When faced with threats they can simply grit their teeth and simply censor themselves OR (as any clever businessman will do) they'll go to the gov't and tell them "We are on your side and that's why we aren't publishing!".
In a free America, the press controls the people, and the people control the government. In Joe Biden's America, the government can scare the press into silence, and the fragile process of democracy is broken.
This is a great strategy, actually. Short of publishing obviously false propaganda that can be turned around and feed the fire, they stay quiet. If the public doesn't find out all at the same time, the mountain is simply turned into a lot of small, manageable molehills.
"the intent of the US is to cripple every other society by pushing things to their detriment/our advantage"
I'm sorry to say that I believe you are correct in that assessment. What's worse, the measures taken to achieve that goal are extinguishing every last spark of innovation within the US itself, and reveal what those in power really think: that the US cannot keep up innovating at the same pace as the competition.
It's a downward spiral, actually. IP is bringing in revenue (but killing innovation), so IP is being pushed around (as a result of lack of innovation).
If you take this to its logical extreme, by outsourcing most manufacturing to places like India and China, the US may be becoming a nation of shareholders, pencil-pushers and toilet-cleaners! The complete reliance on copyrights and patents combined with an atrophic manufacturing sector makes for a disastrously precarious situation to be in -- should IP law somehow lose its legitimacy, the current system could collapse in on itself (i.e., it's another economic bubble waiting to burst!).
How to save the economy? Gradually bring back in manufacturing, while reducing reliance on patents and copyrights. There is no other way I don't think.
The original author is DEAD. Dead people have no rights. A living person's book was censored because some aspects of it were "sort of kind of like" the dead author's work. And for what? What good reason can anyone provide to justify for taking literature off the market?
It's like fucking book burning, is what it is, like the inquisition and Hitler used to do.
We hear they're torturing Manning, and now we hear they're looking at him for evidence to use against Assange.
They'll force him to confess something, anything at all, that by some incredible stretch of the law can be used to extradite Assange from Sweden. The moment he's on US soil, he's as good as dead.
Sherman was suing (through proxy) a bunch of non-commercial bloggers, who had posted articles in part or in full, with and without commentary. He is a COPYRIGHT TROLL, whether you like it or not.
The slightest quotation of an article he could find the copyright for, he would sue and ask to settle. Judges are dismissing the lawsuits left and right on fair use grounds.
You dismissed the evidence presented by DH and now you want more? How about the lawsuit against Democratic Underground? Righthaven lost the lawsuit, which was "frivolous and in bad faith".
Ok, seriously, how much licensing can they possibly do? That'll also hit a brick wall sooner or later. Then what?
"You have to wonder, without the piracy, would the digital sales concept work better?"
Digital and "piracy" go hand in hand -- the very essence of digital is that information can be copied infinite times with negligible effort. In that sense, "digital sales" is an oxymoron as selling goes against the nature of digital.
If digital was more like the physical world, then physical world rules would apply: the publishers would manufacture a set number of copies, and each would be sold in a discrete transaction. However, when digital rules apply, as is actually the case, there is no way to constrain the copying to a central manufacturing location, thus selling copies becomes infeasible.
In other words, selling digital files is not a business model, because it's nigh impossible to stop people from making copies; you cannot sever piracy from digital, so instead sell other things that people will want to pay for.
Of course fair use is important. What he did wasn't infringing, and he was clearly relying on fair use when he posted the video and the passage from Mike's article.
Does he believe in fair use? Is that relevant? It appears you are the one who brought up the question of "believing" in it -- others are only pointing out his hypocrisy.
Righthaven disregards fair use, and he supports their actions. Fair use applies to him, but not to the people Righthaven is trolling. Can you not see the double standards?
"Funny how I'm the one defending fair use in this thread."
You are defending the selective application of fair use. Why should fair use apply to him but not the people being sued by the copyright troll he supports?
On the post: Why Are US Publications Downplaying The Significance Of Some Of Wikileaks' Leaks?
Re: Re: Answer...
When faced with threats they can simply grit their teeth and simply censor themselves OR (as any clever businessman will do) they'll go to the gov't and tell them "We are on your side and that's why we aren't publishing!".
On the post: Why Are US Publications Downplaying The Significance Of Some Of Wikileaks' Leaks?
In a free America, the press controls the people, and the people control the government. In Joe Biden's America, the government can scare the press into silence, and the fragile process of democracy is broken.
This is a great strategy, actually. Short of publishing obviously false propaganda that can be turned around and feed the fire, they stay quiet. If the public doesn't find out all at the same time, the mountain is simply turned into a lot of small, manageable molehills.
On the post: US Ambassador To The UN: Protecting Patents & Copyrights More Important Than Development
Re: Re:
I'm sorry to say that I believe you are correct in that assessment. What's worse, the measures taken to achieve that goal are extinguishing every last spark of innovation within the US itself, and reveal what those in power really think: that the US cannot keep up innovating at the same pace as the competition.
It's a downward spiral, actually. IP is bringing in revenue (but killing innovation), so IP is being pushed around (as a result of lack of innovation).
If you take this to its logical extreme, by outsourcing most manufacturing to places like India and China, the US may be becoming a nation of shareholders, pencil-pushers and toilet-cleaners! The complete reliance on copyrights and patents combined with an atrophic manufacturing sector makes for a disastrously precarious situation to be in -- should IP law somehow lose its legitimacy, the current system could collapse in on itself (i.e., it's another economic bubble waiting to burst!).
How to save the economy? Gradually bring back in manufacturing, while reducing reliance on patents and copyrights. There is no other way I don't think.
On the post: UK Politicians Want People To Have To Apply For A Porn License Before Viewing Online Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
On the post: UK Politicians Want People To Have To Apply For A Porn License Before Viewing Online Porn
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
On the post: US Banning Books: Unauthorized Catcher In The Rye Sequel Permanently Banned
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Banning Books: Unauthorized Catcher In The Rye Sequel Permanently Banned
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Omg... Epic fail.
On the post: US Banning Books: Unauthorized Catcher In The Rye Sequel Permanently Banned
Re: Re:
It's like fucking book burning, is what it is, like the inquisition and Hitler used to do.
On the post: Warner Bros. Smarter Than The Average Studio? Won't Fight Yogi Bear Parody
On the post: Record Labels Angry That Hadopi Isn't Kicking People Off The Internet Fast Enough
On the post: US Looking To Use Computer Hacking Law Against Assange
Re:
On the post: US Looking To Use Computer Hacking Law Against Assange
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Looking To Use Computer Hacking Law Against Assange
Re: Re:
On the post: US Looking To Use Computer Hacking Law Against Assange
They'll force him to confess something, anything at all, that by some incredible stretch of the law can be used to extradite Assange from Sweden. The moment he's on US soil, he's as good as dead.
On the post: Battling Wikileaks And The Art Of War
Re: Re: One possible answer to that last question
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The slightest quotation of an article he could find the copyright for, he would sue and ask to settle. Judges are dismissing the lawsuits left and right on fair use grounds.
And since can an entire article not be fair use?
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Oh Look, Digital Downloads Aren't Saving The Music Industry
Re:
"You have to wonder, without the piracy, would the digital sales concept work better?"
Digital and "piracy" go hand in hand -- the very essence of digital is that information can be copied infinite times with negligible effort. In that sense, "digital sales" is an oxymoron as selling goes against the nature of digital.
If digital was more like the physical world, then physical world rules would apply: the publishers would manufacture a set number of copies, and each would be sold in a discrete transaction. However, when digital rules apply, as is actually the case, there is no way to constrain the copying to a central manufacturing location, thus selling copies becomes infeasible.
In other words, selling digital files is not a business model, because it's nigh impossible to stop people from making copies; you cannot sever piracy from digital, so instead sell other things that people will want to pay for.
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Does he believe in fair use? Is that relevant? It appears you are the one who brought up the question of "believing" in it -- others are only pointing out his hypocrisy.
Righthaven disregards fair use, and he supports their actions. Fair use applies to him, but not to the people Righthaven is trolling. Can you not see the double standards?
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re:
You are defending the selective application of fair use. Why should fair use apply to him but not the people being sued by the copyright troll he supports?
Next >>