"Where is the support that Jay is right in his conclusion that copyright had nothing to do with the success of Avatar?"
The part where he points out that it's the most pirated movie. Hardly irrefutable, but that seems like far stronger evidence than any presented that piracy has a negative effect. Regardless, I was referring to his point that it is successful, not that copyright had no effect. Apologies for not being more specific.
"For instance, do you have evidence that Twentieth Century Fox would have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into the film if it were not guaranteed copyright protection on the back end?"
What would that prove? Apart from Fox's opinion on copyright, that is.
"It's not. It simply shows that box office revenue does not equal studio profit, not even a little. Which is why throwing around billion-dollar figures is misleading."
Why? He called it revenue. It's only misleading if someone removed revenue from the dictionary.
"What is misleading is saying that Avatar made $1billion (which it didn't according to your cite)"
Didn't you read the dates on those articles? His was from Jan 2010, mine was from May 2010. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that there may have been a passage of time between the two of them.
"The analysis is much more nuanced than that, especially when you consider how much the studios really make after expenses and how much of their ultimate profit comes from home-entertainment sales."
Feel free to explain how Avatar wasn't a success using your nuanced analysis.
'If you consider the fact that, on average, 80% of studio revenues come from home-entertainment sales, it is clear that the studios rely on the sale of something that can be (and is) pirated. Without copyright, 80% of the studios revenue is put at risk. That is huge. This information is, at the very least, an important consideration when determining whether the studio would have put the money up at all or whether they would have invested the same amount, if they knew that copyright would not protect what amounts to 80% of their profit. The analysis is certainly not as easy as $1b = copyright is worthless!"'
When you come up with a shred of evidence that supports the notion that high piracy = high risk to revenue then maybe we can delve into more complex analysis. So far, we have on the one side the fact that the most pirated movie happens to also be the most successful movie; while on the other we have your claim that 80% of revenue is at risk because of piracy, without anything to back it up.
"But on a more fundamental level, are you truly satisfied with Jay's analysis so much that you are willing to defend him? He basically said... Avatar made $1billion therefore copyright had nothing to do with it's success. You are really defending that grossly unfounded position?"
As opposed to your entirely unfounded position? Sure.
"What surprises me is that PayPal can't see how bad this looks to most people. Not that CTR deserve special treatment, but it seems to me that it would be in PayPals's interest to help them sort the problem quickly and privately instead of attracting bad press, deserved or not."
I'm not sure how they could foresee the bad press here, if the organisation really did lie. Regardless, PayPal's policies tend to be so complicated that sorting problems is unlikely to be quick.
"I see that the article only has quotes from the Brad Manning support organization. Has anyone thought to ask the evil, despicable, corrupt, vicious, back-stabbing, and unethical Paypal why they did this? (I mean, besides the person/group that wrote the blog article.)"
Are they incapable of issuing a press release? I mean, if they have a genuine good reason and a competent PR department then that would seem like the sensible thing to do.
"I mad no such claim. I simply encouraged Jay to understand what $1billion in box office revenues really means (a figure he cited, not me). "
In other words, you made an assumption about his understanding of the figures, while ignoring the fact that he was right in his conclusion. Is my facetious exaggeration worse than that?
"Your own quote makes my point clear: Avatar brought in $2.7 billion and yet Fox's TOTAL profits for the year were $497 million for ALL of Twentieth Century Fox. "
How is that a bad thing? How does that in any way suggest that Avatar wasn't a success as Jay claimed?
"Only stating the box office total is misleading."
I can see how it would be misleading if it turned out that the film didn't make a profit, but it did and a big one at that.
"Further, as the Slate article makes clear, the margins are generally much smaller for movies that aren't the top grossing movie of all time, and that the studios depend on home-entertainment for over 80% of their revenue."
But we're talking about Avatar at the moment, not much smaller movies. If you'd like to talk about them then please bring them into the discussion instead of pointing out that Avatar isn't one.
"So, yes, copyright does have something to do with the success of movies, including Avatar (which goes to Jay's point). When 80% of revenues comes from non-theater based sources, it is not difficult to see how piracy can quickly cut into the meat of the studios profits."
None of what you've said backs up the argument that copyright has anything to do with the success of movies.
"Avatar, a saga of colonialism and environmental destruction on a distant planet named Pandora, has raked in record box-office takings of $2.7bn. It sent profits rocketing by 76% to $497m at News Corp's Hollywood studio, Twentieth Century Fox.
Murdoch identified Avatar as one of his company's top success stories"
"So instead of focusing on box-office revenues to draw such sweeping conclusions, you should at least have a proper understanding of what that $1billion really means."
So instead of shifting the focus away from Avatar's success with a claim that box office revenue mean nothing, you should at least look at the actual profits reported by the film studio.
If it were a signed up user then they'd have a profile button. It's just someone who typed a name into the comment box. TAM had an account until they stopped using it, although some seem to believe they still post anonymously.
"Are you shocked them someone else calls Mike out on his weird views?"
Are you calling out the EU parliament for the same views?
"While I can certainly understand your outrage and concern about a "chilling effect"; when I read the title, it certainly implied that there was some precedent set. I was halfway done with the article when I read there was none. "
I think the point of the title was that the case is a precedent in causing a chilling effect and accepting the privatisation of public data. I don't see how the use of precedent in that context is misleading.
"more of faint flickering of things that "might" come to pass, IF a bunch of bogus legal arguments are accepted by a court. "
The article seems to, if anything, suggest that these legal arguments wouldn't be accepted by a court. The issue of a chilling effect is the prohibitive nature of expensive lawsuits forcing a settlement, not on the possibility that a lawsuit may be successful.
'Since its a crime reporting fight, I'm surprised there were no shouts of "but..but...but.. THE CHILDREN"'
The thing that pisses me off most about this story is the evident failure of authorities to provide useful data as a matter of duty, especially in the absence of reliable official statistics. "But..but..but.. THE CHILDREN" is the kind of sentiment that should support this data being freely available.
'Standard AC tactics. When people are discussing broad concepts they insist that the legal details are all that matters. When people are discussing legal details, they ignore them and say something broad like "it's stealing, plain and simple"'
You'd hope they'd have enough respect not to do both in the same post at least.
"I may have been unclear. In the case of trademarked fictional characters, the product is rarely (never?) the actual book, but associated merchandise."
Thank you for the clarification. Still, I think it highlights an issue with trademark that isn't limited to the (hopefully entirely) theoretical application to books. To clarify myself, I wasn't trying to refute anything you said, I just thought you'd brought up an interesting point worth discussing.
A character isn't just a piece of advertising, it's a piece of culture. While a company tagline is arguably defensible by trademark for confusing people, I would think that the positive effect of consumer choice outweighed the supposed confusion by other companies using the same character. The only reason people might believe that Mickey Mouse merchandise is by Disney at the moment is the fact that they'd likely sue if it wasn't. Promoting buyer awareness of the supply chain while allowing consumer choice would seem a far more effective plan than banning consumer choice supposedly for their own good.
Of course, Disney aren't likely suing people to protect consumers, but doing so to preserve a monopoly. Culture is a valuable asset and using trademark to monopolise that asset is a perversion of the system.
This ties in with copyright as the same analysis should be applied when considering the supposed economic benefit of copyright. Fair use isn't only about what someone copying can get away with, it's also about what consumers have access to. This book is highly unlikely to have any impact on the sale of Tolkien's books, in fact it may increase interest in them. Even accepting the premise of copyright, why should consumers be denied a book which is likely to have no negative impact on the author of the 'original' ideas?
"What? You can recognize me as an individual? That kind of contradicts the basis of your argument, then, doesn't it?"
What argument? I was pointing out that personally I tend to recognise people who have a consistent name as individuals and suggesting that posting anonymously may affect how people respond to you. I'm not suggesting that I'm completely unable to tell anonymous posters apart, ever. That's your straw man.
"Just following your cue. You were the one who started trying to deny that you were anonymous."
I'm not denying that I'm anonymous, I'm pointing out that there is a distinction between anonymous and pseudonymous. I'm anonymous outside of the context of this site, but within this site I have a consistent individual identity.
"apparently using your personal dictionary"
Which would you prefer I use? I admit that I only referenced Wiktionary and Oxford Dictionary Online in that case.
"You may only care about your own perceptions"
I don't only care about my own perceptions, feel free to tell me about yours. I was pointing out that my post was based on my opinion and my perceptions and wasn't masquerading as some universal truth.
"For trademark, the theory is that if the character is used in relationship to a specific good and has developed what the law calls a "secondary meaning", then consumers may identify a fictional character w/a specific tie to a product/author."
I find it hard to believe that someone buying a book is unable to read the (usually gigantic) author's name on the cover. If it's an issue of something being implied as authorised then it would seem more sensible to require they put 'unauthorised' or something rather than denying the use of the characters. From the perspective of trademark, which in no circumstances is supposed to be there for an economic effect, denying the use of other authors characters is anti consumer and goes against the purpose of trademark.
The trademark argument seems to conflate the two premises between copyright (economic incentive, or authors rights in some countries) and trademark (consumer protection).
"The study you linked (which, by the way, never explicitly states the definition of rape like I asked) deals with forcible rape, stalking and physical assault."
I'm unsure which specific study you are referring to, otherwise I would have a look for the definition they are using.
"So, that study is just another brick in the so-called rape culture, I assume?"
Well spotted. This is why there should be a more open process for producing these studies and the data they use should be more publicly accessible. Often the problem with rape statistics is indeed the definition of rape, not only of those conducting the studies but also those gathering the data.
'Do you mean literally saying. "Yes"? Because I don't recall ever explicitly asking "do you consent to having sex with me", but I don't consider myself a rapist.'
I think the point there is the uncertainty. If you're unable to tell whether you have someone's consent, if there is any doubt in your mind then it's your responsibility to find out for certain.
The legal aspect is hard. However, knowing whether you've got someone's consent is merely a matter of being conscientious and should be as much part of your routine as using a condom, for example. How you go about it should depend on your partner, not anyone else's opinion.
"9 times out of 10, I'm explaining what the status of the law actually is the U.S., not what I think it should be."
But when you do that, you tend to do so without recognising that people are discussing what the law should be. You have this running fallacy that because something is law then that makes it OK.
"I'm the one with the open mind. I don't start with the conclusion and then work my way backwards like so many posters on here actually do."
Is it possible that you've pre empted my request for an example by providing it within the argument itself? Oh, other posters. Example please.
"Having an open mind means looking at things from all sides, and then trying to find the right answer. It doesn't mean agreeing with the people you already agree with, and then spewing venom at anyone who disagrees."
I'm pretty sure being open minded is simply synonymous with being unprejudiced. Regardless, are you suggesting that we aren't allowed to agree with people we already agree with?
"The last thing you'll find amongst the Techdirt fanboys is an open mind. You can pretend like you guys are all open-minded, but this reader isn't fooled one bit."
I'm not sure I've ever claimed to be open minded. I've not really noticed anyone else claim it either. The conspiracy must be extremely subtle, especially if I'm supposed to be part of it.
As you seem suspiciously like the same Anonymous Coward who failed to recognise this distinction last time it came up, let me repeat:
Anonymous Coward isn't so much a name as it is a label. You'd be like an author with the pen name 'not known'.
"There are those who know who I am, even if you don't. So you see, I'm not really anonymous after all either."
Please be more blatant about ignoring what words mean in order to be contrary. Someone somewhere may be reading Techdirt offline and not have access to a dictionary.
"And as to recognizing individuals, how do I even know that you're even an individual and not some kind of shared persona? I don't. So, again, you're no less anonymous than I am. "
Fortunately my point was about my perceptions, not yours.
"You seem to ignore the fact that my personal attacks started AFTER months and months of abuse from others for presenting views that differed from their own."
I have to admit, unless someone's being generally bigoted then I tend to ignore random personal attacks, whether the perpetrators seem in agreement with me or not. I can dimly recall various pointless insults against you but you never seemed to respond to them so neither did I. I also remember what was probably the first time I had a discussion with you, in which you seemed to delight in belittling my semantic analysis with crude humour. Given that you seemed OK with making fun of someone who was trying to have a constructive discussion, I'm still at a loss to understand why you care about generally benign insults that come from people who aren't adding anything to the discussion anyway.
I mean, I wouldn't think of complaining about some of the seemingly malicious anonymous posters like the one who first responded to my favourites article, because they don't matter.
"My attitude is disbelief that people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about insisting that my legal analysis is wrong. Believe it or not, but after 2.5 years of law school, I might actually something about the law. I tried to share that with others, but all I got in return was grief."
So, you tried to share your analysis with people whom you apparently believe are incapable of understanding it? In the best case scenario from your point of view, 2.5 years of law school gives you very little credibility to tell complete strangers that you're an authority on the subject.
'It's too bad, because I thought I had something of value to add to this place. I've moved along, and "AJ" is retired. I know when I'm not welcome. It's a real shame that so many posters' minds are closed to thought that differs from their own. That's not how productive exchanges work.'
I've noticed a theme of vagueness with posts calling out other peoples apparent stupidity, or in this case closed mindedness. The cynic in me recognises it as an attempt to protect the argument from refute. How can we deny that many posters are closed minded when we don't know to whom you refer? How can we make the argument that most of them may not be the same people trying to have a constructive discussion anyway, when we don't know to whom you refer?
In an earlier post I asked an anonymous poster to clarify whether they were talking about me and wasn't surprised when they denied that they were, despite them responding to my post while referring to 'you guys'.
I'm honestly on the fence as to whether it'd be a shame to see you go. On the one hand, you seem to offer the most consistently constructive opposing view here lately. On the other hand, as merit-able as your contributions may be, I'm not sure they weigh favourably with the assumption that mere amateurs are unable to compete with 2.5 years in law school.
"That's funny, coming from someone posting anonymously."
Pseudonymously. You may not know my real identity, but my point was about being able to recognise someone as an individual, not about being able to look them up in the phone book.
"As for my stats, they're from a study by the National Institute of Justice."
Just to clarify, the issue I was hinting at with my earlier post has nothing to do with the absolute numbers involved, but the statements that one in any six women in the US is likely to be a rape victim.
For example, take a hypothetical country with a population of 600 women. In that country there are six states, each with a population of 100 women. In one of those states the number of victims is 100% of the population, or simply 100. The statistic for the country is one in six women is a rape victim, but five out of the six states have no reported rapes.
While obviously that is an important technical point, there are also reasons why it's an important point for the issue of combating rape. The idea of one in six women close to them being victims may seem unrealistic to people, making the factual evidence less credible to them. It suggests the rape rate is equal across all populations, which ignores places where rape has been effectively reduced or where rape is most problematic.
On the post: The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The part where he points out that it's the most pirated movie. Hardly irrefutable, but that seems like far stronger evidence than any presented that piracy has a negative effect. Regardless, I was referring to his point that it is successful, not that copyright had no effect. Apologies for not being more specific.
"For instance, do you have evidence that Twentieth Century Fox would have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into the film if it were not guaranteed copyright protection on the back end?"
What would that prove? Apart from Fox's opinion on copyright, that is.
"It's not. It simply shows that box office revenue does not equal studio profit, not even a little. Which is why throwing around billion-dollar figures is misleading."
Why? He called it revenue. It's only misleading if someone removed revenue from the dictionary.
"What is misleading is saying that Avatar made $1billion (which it didn't according to your cite)"
Didn't you read the dates on those articles? His was from Jan 2010, mine was from May 2010. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that there may have been a passage of time between the two of them.
"The analysis is much more nuanced than that, especially when you consider how much the studios really make after expenses and how much of their ultimate profit comes from home-entertainment sales."
Feel free to explain how Avatar wasn't a success using your nuanced analysis.
'If you consider the fact that, on average, 80% of studio revenues come from home-entertainment sales, it is clear that the studios rely on the sale of something that can be (and is) pirated. Without copyright, 80% of the studios revenue is put at risk. That is huge. This information is, at the very least, an important consideration when determining whether the studio would have put the money up at all or whether they would have invested the same amount, if they knew that copyright would not protect what amounts to 80% of their profit. The analysis is certainly not as easy as $1b = copyright is worthless!"'
When you come up with a shred of evidence that supports the notion that high piracy = high risk to revenue then maybe we can delve into more complex analysis. So far, we have on the one side the fact that the most pirated movie happens to also be the most successful movie; while on the other we have your claim that 80% of revenue is at risk because of piracy, without anything to back it up.
"But on a more fundamental level, are you truly satisfied with Jay's analysis so much that you are willing to defend him? He basically said... Avatar made $1billion therefore copyright had nothing to do with it's success. You are really defending that grossly unfounded position?"
As opposed to your entirely unfounded position? Sure.
On the post: EU Realizes That You Fight Child Porn At The Source... Not By Trying To Hide It
Re: Re: Re:
Actionable how? You're posting anonymously.
On the post: PayPal Cuts Off Account For Bradley Manning Support
Re: Re: Anybody ask Paypal about this?
I'm not sure how they could foresee the bad press here, if the organisation really did lie. Regardless, PayPal's policies tend to be so complicated that sorting problems is unlikely to be quick.
On the post: PayPal Cuts Off Account For Bradley Manning Support
Re: Anybody ask Paypal about this?
Are they incapable of issuing a press release? I mean, if they have a genuine good reason and a competent PR department then that would seem like the sensible thing to do.
On the post: EU Realizes That You Fight Child Porn At The Source... Not By Trying To Hide It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're making a random rape references to provoke a response now?
Here you go: please keep doing that. Even better, use it as your signature. I'm sure people will take you more seriously then.
On the post: The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words, you made an assumption about his understanding of the figures, while ignoring the fact that he was right in his conclusion. Is my facetious exaggeration worse than that?
"Your own quote makes my point clear: Avatar brought in $2.7 billion and yet Fox's TOTAL profits for the year were $497 million for ALL of Twentieth Century Fox. "
How is that a bad thing? How does that in any way suggest that Avatar wasn't a success as Jay claimed?
"Only stating the box office total is misleading."
I can see how it would be misleading if it turned out that the film didn't make a profit, but it did and a big one at that.
"Further, as the Slate article makes clear, the margins are generally much smaller for movies that aren't the top grossing movie of all time, and that the studios depend on home-entertainment for over 80% of their revenue."
But we're talking about Avatar at the moment, not much smaller movies. If you'd like to talk about them then please bring them into the discussion instead of pointing out that Avatar isn't one.
"So, yes, copyright does have something to do with the success of movies, including Avatar (which goes to Jay's point). When 80% of revenues comes from non-theater based sources, it is not difficult to see how piracy can quickly cut into the meat of the studios profits."
None of what you've said backs up the argument that copyright has anything to do with the success of movies.
On the post: The Amount Of Content Created In Spite Of Copyright Is Staggering
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Give this a read Anonymous Coward.
One highlight:
"Avatar, a saga of colonialism and environmental destruction on a distant planet named Pandora, has raked in record box-office takings of $2.7bn. It sent profits rocketing by 76% to $497m at News Corp's Hollywood studio, Twentieth Century Fox.
Murdoch identified Avatar as one of his company's top success stories"
"So instead of focusing on box-office revenues to draw such sweeping conclusions, you should at least have a proper understanding of what that $1billion really means."
So instead of shifting the focus away from Avatar's success with a claim that box office revenue mean nothing, you should at least look at the actual profits reported by the film studio.
On the post: EU Realizes That You Fight Child Porn At The Source... Not By Trying To Hide It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If it were a signed up user then they'd have a profile button. It's just someone who typed a name into the comment box. TAM had an account until they stopped using it, although some seem to believe they still post anonymously.
"Are you shocked them someone else calls Mike out on his weird views?"
Are you calling out the EU parliament for the same views?
On the post: The Privatization Of Public Data Sets A Bad Precedent
Re: Big fan, but.....
I think the point of the title was that the case is a precedent in causing a chilling effect and accepting the privatisation of public data. I don't see how the use of precedent in that context is misleading.
"more of faint flickering of things that "might" come to pass, IF a bunch of bogus legal arguments are accepted by a court. "
The article seems to, if anything, suggest that these legal arguments wouldn't be accepted by a court. The issue of a chilling effect is the prohibitive nature of expensive lawsuits forcing a settlement, not on the possibility that a lawsuit may be successful.
'Since its a crime reporting fight, I'm surprised there were no shouts of "but..but...but.. THE CHILDREN"'
The thing that pisses me off most about this story is the evident failure of authorities to provide useful data as a matter of duty, especially in the absence of reliable official statistics. "But..but..but.. THE CHILDREN" is the kind of sentiment that should support this data being freely available.
On the post: Does Re-Imagining Lord Of The Rings From The Perspective Of Mordor Violate Tolkien's Copyrights?
Re: Re: Re:
You'd hope they'd have enough respect not to do both in the same post at least.
On the post: Does Re-Imagining Lord Of The Rings From The Perspective Of Mordor Violate Tolkien's Copyrights?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for the clarification. Still, I think it highlights an issue with trademark that isn't limited to the (hopefully entirely) theoretical application to books. To clarify myself, I wasn't trying to refute anything you said, I just thought you'd brought up an interesting point worth discussing.
A character isn't just a piece of advertising, it's a piece of culture. While a company tagline is arguably defensible by trademark for confusing people, I would think that the positive effect of consumer choice outweighed the supposed confusion by other companies using the same character. The only reason people might believe that Mickey Mouse merchandise is by Disney at the moment is the fact that they'd likely sue if it wasn't. Promoting buyer awareness of the supply chain while allowing consumer choice would seem a far more effective plan than banning consumer choice supposedly for their own good.
Of course, Disney aren't likely suing people to protect consumers, but doing so to preserve a monopoly. Culture is a valuable asset and using trademark to monopolise that asset is a perversion of the system.
This ties in with copyright as the same analysis should be applied when considering the supposed economic benefit of copyright. Fair use isn't only about what someone copying can get away with, it's also about what consumers have access to. This book is highly unlikely to have any impact on the sale of Tolkien's books, in fact it may increase interest in them. Even accepting the premise of copyright, why should consumers be denied a book which is likely to have no negative impact on the author of the 'original' ideas?
On the post: Most Insightful, Funniest Comments Of The Week On Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What argument? I was pointing out that personally I tend to recognise people who have a consistent name as individuals and suggesting that posting anonymously may affect how people respond to you. I'm not suggesting that I'm completely unable to tell anonymous posters apart, ever. That's your straw man.
"Just following your cue. You were the one who started trying to deny that you were anonymous."
I'm not denying that I'm anonymous, I'm pointing out that there is a distinction between anonymous and pseudonymous. I'm anonymous outside of the context of this site, but within this site I have a consistent individual identity.
"apparently using your personal dictionary"
Which would you prefer I use? I admit that I only referenced Wiktionary and Oxford Dictionary Online in that case.
"You may only care about your own perceptions"
I don't only care about my own perceptions, feel free to tell me about yours. I was pointing out that my post was based on my opinion and my perceptions and wasn't masquerading as some universal truth.
On the post: Does Re-Imagining Lord Of The Rings From The Perspective Of Mordor Violate Tolkien's Copyrights?
Re: Re: Re:
I find it hard to believe that someone buying a book is unable to read the (usually gigantic) author's name on the cover. If it's an issue of something being implied as authorised then it would seem more sensible to require they put 'unauthorised' or something rather than denying the use of the characters. From the perspective of trademark, which in no circumstances is supposed to be there for an economic effect, denying the use of other authors characters is anti consumer and goes against the purpose of trademark.
The trademark argument seems to conflate the two premises between copyright (economic incentive, or authors rights in some countries) and trademark (consumer protection).
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Continued:
I'm unsure which specific study you are referring to, otherwise I would have a look for the definition they are using.
"So, that study is just another brick in the so-called rape culture, I assume?"
Well spotted. This is why there should be a more open process for producing these studies and the data they use should be more publicly accessible. Often the problem with rape statistics is indeed the definition of rape, not only of those conducting the studies but also those gathering the data.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Continued:
I think the point there is the uncertainty. If you're unable to tell whether you have someone's consent, if there is any doubt in your mind then it's your responsibility to find out for certain.
The legal aspect is hard. However, knowing whether you've got someone's consent is merely a matter of being conscientious and should be as much part of your routine as using a condom, for example. How you go about it should depend on your partner, not anyone else's opinion.
On the post: Most Insightful, Funniest Comments Of The Week On Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But when you do that, you tend to do so without recognising that people are discussing what the law should be. You have this running fallacy that because something is law then that makes it OK.
"I'm the one with the open mind. I don't start with the conclusion and then work my way backwards like so many posters on here actually do."
Is it possible that you've pre empted my request for an example by providing it within the argument itself? Oh, other posters. Example please.
"Having an open mind means looking at things from all sides, and then trying to find the right answer. It doesn't mean agreeing with the people you already agree with, and then spewing venom at anyone who disagrees."
I'm pretty sure being open minded is simply synonymous with being unprejudiced. Regardless, are you suggesting that we aren't allowed to agree with people we already agree with?
"The last thing you'll find amongst the Techdirt fanboys is an open mind. You can pretend like you guys are all open-minded, but this reader isn't fooled one bit."
I'm not sure I've ever claimed to be open minded. I've not really noticed anyone else claim it either. The conspiracy must be extremely subtle, especially if I'm supposed to be part of it.
On the post: Most Insightful, Funniest Comments Of The Week On Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As you seem suspiciously like the same Anonymous Coward who failed to recognise this distinction last time it came up, let me repeat:
Anonymous Coward isn't so much a name as it is a label. You'd be like an author with the pen name 'not known'.
"There are those who know who I am, even if you don't. So you see, I'm not really anonymous after all either."
Please be more blatant about ignoring what words mean in order to be contrary. Someone somewhere may be reading Techdirt offline and not have access to a dictionary.
"And as to recognizing individuals, how do I even know that you're even an individual and not some kind of shared persona? I don't. So, again, you're no less anonymous than I am. "
Fortunately my point was about my perceptions, not yours.
"Are you the pot or the kettle?"
The kettle. Who uses a teapot any more?
On the post: Most Insightful, Funniest Comments Of The Week On Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have to admit, unless someone's being generally bigoted then I tend to ignore random personal attacks, whether the perpetrators seem in agreement with me or not. I can dimly recall various pointless insults against you but you never seemed to respond to them so neither did I. I also remember what was probably the first time I had a discussion with you, in which you seemed to delight in belittling my semantic analysis with crude humour. Given that you seemed OK with making fun of someone who was trying to have a constructive discussion, I'm still at a loss to understand why you care about generally benign insults that come from people who aren't adding anything to the discussion anyway.
I mean, I wouldn't think of complaining about some of the seemingly malicious anonymous posters like the one who first responded to my favourites article, because they don't matter.
"My attitude is disbelief that people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about insisting that my legal analysis is wrong. Believe it or not, but after 2.5 years of law school, I might actually something about the law. I tried to share that with others, but all I got in return was grief."
So, you tried to share your analysis with people whom you apparently believe are incapable of understanding it? In the best case scenario from your point of view, 2.5 years of law school gives you very little credibility to tell complete strangers that you're an authority on the subject.
'It's too bad, because I thought I had something of value to add to this place. I've moved along, and "AJ" is retired. I know when I'm not welcome. It's a real shame that so many posters' minds are closed to thought that differs from their own. That's not how productive exchanges work.'
I've noticed a theme of vagueness with posts calling out other peoples apparent stupidity, or in this case closed mindedness. The cynic in me recognises it as an attempt to protect the argument from refute. How can we deny that many posters are closed minded when we don't know to whom you refer? How can we make the argument that most of them may not be the same people trying to have a constructive discussion anyway, when we don't know to whom you refer?
In an earlier post I asked an anonymous poster to clarify whether they were talking about me and wasn't surprised when they denied that they were, despite them responding to my post while referring to 'you guys'.
I'm honestly on the fence as to whether it'd be a shame to see you go. On the one hand, you seem to offer the most consistently constructive opposing view here lately. On the other hand, as merit-able as your contributions may be, I'm not sure they weigh favourably with the assumption that mere amateurs are unable to compete with 2.5 years in law school.
On the post: Most Insightful, Funniest Comments Of The Week On Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pseudonymously. You may not know my real identity, but my point was about being able to recognise someone as an individual, not about being able to look them up in the phone book.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just to clarify, the issue I was hinting at with my earlier post has nothing to do with the absolute numbers involved, but the statements that one in any six women in the US is likely to be a rape victim.
For example, take a hypothetical country with a population of 600 women. In that country there are six states, each with a population of 100 women. In one of those states the number of victims is 100% of the population, or simply 100. The statistic for the country is one in six women is a rape victim, but five out of the six states have no reported rapes.
While obviously that is an important technical point, there are also reasons why it's an important point for the issue of combating rape. The idea of one in six women close to them being victims may seem unrealistic to people, making the factual evidence less credible to them. It suggests the rape rate is equal across all populations, which ignores places where rape has been effectively reduced or where rape is most problematic.
Next >>