Re: Now that is free, freetards no longer want it.
I shouldn't feed the trolls, but you are seriously wrong here.
The old "lure of the forbidden", directly shown by "Rabbit80" at #6 who hosted it only to stick it to JSTOR. No one actually wants the data: it's the "pirating" that's the thrill. 33GB is enough to occupy for a lifetime, but doesn't excite like video.
Blind assumption. My take is that Rabbit80 is proud of doing the public a service: making public domain materials to the the public.
Now that JSTOR is doing the right thing (like they should have years ago), he no longer needs to. But that doesn't fit neatly into your "pirate conspiracy theory" now, does it?
And turns out JSTOR is not quite the villain thought. Oh. sure, you can say they wouldn't "release" it, but fact is that Maxwell got it -- and then used it to increase his own fame...
I can say with confidence that they would not have released these articles otherwise, simply because they didn't.
It took this incident to force their hand. They had to be shamed into releasing what should've been made freely available to the public. Yes, they are still the villain here.
Wow! The apologists are so desperate as to try to claim the public domain issue as part of their opposition? You're a little late to the party with this, but it will certainly inspire some guffaws on the Hill.
This is simply the final chapter in death throes of the piracy apologists. First was due process which was killed off by Floyd Abrams nicely at the House IP subcommittee hearing.
Next was free speech which was the centerpiece of Google's initial objections, since undone by it's spokesman at Net Coalition.
Then there was the "break the internet" parade of horribles, ignoring that those for whom the internet may be broken are ones who are seeking to circumvent enforcement for their own nefarious purpose.
Then the payment processors were trotted out to claim that restrictions on them would be an unbearable burden. But Mastercard broke ranks and came out in favor of the bill, leaving the others exposed as the greedy liars that they are.
After this letter is laughed out of town, about the only thing you will have left is to claim that the Protect IP Act somehow protects terrorists. I can hardly wait for that letter.
Re: Re: You call grifters "entrepreneurs", is all.
"The bill is supposed to target "rogue sites," and no others. Not a single signatory's company should ever be considered a "rogue site," yet they're the ones who will be most affected."
In all fairness PROTECT IP will target only "rogue" sites.
IMHO the problem lies more in the **AA's definition of "rogue" sites: any site that does not funnel money directly to the **AA.
I think this part is key to answering your question:
Swatch claimed copyright on the call. Why? Because they also recorded it (via a partner company), and since that recording was "fixed," they could claim that it was covered by copyright, and then sued Bloomberg.
I'm not sure what is meant by "fixed", but it appears that one recording is "fixed", the other isn't, and that's what makes one copyrightable(?) over the other.
On the post: JSTOR Freely Releases Public Domain Papers That Greg Maxwell Already Freed
Re: Now that is free, freetards no longer want it.
Blind assumption. My take is that Rabbit80 is proud of doing the public a service: making public domain materials to the the public.
Now that JSTOR is doing the right thing (like they should have years ago), he no longer needs to. But that doesn't fit neatly into your "pirate conspiracy theory" now, does it?
I can say with confidence that they would not have released these articles otherwise, simply because they didn't.
It took this incident to force their hand. They had to be shamed into releasing what should've been made freely available to the public. Yes, they are still the villain here.
On the post: That Anonymous Coward's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
On the post: The Washington Declaration On Intellectual Property And The Public Interest... Which Politicians Will Ignore
*Taken almost verbatim from here.
Thought I'd give the shills a break since they work so hard copying their bullshit over and over.
On the post: If A Kid Grabs Your Camera In The Street And Snaps Some Photos, Who Owns The Copyright
Re: racist?
On the post: MPAA Mocks Entrepreneurs For Being Concerned About MPAA's Efforts To Stifle Innovation
Re: Re: You call grifters "entrepreneurs", is all.
In all fairness PROTECT IP will target only "rogue" sites.
IMHO the problem lies more in the **AA's definition of "rogue" sites: any site that does not funnel money directly to the **AA.
On the post: Wasn't The PATRIOT Act Supposed To Be About Stopping Terrorism?
Re: Re: Re:
Over 9000
On the post: Top Entrepreneurs Warn Congress: PROTECT IP Will Stifle Innovation & Hurt Job Growth
Re: Re:
Thanks for proving my point.
On the post: Top Entrepreneurs Warn Congress: PROTECT IP Will Stifle Innovation & Hurt Job Growth
Desperation is an ugly thing.
On the post: Wasn't The PATRIOT Act Supposed To Be About Stopping Terrorism?
Re: The patriot act...
And that's exactly (and only) what it has been used for.
/sarc
On the post: Wasn't The PATRIOT Act Supposed To Be About Stopping Terrorism?
C'mon ACs (you know which ACs I'm talking about), help me out.
I need you to tell me again how it will have no unintended consequences for the rest of the internet.
Please tell me it won't break the internet.
Not all at once now...
On the post: Father: Why Isn't Facebook Keeping My Kid Off Its Site?
Re: Re:
On the post: Father: Why Isn't Facebook Keeping My Kid Off Its Site?
Re:
It's not that hard...
On the post: Double Bogus DMCA Takedown All The Way!
Re: simply pitiful...
Yep, just your ordinary, run-of-the-mill copyright maximalist shilltard.
Did you do the description from memory, or did you cheat and look in the mirror first?
On the post: Double Bogus DMCA Takedown All The Way!
Re: Willful ignorance
On the post: Puerto 80 Responds Forcefully To DOJ's Claims Concerning Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re:
U mad?
On the post: Forget Wiretapping Laws, Now You Might Be Able To Use Copyright Law To Stop Anyone From Recording You Ever
Re: Re:
On the post: Forget Wiretapping Laws, Now You Might Be Able To Use Copyright Law To Stop Anyone From Recording You Ever
Re:
I'm not sure what is meant by "fixed", but it appears that one recording is "fixed", the other isn't, and that's what makes one copyrightable(?) over the other.
On the post: Europe's Copyright Strategy: Have Europeans Send As Much Money As Possible To US Companies
Re: Re: Re:
By my count you got 8 direct responses and 2 indirect (not counting this one, of course) with minimal effort!
On the post: Congress Moves Forward With Useless Patent Reform That Won't Fix Any Real Problems
Re: Appearance Over Substance
On the post: Congress Moves Forward With Useless Patent Reform That Won't Fix Any Real Problems
Re:
If so, then I agree.
Next >>