set out for Congress' enactment of the CTEA, supra, at 781–782, provide a rational basis for the conclusion that the CTEA “promote[s] the Progress of Science.”
Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212-13 (2003).
So I think it's a bit silly to argue about whether promoting the progress is in fact the purpose of copyright--it is. I think the debate is really over what that means and whether it's really a substantive limit on Congress's power to enact copyright laws--in practice, it's not. One last point is that I think it's important to understand too that lots of things can promote the progress. For example, recognizing an author's natural right to the fruits of his intellectual labor itself promotes the progress. Of course, the anti-copyright crusaders love to leave out the means part of the equation. How does the Constitution envision that the progress should be promoted? By giving authors the right to exclude. Boom.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Walker v City of Birmingham
Technically, I'm not a lawyer either. Nonetheless, I think it's absurd to call me "intentionally rude" for not linking to a case I cited. I know you disagree.
Heck, I pointed out that you didn't respond to Pixelation at all, then you did and you STILL took shots at Mike in it.
My answer to Pixelation is that I'm happy to post many, many issues that Mike has avoided. I'd love to post them and go through them one by one. But you and I both know that Mike doesn't want to do that.
As I said, you aren't here to debate. We can all see why you're here, it's to insult Mike.
I insult Mike because after YEARS of trying to get him to defend his claims, and him refusing, I've come to the inescapable conclusion that Mike is intentionally misrepresenting things/jumping to conclusions/working backwards/acting like a zealot.
I would LOVE to debate Mike. He could decide to engage me right here in this thread, and I could prove to you all that I want to challenge him on the merits of his claims. But you and I both know that he won't engage me. He won't even give me the opportunity to debate him. Instead, he only has excuses for why he won't debate.
So what you're claiming makes no sense. I'm right here in this thread ready to debate Mike on hundreds of claims he's made. Yet he's the one who won't engage me. You should ask yourself why he's always got an excuse, but he never just engages me to prove that I can't engage him in a meaningful and substantive manner. The only one preventing this debate is him. You're buying his excuses, but I think it's beyond obvious that he's running away, again, for the thousandth time.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Walker v City of Birmingham
AJ, in his response to btr1701, quoted from the Fifth Circuit case of United States v Dickinson. He did not provide a hypertext link —perhaps he was being intentionally rude with that discourtesy.
Huh? He's a lawyer. I quoted the exact text and then gave him the pincite so he could check it out my claim for himself. I'm pretty sure a lawyer can find a Fifth Circuit opinion. To say that I was being "intentionally rude" because I did not provide a link is laughable. If my making a claim and backing it up with the exact text and cite of the text strikes you as "intentionally rude," I guess you think that 99.99999999999999% of people on the internet are "intentionally rude" who make claims but offer no text or cite to back them up.
You must REALLY think btr1701 is "intentionally rude" for making his silly claim that "If the court's order is wrong, then it's not wrong to disobey it." He provided no basis whatsoever for the claim. Funny how you don't call him "intentionally rude," but then you're giving me shit. It's almost like YOU'RE being "intentionally rude" to me with this. Give me a break. How many people even bother to cite text to back up their arguments?
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Author Removes Blog Post After Being Threatened For Quoting 4 Sentences
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Court Doesn't Buy DOJ's Argument For Why Megaupload User Can't Sue To Get His Data Back
Re: Re: Re:
Rather than just being an angry asshole, why don't you say something productive? Can you explain how the government has seized his property when the government doesn't possess or control the servers the data is on?
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Author Removes Blog Post After Being Threatened For Quoting 4 Sentences
Re:
I look at it more from a First Amendment perspective. The reason copyright laws don't violate the First Amendment is because they don't lock up subject matters or points of view. Copyright doesn't block ideas. As you well know, Nina, you're free to talk about whatever subject matter you want, and you're free to take any point of view on a given subject matter that you want. Copyright doesn't prevent you from doing that. So I think it's disingenuous to call copyright "censorship." To the extent that copyright doesn't allow you to copy what others have already done verbatim, it nonetheless doesn't prevent you from speaking freely about anything you want. To call it "censorship" when it doesn't stop you from making point about any subject you want seems silly.
On the post: Court Doesn't Buy DOJ's Argument For Why Megaupload User Can't Sue To Get His Data Back
Re:
Yeah, how desperate does someone have to be that they're claiming a victory because there's going to be an evidentiary hearing on a collateral issue. Here's what they're all excited about: http://ia600206.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.vaed.275314/gov.uscourts.vaed.275314.126.0.pdf
I hope he gets his files back too, but I'm not sure I understand how the government has even seized them.
On the post: Justice Department Calls Megaupload Case A Success; Hands Out Cash To Cops To Do More Bogus Takedowns
Re:
On the post: Judge Orders Woman To Delete Her Facebook Page For Typing LOL About Her DUI
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Walker v City of Birmingham
Go to http://scholar.google.com/
Input the case name (e.g., Sony v. Universal) or case citation (e.g., 464 U.S. 417) and then click on "Legal Documents"
On the post: Yes, There Are Many, Many, Many, Many Legal Uses Of BitTorrent
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BitTorrent...Not just for music/movies
On the post: Former Copyright Boss: New Technology Should Be Presumed Illegal Until Congress Says Otherwise
Re: This isn't about restricting technology. It's about protecting people like me.
On the post: Can We Kill The Myth That The Constitution Guarantees Copyrights And Patents?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's "lawyer gonnabe." Thanks.
On the post: Judge Orders Woman To Delete Her Facebook Page For Typing LOL About Her DUI
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Walker v City of Birmingham
On the post: Can We Kill The Myth That The Constitution Guarantees Copyrights And Patents?
Re: Re: Re: By Precedent (to Average Joe, #51)
On the post: Can We Kill The Myth That The Constitution Guarantees Copyrights And Patents?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't specify what that meant, but I thought is was clear that I'd stop with the "Hey Mike, why don't you address this?" type posts. In other words, I wouldn't direct posts to him specifically.
I'm happy to keep up my end of the bargain, but if he's going to bait me with comments directed specifically at me, as he's done in these very comments more than once, then I'm going to take that as an invitation to not leave him alone and I'm going to assume that he doesn't want me to keep my end of the bargain.
Why else would he direct a comment at me unless he wanted me to respond?
Anyway, I'll let it slide here since I believe there is some good faith misunderstanding. Suffice it to say that I have responses to all of his comments as the constitutionality of copyright is my most favorite topic in the whole world, and I've thought about it more than probably anything else.
That said, you're exactly right to point out that the Constitution doesn't say we all get to decide for ourselves what promotes the progress. Congress gets to decide. Sour as some may be about the choices made, the issue does not then become constitutional.
On the post: Can We Kill The Myth That The Constitution Guarantees Copyrights And Patents?
Re: By Precedent (to Average Joe, #51)
On the post: Can We Kill The Myth That The Constitution Guarantees Copyrights And Patents?
Re: Re: Re:
They don't. The Court is saying that Congress can decide what it means to promote the progress and how to strike the balance that it wants, i.e., how much it wants to promote the progress. That's not the same thing as maximizing the progress, whatever that even means.
On the post: Can We Kill The Myth That The Constitution Guarantees Copyrights And Patents?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nor do I understand your claim that copyright is not "contributing to any progress." That claim is so ridiculous and so extreme, that I don't even know where to begin. Is copyright providing the economic incentive for authors to create new works? Yep. That means it's working.
On the post: Can We Kill The Myth That The Constitution Guarantees Copyrights And Patents?
Re: Re: Re:
That sounds nice and all, but then how do you decide how to measure it? What factors are important? What factors aren't? The "promote the progress" standard changes depending on who you ask what it means. It's not some empirical result that can be measured. That's mostly why the Court has signaled that it will just defer to Congress's view on the matter. Congress decides what promotes the progress. The Court has never, and I doubt will ever, tell Congress that their decision vis-a-vis a copyright law doesn't promote the progress. So when anti-copyright zealots harp on the purpose of copyright being to promote the progress, they're leaving out the inconvenient truth that that limitation has little to no teeth.
On the post: Can We Kill The Myth That The Constitution Guarantees Copyrights And Patents?
Re:
I don't think the debate is over that so much. I think the issue that gets ignored by the "break the internet!" crowd is the fact that Congress gets to decide what promotes the progress. Moreover, the Constitution does not say that that progress has to be maximized. It just merely must be promoted, whatever Congress decides that means. And the Supreme Court has made clear that substantive copyright laws are only going to be reviewed under the rational basis test (assuming fair use and the idea/expression dichotomy are left intact). So that means whatever Congress decides for all practical purposes will ipso facto be promoting the progress sufficiently for constitutional purposes. Just because some zealots would prefer that it were promoted differently or better, it doesn't mean that the current system is unconstitutional.Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212-13 (2003).
So I think it's a bit silly to argue about whether promoting the progress is in fact the purpose of copyright--it is. I think the debate is really over what that means and whether it's really a substantive limit on Congress's power to enact copyright laws--in practice, it's not. One last point is that I think it's important to understand too that lots of things can promote the progress. For example, recognizing an author's natural right to the fruits of his intellectual labor itself promotes the progress. Of course, the anti-copyright crusaders love to leave out the means part of the equation. How does the Constitution envision that the progress should be promoted? By giving authors the right to exclude. Boom.
On the post: Judge Orders Woman To Delete Her Facebook Page For Typing LOL About Her DUI
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Walker v City of Birmingham
On the post: DHS Boss, In Charge Of Cybersecurity, Doesn't Use Email Or Any Online Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My answer to Pixelation is that I'm happy to post many, many issues that Mike has avoided. I'd love to post them and go through them one by one. But you and I both know that Mike doesn't want to do that.
As I said, you aren't here to debate. We can all see why you're here, it's to insult Mike.
I insult Mike because after YEARS of trying to get him to defend his claims, and him refusing, I've come to the inescapable conclusion that Mike is intentionally misrepresenting things/jumping to conclusions/working backwards/acting like a zealot.
I would LOVE to debate Mike. He could decide to engage me right here in this thread, and I could prove to you all that I want to challenge him on the merits of his claims. But you and I both know that he won't engage me. He won't even give me the opportunity to debate him. Instead, he only has excuses for why he won't debate.
So what you're claiming makes no sense. I'm right here in this thread ready to debate Mike on hundreds of claims he's made. Yet he's the one who won't engage me. You should ask yourself why he's always got an excuse, but he never just engages me to prove that I can't engage him in a meaningful and substantive manner. The only one preventing this debate is him. You're buying his excuses, but I think it's beyond obvious that he's running away, again, for the thousandth time.
On the post: Judge Orders Woman To Delete Her Facebook Page For Typing LOL About Her DUI
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Walker v City of Birmingham
Huh? He's a lawyer. I quoted the exact text and then gave him the pincite so he could check it out my claim for himself. I'm pretty sure a lawyer can find a Fifth Circuit opinion. To say that I was being "intentionally rude" because I did not provide a link is laughable. If my making a claim and backing it up with the exact text and cite of the text strikes you as "intentionally rude," I guess you think that 99.99999999999999% of people on the internet are "intentionally rude" who make claims but offer no text or cite to back them up.
You must REALLY think btr1701 is "intentionally rude" for making his silly claim that "If the court's order is wrong, then it's not wrong to disobey it." He provided no basis whatsoever for the claim. Funny how you don't call him "intentionally rude," but then you're giving me shit. It's almost like YOU'RE being "intentionally rude" to me with this. Give me a break. How many people even bother to cite text to back up their arguments?
Next >>