Dude, chill out, this article is NOT about you ...
I never said or thought it was. I'm merely pointing out that he jumps to conclusions about people abusing the system. Without evidence, he accused me of abusing the system. And here he is again doing the same thing. It's a pattern.
Can you point to a single article where he sided with the artist/author whose rights were being violated by pirates? Nope.
Yet I can point to thousands of articles where he defends the pirates, claims that piracy causes no harm, tells people they should embrace piracy, hyper-focuses on anything a rights holder does while giving pirates very little scrutiny, etc.
This blog is the No. 1 pirate-apologist blog on earth.
Maybe, just maybe, they have found this to be a particularly effective way of dealing with terrorists threats, and that the general lack of terrorist activities these days are in part because of this?
Wait. You think law enforcement is actually enforcing the law and keeping us safe? Blasphemy! Did you not get your allotment of anti-government/anti-authority Kook-Aid.
Laws are there for the benefit of the people, not to accomodate Law Enforcement. This means that Law Enforcement should abide by the law, just as the average Joe is expected to do. If I see that Law Enforcement doesn't respect the law, why should I? See where this could be going? Trust lost = state in decline
Yep, law enforcement must abide by the law. No please explain how law enforcement using a "pen register" or "trap and trace" without a warrant is illegal.
I'll give you a hint:
This case presents the question whether the installation and use of a pen register constitutes a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. ***
Given a pen register's limited capabilities, therefore, petitioner's argument that its installation and use constituted a "search" necessarily rests upon a claim that he had a "legitimate expectation of privacy" regarding the numbers he dialed on his phone. This claim must be rejected. ***
We therefore conclude that petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and that, even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." The installation and use of a pen register, consequently, was not a "search," and no warrant was required. The judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It was certainly an ad hominem when he accused me of abusing the legal system for profit, even though he had zero evidence to back it up. My point is that Mike has no evidence here to back up this claim either: "Perhaps that's really because they know they're widely abusing the ability to spy on communications, and they don't want to have to admit it." He throws out the weasel word "perhaps," but clearly he is spreading FUD and trying to discredit law enforcement. Where's his evidence that "perhaps" this is true? Oh yeah, there is none. Just like when he attacked me for being an abuser without any evidence. Bottom line, Mike jumps to conclusions about people being abusers--just like a yellow journalist would. It's not an ad hominem to point out the fact that he jumps to conclusions and works backwards.
And yet, whenever anyone suggests that maybe, just maybe, there should be a little bit of oversight on these kinds of things to prevent abuse, law enforcement freaks out. Perhaps that's really because they know they're widely abusing the ability to spy on communications, and they don't want to have to admit it.
You just love to jump to the "ABUSE!" claim, don't you? I remember two years ago you kept saying that *I'm* abusing the legal system for profit. Yet, you have never once produced any evidence that I have ever done anything like that (and you can't produce that evidence, because it's not true). Funny that. It's almost like you just made it up whole cloth in some desperate attempt to lash out at a critic.
Have you ever considered that maybe you could look at the evidence first and then jump to the claim of "ABUSE!" second? Or are you just not wired to work any way other than backwards? I guess you're satisfied with being the Yellow Journalist/Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh of IP "reporting." Good on ya!
The fact that average_joe will never admit when he has his points directly answered should tell you all you need to know.
That's the rumor. The truth is that Mike never wants to discuss his beliefs. He never wants to address criticisms of his baseless claims. He just wants to pretend like his slanted view is the only view, and all dissenters are ignored. He won't back up his claims when called out. He won't engage dissenters substantively.
Either way, he goes on at length, claiming that his efforts in helping to put together the '76 Act and his other work on copyright were continually focused on benefiting the copyright holder. He never mentions that this is not the purpose of copyright law. It is the means. But the intent is to benefit the public.
Copyright, by design, benefits authors because that in turn benefits the public. I know that you think because it's the means it can be ignored, but that makes no sense. The means are an integral part of accomplishing the ends.
The Copyright Act can only be designed to benefit the public.
Nope. The Copyright Act is designed to benefit authors first because that in turn benefits the public. Pretending like it's not at all about benefiting authors makes zero sense. It's exactly about benefiting authors so that the public may also benefit.
Instead, as we've shown over and over again, the incentive to create appears to have increased greatly, even as respect for copyright has weakened tremendously over the past decade.
And yet you can't even find more than a couple authors to participate in your book club that do not rely on the copyright business model. You *want* to declare copyright dead, but you are FAR from proving that your alternative models are superior. Why don't you actually compete with copyright and win on a substantial scale before you declare "free" the winner? Copyright is winning by a mile. Your own book club is evidence of that.
So I fail to see how Congress' "intent" could possibly be undermined by new disruptive technologies coming along -- without permission -- and creating new and expansive markets that both help the public and provide new opportunities for content creators.
If your tech buddies are violating the rights of authors, then they are undermining Congress's undeniable intent to give authors exclusive rights. I know you're super-anxious to write out the parts where authors get exclusive rights, but the fact is that your alternative models have not proven themselves. Again, you can't even find more than a couple authors who subscribe to your alternative views to be featured in your book club. That says it all. Those authors for the most part rely on copyright, not on "free." Copyright is not about forcing authors to take the "opportunities" offered by your tech buddies. It's about giving authors the choice of how and where to distribute their works. Your buddies are turning that on its head. Calling it "innovation" is clever, but it's deceptive.
But reality tells me differently. So which should I listen to? Reality or . . . ?
Reality tells you that you're just entitled to just take whatever you want whenever you want it? You've been reading the Gospel according to Mike too much.
The argument is that current copyright laws do not accomplish this, and that they hinder the creation and dissemination of new works.
If a work is truly new, then copyright does not hinder its creation or dissemination.
Every time a new book is killed off, or a blog dedicated to exposing new musical works to the public is shut down is evidence of this.
I assume you're talking about a handful of books that unauthorized sequels and the like, and you're pretending like the 1% represents the whole.
Every bogus DMCA notice is evidence for this.
Yes, a very small percentage of DMCA takedown notices are bogus. This is a problem with the party sending the notice. Blame the party that is actually doing the wrong. All laws can be abused. Blame the abusers.
Every bogus DMCA notice is evidence for this. Every time some automated content bot shuts down a broadcast or censors the sounds of birds is evidence that current copyright law no longer functions.
If one takedown notice out of millions gets it wrong then the whole system is broken? Not a good argument. Again, blame the party that sends the erroneous takedown notice. And what of the millions and millions of takedown notices that aren't in error? What about the huge underlying problem? Why do you insist that the remedy be 100% perfect while ignoring the problem underneath?
Copyright law was never supposed to be about a handful of massive corporate conglomerations having veto rights over new technology, yet that is what it has become.
Copyright law has always been about prohibiting unauthorized copying, from the printing press to the iPhone 5.
Copyright was never supposed to be about those corporations having the power to shut out competing distribution channels, yet that is what it has become.
Copyright has always been about stopping unauthorized copiers from violating the copyright owners' exclusive rights.
Copyright was never supposed to be about people or corporations have perpetual monopoly privileges over peices of culture, yet that is what it has become.
Copyright is not perpetual. That argument made its way to the Supreme Court and lost.
Can you explain how it benefits the public that culture created during anyone's lifetime cannot be used until their grandchildren have grandchildren?
You get access to that culture if and when the owner of the rights decides to grant you access. It's never been the situation that you have the right to access without permission.
Can you explain how it makes even the slightest bit of sense to prevent access to content which can by copied infinitely at little to no cost?
The theory is that by giving authors these exclusive rights, they are incentivized to create and to disseminate their works. And when the limited times is up, the public gets the works.
Can you explain how locking up that information and culture to be exploited by a tiny few and passed on at outrageous markups is ethical?
The tradeoff is that by granting authors these exclusive rights, the authors are incentivized to create the works in the first place. It's about more than just the public getting access to the works. It's also about an author's rights and incentives to create new and better works, which in turn benefits the public. Copyright is about author's first and the public second. It always has been.
I doubt you can, but I'll give you the chance to try to form a coherent argument, AJ.
If your alternative universe where copyright does not play a part in incentivizing the creation of new and better works were better for authors, they would be flocking to your alternative business models in droves. As it is, your alternative views have not replaced copyright. If you want to show the world that your way is better, then demonstrate that on an even playing field.
I'm merely pointing out that Mike's argument that copyright isn't serving its purpose when it stops his tech friends from doing whatever they like with other people's copyrighted works is indefensible. The fact that Mike won't ever back up his claims when called out them should tell you all you need to know.
Dissemination on the author's own terms, not on the terms of Mike's tech buddies. Authors are incentivized to license their works, but they are not forced to do so. If Mike's buddies want to disseminate the works of others, they need to negotiate with the owners of the works. That's how copyright works.
What we're seeing, yet again, is how the technology allows for something really useful that adds value to both the content and for the users. And yet... copyright law makes it very, very difficult to pull off. Why? Because copyright law is purposely built around keeping the status quo, not about encouraging innovation. So you have yet another clear case where it seems like copyright law is holding back "the progress" rather than helping to speed it along.
That argument is really silly, Mike.
Copyright's purpose is to encourage the creation and dissemination of new and better works. The way it accomplishes this is by giving authors exclusive rights to their original works, i.e., authors have the right to exclude your tech buddies from using their works if they want to. Those authors get to choose how their works are published and disseminated. They can choose to let everyone in the world have a copy, or they can choose to keep it to themselves. The choice is theirs to make.
Copyright is not about letting other people do as they please with an author's copyrighted work. Copyright is not about forcing authors to give up their exclusive rights in the name of "innovation." It's not about letting your tech friends maximize their profits using authors' copyrighted works. Copyright is about giving the incentive to an author to license the work, but it's not about forcing them to do so. Copyright has never been about helping your buddies "innovate" at the expense of authors' rights.
Can you explain the basis for your claim that copyright's purpose is to help your tech buddies make money, er, I mean, "innovate"? I doubt it. Your position that promoting the progress means letting your tech friends do as they please with other people's property is untenable. [Don't worry, I know you have no intention of ever discussing your beliefs or backing up your claims. Such is Mike Masnick and Techdirt.]
Then you believe the Feist ruling was improper. Feist and Locke contradict each other.
Lockean property just is the result of performing labor on natural resources. A Lockean view of copyright would hold that it is property because it originates from labor, and for no other reason. Whenever something is produced by the sweat of your brow, it automatically becomes your property. "Originality" is not even remotely relevant. Just because your labor produces something that is not original, does not mean that it is not labor.
To hold a Lockean "sweat of the brow" argument for copyright, you have no choice but to accept that the ruling took away property from Feist Publications. You may believe it was justified to take away their property, but you would have no choice but to admit that it was their property in the first place.
I don't think of it that way. Feist just points out that the Constitution has an originality requirement. Authors get a property right in the fruits of their labors, but only if that fruit is original (which is an extremely low threshold). So it's just a condition that must also be satisfied. Feist merely says, "You get a property right to the fruit of your labor, but only if that fruit is minimally original." I don't read it as being a complete refutation of the natural rights theory. An author still gets a property right to the fruits of their labor, so long as those fruits are original. You're right though that even if someone creates something that isn't original then they won't get a property right to the fruits of their labor. I don't have a problem with that, even though it's non-Lockean.
So, you arbitrarily choose which school of thought justifies your opinion?
If not, what is your moral reason for choosing one school of thought over another?
I have a pluralistic view. If some part of copyright is different than how I want it to be, I don't then think that that part is unethical. I disagree with lots of laws. But I accept that the laws are legitimate, even if I disagree with them. It's not that I choose arbitrarily, it's that I accept that my views aren't always the ones that win.
For example, I think that formalities like registration are very non-Lockean. If the law were changed back to the system we used to have where registration is needed for copyrighting something, I wouldn't think that it was wrong or immoral. While I prefer the system we have now, where copyright subsists by operation of law when the work is fixed, I understand that there are other ways to do it.
"Giving?" So, you believe that the property right is created by the State? If so, it means that humans do not have a property right in the fruits of their labor, unless it is created by the State. This is pretty much the polar opposite of a Lockean position. Either that, or you believe copyright is different from other "property rights."
Copyrights are creatures of statute. I think the Copyright Act merely codified the Lockean notion that an author gets a property right to the fruits of their labor.
That's not even remotely what it says in the Copyright Clause, and you know it. But it doesn't matter for our ethical discussion, so I'll let it slide.
The Copyright Clause says that Congress can secure to authors a property right (exclusive rights) to the fruits of the labor (writings). I don't understand how you can disagree with that.
I was, but let's not. I am talking about the fact that you believe your interpretation of the case law was ethical. Arcara was a ruling about prostitution. No court has ever suggested that it might apply to copyright. That you believe it should apply to copyright is an ethical position.
Arcara applies to conduct that isn't protected expression. Piracy is not protected expression.
"The right to free speech requires that we should not block access to an entire website because of the infringing speech on it, even if the amount of infringing speech is significant."
Every time anyone has made this argument, you said they had a "pro-piracy agenda," or some such.
If a website is dedicated to infringement, then I have no problem with that website being blocked and/or shut down. Just like if a house is used to cook meth, but it's also used for Sunday school classes, it gets shut down too. No one is being told they can't speak freely. They're just being prevented from using certain property that is tainted by wrongful acts. Just like the bookstore in Arcara.
It's not a "premise," it's a statement of fact. Let's say a carpenter manufactures a table. Under the Lockean view, that table is his property because it is the result of the carpenter applying labor to raw materials. But as soon as he (voluntarily) parts with that table, it is no longer his property in any fashion whatsoever. The property rights lie entirely in the private posession of that property.
That is not true of a book. If a copyright holder voluntarily parts with his book, by selling it for instance, he retains a property interest in that book. Even though the book is someone else's private posession, it is still the copyright holder's property, to some degree.
I thought you were arguing that since an author builds upon the works of others, then the work created isn't totally his own. You're talking about downstream, whereas I thought you meant upstream. Sorry.
Then your macroeconomics class wasn't very good.
But it's not like a regular monopoly, like the electric company, the water company, or the state bar association. I can only get electricity from one supplier, who holds a monopoly on the electricity market. An author merely has a monopoly over a single book. Any other author can enter the book market. All private property is a monopoly if you define the market to be the market for a single piece of property. I have a rock in my backyard. You could say I have a monopoly over that rock. I think it's silly to call that a monopoly, since anyone can get into the rock business.
Romero never had a "property right" in "Night of the Living Dead." It did not "end." He (or actually his distributor) accidentally did not comply with the statutes, so he was never granted that "property right."
Either you believe he was denied his property rights, or you don't. If you don't, then you need to come up with a reason he shouldn't have had it.
It certainly has nothing to do with labor. The sweat on his brow was as shiny as any other filmmaker's; yet they got copyright, and Romero didn't.
He failed to comply with formalities. That was his mistake. It was a harsh system back then. I know lots of judges stretched out the meaning of "publication" just to avoid that situation. That's why the word "distribution" is used in the 1976 Act. Congress didn't want the case law about publication infecting the notion of distribution. It's very non-Lockean, so I'm glad we don't do it that way anymore. While the system was non-Lockean, I still believe that it was fair since it was the product of a legitimate exercise of Congress's lawmaking power. I don't think that everything that isn't as I would like it to be is unethical because I recognize the legitimacy of the democratic process.
The laws against tresspassing are justified because tresspassing usually indicates the intent to do something immoral (invasion of privacy, damaging the property, theft, a physical attack, etc). They are also justified because without laws against tresspassing, we would not be able to enforce the right of private property. The ownership of private property creates a tremendous social benefit, so laws that are required to protect that social benefit are justified.
I don't believe that intent is an element of trespass to land, so I don't think that's true. I'm glad you agree that enforcement of private property advances the public good. Copyright is private property too, and it advances the public good as well.
But that "violation of rights" is not immoral in and of itself. If it is immoral, it is not because it violates property rights, but because of some other reason. Merely taking a shortcut across someone's parking lot is a "violation of property rights," but nobody sane believes it is immoral.
I think enforcement of private property rights is moral. You seem to be arguing that enforcing property rights is moral because of the social benefit, but then you don't think that violation of those rights is immoral. I don't see how you can have it both ways.
Exactly. Yet the only justification you have given that infringement is wrong, is because it infringes on a property right, and only because it infringes on a property right.
Not all property rights are moral, but almost all of them are. They only example I can think of where it's not is something extreme like slavery.
You have not provided one ethically consistent reason why copyright as a property right should be good and moral. The fact that it's produced from labor can't be the reason. If it were, you must conclude that the Feist ruling was an intrusion on authors' property rights; you must conclude that Romero was robbed of his property rights.
It's good and moral because it's fair that authors should get a property right to the fruits of their labors, because the public benefits when authors do, and because it makes sense to recognize that works are a part of their creators. Feist is an intrusion in one sense, but all it says is that there must be the teeniest bit of originality. Considering that the vast majority of authors aren't denied a property right to the fruits of their labors, I don't see Feist as a refutation of the Lockean notion. Romero was robbed in one sense, but that robbery was fair as it was pursuant to a lawfully-enacted statutory scheme that is legitimized by the democratic process.
The only consistent reason you have given that copyright is ethically a property right, is that you think it's fair. That's not an ethical argument, it's a mere opinion.
It's fair, it's useful, it benefits authors, it benefits the public, and it's the best system there is.
So the biggest point is that copyright is both well defined in law and narrow in scope (in individual cases). Perhaps you should consider this the next time you want to try to generalize and claim copyright is stopping everything from happening. It's not.
Exactly. And Mike left out some critical facts. The plaintiffs pitched a movie idea to Disney called "Santa Paws." The story line was that a dog called "Santa Paws" saves Christmas by using a magic crystal. Disney rejected the idea. But then years later they made a movie called "Santa Paws" where the story is that a dog named "Santa Paws" saves Christmas with a magic crystal.
So it's not these guys were just suing for no good reason. It's funny too because on these facts there's a good argument that big bad Disney is ripping off artists. I'm surprised Mike didn't harp on that. He was too busy pretending like the substantial similarity doctrine means there's no idea-expression dichotomy. These articles are so mindless and predictable. It's a shame that Mike's on anti-IP FUD autopilot.
You don't think courts getting flooded with these cases are a problem?
How many such cases "flood" the courts? You are assuming that it's a huge problem without evidence to back it up. Seems to me that Mike just cherry-picks a few cases, and then pretends like it's a huge problem. Of course, Mike is just mindlessly bashing IP. It's all he knows.
Funny, I was just arguing with a couple of people who claimed this was not the case...
Well, whatever.
Me? It should say "science" (copyrights) and not "useful arts" (patents), and it's leaving out the part where the private reward to the authors leads to public reward, but otherwise I think that's correct.
It's hardly irrelevant to criticize the courts for rulings that fly in the face of reality.
But the point you brought up had nothing to do with "rulings that fly in the face of reality."
You said: " An IP address address does not even satisfy the "more likely than not" preponderance of the evidence burden in these civil cases, let alone the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that rightsholders and the government must meet in criminal copyright suits."
I pointed out that the issue isn't the burden of proof in criminal cases, to which you replied: "No shit, Professor Pedantic. That's why I distinguished the two."
I then pointed out that the one being pedantic is you since you brought up an irrelevant burden of proof.
I don't understand why you're so angry? Are you not able to discuss these things like an adult?
And I'm still waiting to hear your "facts" about why an IP address is insufficient to state a prima facie claim. All you have are unsupported conclusory statements.
And you never explained exactly how any of it violates due process, as you intimated. Do you actually have a substantive argument on that point?
Or are you just an angry old man with nothing to add? Seems like it.
On the post: New Data Dump Shows Feds Massively Increased Spying On Who You're Talking To
Re: Re:
I never said or thought it was. I'm merely pointing out that he jumps to conclusions about people abusing the system. Without evidence, he accused me of abusing the system. And here he is again doing the same thing. It's a pattern.
On the post: New Data Dump Shows Feds Massively Increased Spying On Who You're Talking To
Re: Re:
Has the proof of that ever materialized?
Really?!?!? The proof can be found here: http://www.techdirt.com
Can you point to a single article where he sided with the artist/author whose rights were being violated by pirates? Nope.
Yet I can point to thousands of articles where he defends the pirates, claims that piracy causes no harm, tells people they should embrace piracy, hyper-focuses on anything a rights holder does while giving pirates very little scrutiny, etc.
This blog is the No. 1 pirate-apologist blog on earth.
You guys are too much.
On the post: New Data Dump Shows Feds Massively Increased Spying On Who You're Talking To
Re:
Wait. You think law enforcement is actually enforcing the law and keeping us safe? Blasphemy! Did you not get your allotment of anti-government/anti-authority Kook-Aid.
On the post: New Data Dump Shows Feds Massively Increased Spying On Who You're Talking To
Re:
Yep, law enforcement must abide by the law. No please explain how law enforcement using a "pen register" or "trap and trace" without a warrant is illegal.
I'll give you a hint:Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
On the post: New Data Dump Shows Feds Massively Increased Spying On Who You're Talking To
Re: Re: Re:
It was certainly an ad hominem when he accused me of abusing the legal system for profit, even though he had zero evidence to back it up. My point is that Mike has no evidence here to back up this claim either: "Perhaps that's really because they know they're widely abusing the ability to spy on communications, and they don't want to have to admit it." He throws out the weasel word "perhaps," but clearly he is spreading FUD and trying to discredit law enforcement. Where's his evidence that "perhaps" this is true? Oh yeah, there is none. Just like when he attacked me for being an abuser without any evidence. Bottom line, Mike jumps to conclusions about people being abusers--just like a yellow journalist would. It's not an ad hominem to point out the fact that he jumps to conclusions and works backwards.
On the post: New Data Dump Shows Feds Massively Increased Spying On Who You're Talking To
You just love to jump to the "ABUSE!" claim, don't you? I remember two years ago you kept saying that *I'm* abusing the legal system for profit. Yet, you have never once produced any evidence that I have ever done anything like that (and you can't produce that evidence, because it's not true). Funny that. It's almost like you just made it up whole cloth in some desperate attempt to lash out at a critic.
Have you ever considered that maybe you could look at the evidence first and then jump to the claim of "ABUSE!" second? Or are you just not wired to work any way other than backwards? I guess you're satisfied with being the Yellow Journalist/Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh of IP "reporting." Good on ya!
On the post: Google's Copyright Crackdown Punishes Author For Torrenting His Own Book
Re:
On the post: Michael Robertson Continues To Tempt Copyright Fate With UberTalk: Recordable Radio Directory Online
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the rumor. The truth is that Mike never wants to discuss his beliefs. He never wants to address criticisms of his baseless claims. He just wants to pretend like his slanted view is the only view, and all dissenters are ignored. He won't back up his claims when called out. He won't engage dissenters substantively.
The last thing Mike seeks is the truth.
On the post: Former Copyright Boss: New Technology Should Be Presumed Illegal Until Congress Says Otherwise
Copyright, by design, benefits authors because that in turn benefits the public. I know that you think because it's the means it can be ignored, but that makes no sense. The means are an integral part of accomplishing the ends.
The Copyright Act can only be designed to benefit the public.
Nope. The Copyright Act is designed to benefit authors first because that in turn benefits the public. Pretending like it's not at all about benefiting authors makes zero sense. It's exactly about benefiting authors so that the public may also benefit.
Instead, as we've shown over and over again, the incentive to create appears to have increased greatly, even as respect for copyright has weakened tremendously over the past decade.
And yet you can't even find more than a couple authors to participate in your book club that do not rely on the copyright business model. You *want* to declare copyright dead, but you are FAR from proving that your alternative models are superior. Why don't you actually compete with copyright and win on a substantial scale before you declare "free" the winner? Copyright is winning by a mile. Your own book club is evidence of that.
So I fail to see how Congress' "intent" could possibly be undermined by new disruptive technologies coming along -- without permission -- and creating new and expansive markets that both help the public and provide new opportunities for content creators.
If your tech buddies are violating the rights of authors, then they are undermining Congress's undeniable intent to give authors exclusive rights. I know you're super-anxious to write out the parts where authors get exclusive rights, but the fact is that your alternative models have not proven themselves. Again, you can't even find more than a couple authors who subscribe to your alternative views to be featured in your book club. That says it all. Those authors for the most part rely on copyright, not on "free." Copyright is not about forcing authors to take the "opportunities" offered by your tech buddies. It's about giving authors the choice of how and where to distribute their works. Your buddies are turning that on its head. Calling it "innovation" is clever, but it's deceptive.
On the post: Michael Robertson Continues To Tempt Copyright Fate With UberTalk: Recordable Radio Directory Online
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reality tells you that you're just entitled to just take whatever you want whenever you want it? You've been reading the Gospel according to Mike too much.
On the post: Michael Robertson Continues To Tempt Copyright Fate With UberTalk: Recordable Radio Directory Online
Re: Re:
If a work is truly new, then copyright does not hinder its creation or dissemination.
Every time a new book is killed off, or a blog dedicated to exposing new musical works to the public is shut down is evidence of this.
I assume you're talking about a handful of books that unauthorized sequels and the like, and you're pretending like the 1% represents the whole.
Every bogus DMCA notice is evidence for this.
Yes, a very small percentage of DMCA takedown notices are bogus. This is a problem with the party sending the notice. Blame the party that is actually doing the wrong. All laws can be abused. Blame the abusers.
Every bogus DMCA notice is evidence for this. Every time some automated content bot shuts down a broadcast or censors the sounds of birds is evidence that current copyright law no longer functions.
If one takedown notice out of millions gets it wrong then the whole system is broken? Not a good argument. Again, blame the party that sends the erroneous takedown notice. And what of the millions and millions of takedown notices that aren't in error? What about the huge underlying problem? Why do you insist that the remedy be 100% perfect while ignoring the problem underneath?
Copyright law was never supposed to be about a handful of massive corporate conglomerations having veto rights over new technology, yet that is what it has become.
Copyright law has always been about prohibiting unauthorized copying, from the printing press to the iPhone 5.
Copyright was never supposed to be about those corporations having the power to shut out competing distribution channels, yet that is what it has become.
Copyright has always been about stopping unauthorized copiers from violating the copyright owners' exclusive rights.
Copyright was never supposed to be about people or corporations have perpetual monopoly privileges over peices of culture, yet that is what it has become.
Copyright is not perpetual. That argument made its way to the Supreme Court and lost.
Can you explain how it benefits the public that culture created during anyone's lifetime cannot be used until their grandchildren have grandchildren?
You get access to that culture if and when the owner of the rights decides to grant you access. It's never been the situation that you have the right to access without permission.
Can you explain how it makes even the slightest bit of sense to prevent access to content which can by copied infinitely at little to no cost?
The theory is that by giving authors these exclusive rights, they are incentivized to create and to disseminate their works. And when the limited times is up, the public gets the works.
Can you explain how locking up that information and culture to be exploited by a tiny few and passed on at outrageous markups is ethical?
The tradeoff is that by granting authors these exclusive rights, the authors are incentivized to create the works in the first place. It's about more than just the public getting access to the works. It's also about an author's rights and incentives to create new and better works, which in turn benefits the public. Copyright is about author's first and the public second. It always has been.
I doubt you can, but I'll give you the chance to try to form a coherent argument, AJ.
If your alternative universe where copyright does not play a part in incentivizing the creation of new and better works were better for authors, they would be flocking to your alternative business models in droves. As it is, your alternative views have not replaced copyright. If you want to show the world that your way is better, then demonstrate that on an even playing field.
On the post: Michael Robertson Continues To Tempt Copyright Fate With UberTalk: Recordable Radio Directory Online
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Michael Robertson Continues To Tempt Copyright Fate With UberTalk: Recordable Radio Directory Online
Re: Re:
Dissemination on the author's own terms, not on the terms of Mike's tech buddies. Authors are incentivized to license their works, but they are not forced to do so. If Mike's buddies want to disseminate the works of others, they need to negotiate with the owners of the works. That's how copyright works.
On the post: Michael Robertson Continues To Tempt Copyright Fate With UberTalk: Recordable Radio Directory Online
That argument is really silly, Mike.
Copyright's purpose is to encourage the creation and dissemination of new and better works. The way it accomplishes this is by giving authors exclusive rights to their original works, i.e., authors have the right to exclude your tech buddies from using their works if they want to. Those authors get to choose how their works are published and disseminated. They can choose to let everyone in the world have a copy, or they can choose to keep it to themselves. The choice is theirs to make.
Copyright is not about letting other people do as they please with an author's copyrighted work. Copyright is not about forcing authors to give up their exclusive rights in the name of "innovation." It's not about letting your tech friends maximize their profits using authors' copyrighted works. Copyright is about giving the incentive to an author to license the work, but it's not about forcing them to do so. Copyright has never been about helping your buddies "innovate" at the expense of authors' rights.
Can you explain the basis for your claim that copyright's purpose is to help your tech buddies make money, er, I mean, "innovate"? I doubt it. Your position that promoting the progress means letting your tech friends do as they please with other people's property is untenable. [Don't worry, I know you have no intention of ever discussing your beliefs or backing up your claims. Such is Mike Masnick and Techdirt.]
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you presented it. I don't agree with it, but neither of us is going to change each others' minds.
So, I'm going to drop this conversation.
I enjoyed the chat. I always learn more about myself when I explain my beliefs to others. Thanks for your time and thanks for the challenge.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lockean property just is the result of performing labor on natural resources. A Lockean view of copyright would hold that it is property because it originates from labor, and for no other reason. Whenever something is produced by the sweat of your brow, it automatically becomes your property. "Originality" is not even remotely relevant. Just because your labor produces something that is not original, does not mean that it is not labor.
To hold a Lockean "sweat of the brow" argument for copyright, you have no choice but to accept that the ruling took away property from Feist Publications. You may believe it was justified to take away their property, but you would have no choice but to admit that it was their property in the first place.
I don't think of it that way. Feist just points out that the Constitution has an originality requirement. Authors get a property right in the fruits of their labors, but only if that fruit is original (which is an extremely low threshold). So it's just a condition that must also be satisfied. Feist merely says, "You get a property right to the fruit of your labor, but only if that fruit is minimally original." I don't read it as being a complete refutation of the natural rights theory. An author still gets a property right to the fruits of their labor, so long as those fruits are original. You're right though that even if someone creates something that isn't original then they won't get a property right to the fruits of their labor. I don't have a problem with that, even though it's non-Lockean.
So, you arbitrarily choose which school of thought justifies your opinion?
If not, what is your moral reason for choosing one school of thought over another?
I have a pluralistic view. If some part of copyright is different than how I want it to be, I don't then think that that part is unethical. I disagree with lots of laws. But I accept that the laws are legitimate, even if I disagree with them. It's not that I choose arbitrarily, it's that I accept that my views aren't always the ones that win.
For example, I think that formalities like registration are very non-Lockean. If the law were changed back to the system we used to have where registration is needed for copyrighting something, I wouldn't think that it was wrong or immoral. While I prefer the system we have now, where copyright subsists by operation of law when the work is fixed, I understand that there are other ways to do it.
"Giving?" So, you believe that the property right is created by the State? If so, it means that humans do not have a property right in the fruits of their labor, unless it is created by the State. This is pretty much the polar opposite of a Lockean position. Either that, or you believe copyright is different from other "property rights."
Copyrights are creatures of statute. I think the Copyright Act merely codified the Lockean notion that an author gets a property right to the fruits of their labor.
That's not even remotely what it says in the Copyright Clause, and you know it. But it doesn't matter for our ethical discussion, so I'll let it slide.
The Copyright Clause says that Congress can secure to authors a property right (exclusive rights) to the fruits of the labor (writings). I don't understand how you can disagree with that.
I was, but let's not. I am talking about the fact that you believe your interpretation of the case law was ethical. Arcara was a ruling about prostitution. No court has ever suggested that it might apply to copyright. That you believe it should apply to copyright is an ethical position.
Arcara applies to conduct that isn't protected expression. Piracy is not protected expression.
"The right to free speech requires that we should not block access to an entire website because of the infringing speech on it, even if the amount of infringing speech is significant."
Every time anyone has made this argument, you said they had a "pro-piracy agenda," or some such.
If a website is dedicated to infringement, then I have no problem with that website being blocked and/or shut down. Just like if a house is used to cook meth, but it's also used for Sunday school classes, it gets shut down too. No one is being told they can't speak freely. They're just being prevented from using certain property that is tainted by wrongful acts. Just like the bookstore in Arcara.
It's not a "premise," it's a statement of fact. Let's say a carpenter manufactures a table. Under the Lockean view, that table is his property because it is the result of the carpenter applying labor to raw materials. But as soon as he (voluntarily) parts with that table, it is no longer his property in any fashion whatsoever. The property rights lie entirely in the private posession of that property.
That is not true of a book. If a copyright holder voluntarily parts with his book, by selling it for instance, he retains a property interest in that book. Even though the book is someone else's private posession, it is still the copyright holder's property, to some degree.
I thought you were arguing that since an author builds upon the works of others, then the work created isn't totally his own. You're talking about downstream, whereas I thought you meant upstream. Sorry.
Then your macroeconomics class wasn't very good.
But it's not like a regular monopoly, like the electric company, the water company, or the state bar association. I can only get electricity from one supplier, who holds a monopoly on the electricity market. An author merely has a monopoly over a single book. Any other author can enter the book market. All private property is a monopoly if you define the market to be the market for a single piece of property. I have a rock in my backyard. You could say I have a monopoly over that rock. I think it's silly to call that a monopoly, since anyone can get into the rock business.
Romero never had a "property right" in "Night of the Living Dead." It did not "end." He (or actually his distributor) accidentally did not comply with the statutes, so he was never granted that "property right."
Either you believe he was denied his property rights, or you don't. If you don't, then you need to come up with a reason he shouldn't have had it.
It certainly has nothing to do with labor. The sweat on his brow was as shiny as any other filmmaker's; yet they got copyright, and Romero didn't.
He failed to comply with formalities. That was his mistake. It was a harsh system back then. I know lots of judges stretched out the meaning of "publication" just to avoid that situation. That's why the word "distribution" is used in the 1976 Act. Congress didn't want the case law about publication infecting the notion of distribution. It's very non-Lockean, so I'm glad we don't do it that way anymore. While the system was non-Lockean, I still believe that it was fair since it was the product of a legitimate exercise of Congress's lawmaking power. I don't think that everything that isn't as I would like it to be is unethical because I recognize the legitimacy of the democratic process.
The laws against tresspassing are justified because tresspassing usually indicates the intent to do something immoral (invasion of privacy, damaging the property, theft, a physical attack, etc). They are also justified because without laws against tresspassing, we would not be able to enforce the right of private property. The ownership of private property creates a tremendous social benefit, so laws that are required to protect that social benefit are justified.
I don't believe that intent is an element of trespass to land, so I don't think that's true. I'm glad you agree that enforcement of private property advances the public good. Copyright is private property too, and it advances the public good as well.
But that "violation of rights" is not immoral in and of itself. If it is immoral, it is not because it violates property rights, but because of some other reason. Merely taking a shortcut across someone's parking lot is a "violation of property rights," but nobody sane believes it is immoral.
I think enforcement of private property rights is moral. You seem to be arguing that enforcing property rights is moral because of the social benefit, but then you don't think that violation of those rights is immoral. I don't see how you can have it both ways.
Exactly. Yet the only justification you have given that infringement is wrong, is because it infringes on a property right, and only because it infringes on a property right.
Not all property rights are moral, but almost all of them are. They only example I can think of where it's not is something extreme like slavery.
You have not provided one ethically consistent reason why copyright as a property right should be good and moral. The fact that it's produced from labor can't be the reason. If it were, you must conclude that the Feist ruling was an intrusion on authors' property rights; you must conclude that Romero was robbed of his property rights.
It's good and moral because it's fair that authors should get a property right to the fruits of their labors, because the public benefits when authors do, and because it makes sense to recognize that works are a part of their creators. Feist is an intrusion in one sense, but all it says is that there must be the teeniest bit of originality. Considering that the vast majority of authors aren't denied a property right to the fruits of their labors, I don't see Feist as a refutation of the Lockean notion. Romero was robbed in one sense, but that robbery was fair as it was pursuant to a lawfully-enacted statutory scheme that is legitimized by the democratic process.
The only consistent reason you have given that copyright is ethically a property right, is that you think it's fair. That's not an ethical argument, it's a mere opinion.
It's fair, it's useful, it benefits authors, it benefits the public, and it's the best system there is.
On the post: Once Again, If Someone Has The Same Lame Story Idea You Had, It's Not Copyright Infringement
Re:
Exactly. And Mike left out some critical facts. The plaintiffs pitched a movie idea to Disney called "Santa Paws." The story line was that a dog called "Santa Paws" saves Christmas by using a magic crystal. Disney rejected the idea. But then years later they made a movie called "Santa Paws" where the story is that a dog named "Santa Paws" saves Christmas with a magic crystal.
So it's not these guys were just suing for no good reason. It's funny too because on these facts there's a good argument that big bad Disney is ripping off artists. I'm surprised Mike didn't harp on that. He was too busy pretending like the substantial similarity doctrine means there's no idea-expression dichotomy. These articles are so mindless and predictable. It's a shame that Mike's on anti-IP FUD autopilot.
On the post: Once Again, If Someone Has The Same Lame Story Idea You Had, It's Not Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many such cases "flood" the courts? You are assuming that it's a huge problem without evidence to back it up. Seems to me that Mike just cherry-picks a few cases, and then pretends like it's a huge problem. Of course, Mike is just mindlessly bashing IP. It's all he knows.
On the post: Another Judge Blasts Copyright Trolls
Re:
Well, whatever.
Me? It should say "science" (copyrights) and not "useful arts" (patents), and it's leaving out the part where the private reward to the authors leads to public reward, but otherwise I think that's correct.
On the post: Another Judge Blasts Copyright Trolls
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the point you brought up had nothing to do with "rulings that fly in the face of reality."
You said: " An IP address address does not even satisfy the "more likely than not" preponderance of the evidence burden in these civil cases, let alone the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that rightsholders and the government must meet in criminal copyright suits."
I pointed out that the issue isn't the burden of proof in criminal cases, to which you replied: "No shit, Professor Pedantic. That's why I distinguished the two."
I then pointed out that the one being pedantic is you since you brought up an irrelevant burden of proof.
I don't understand why you're so angry? Are you not able to discuss these things like an adult?
And I'm still waiting to hear your "facts" about why an IP address is insufficient to state a prima facie claim. All you have are unsupported conclusory statements.
And you never explained exactly how any of it violates due process, as you intimated. Do you actually have a substantive argument on that point?
Or are you just an angry old man with nothing to add? Seems like it.
Next >>