He has answered. Many times. You've even acknowledged his answer: he, personally, believes it's unethical because it goes against the wishes of artists.
He said "piracy is not OK" because it goes against artists' wishes. He refuses to directly answer the question of whether he thinks it's immoral. I've explained before all of the qualifications he places on that statement (such as the fact that he doesn't think artists should worry about it)--so many that I don't see how he could think it's immoral. He admits that some people don't like it, which is just the admission of a fact. That's a separate issue from whether he thinks it's immoral.
And you haven't explained how even though he has explicitly said, "There is no moral issue at all," you still think that he thinks it's immoral. I don't buy it. Those two statements are irreconcilable, and I think the most obvious answer is that he in fact does not think piracy is immoral. He doesn't want to have to admit this explicitly, so he's avoiding the question like the plague. He avoids any and all direct discussion about his personal beliefs, from what I can tell.
So, are you finally going to say why your viewpoint is ethical, or not?
Really? I gave a lengthy (several paragraphs) explanation of the basis of my personal beliefs and why I think the moral issue tracks the legal issue. I think for the most part the two are coextensive, as I explained above.
I'm insulting BECAUSE Mike has proven and continues to prove that he has no place in his life for an honest and direct discussion of issues that are obviously very important to him. What's he hiding? (Rhetorical question. It's obvious.) Don't confuse the symptom with the cause. If Mike were forthcoming and engaging on the issues, I wouldn't feel the need to constantly remind people that he's not.
Why do you think it is that Mike won't have an honest and open discussion about his beliefs? To me, that's proof that he's insecure and/or manipulative. Funny how he's so critical of everyone and everything--except himself. Whenever he's ready to stop making excuses and to start having direct and honest discussions, I'll be here. Until then, I'll have my fun pointing out his hypocrisy.
Really? You haven't explained anything. Please explain how the specific critiques in the paper are incorrect. Just saying, "they're biased!" doesn't say anything.
The harm to society is the infringement on a massive scale. These lawsuits are an attempt to right a wrong where the deck is stacked against the victims. It'll be interesting to see how Howell's ruling stands on appeal.
Re: Nice show (of lack of logical reasoning ability)
I understand full well. When an old judge gets it "wrong," Mike impugns the judge's age. But when an old judge gets it "right," age is not even mentioned. I'm simply pointing out how he plays the game.
This judge even made the mistake of thinking the "useful arts" part of the IP Clause refers to copyrights. Just imagine the reaming that would have brought had this been Judge Howell making that mistake.
Also, making what appear to be legitimate observations means nothing. I can make legitimate observations about the state of copyright and patents. But were I to do so, and as has happened and proof can be readily presented, I'll be called a pirate and labeled a thief and whatnot by people like Average_Joe. For making legitimate observations.
You should hear the things I'm called for merely making legitimate observations.
Amusingly enough, someone has already pointed out that the one study that shoots down other studies, by sheer mindblowing non-coincidence, is one that happens to be funded by the MPAA. Because we know how accurate their "studies" are. Which are the reasons other studies are conducted, basically to shoot down theirs. Now we have one of theirs "shooting down" the research conducted by other studies. Even more amusing is that they have the gall to examine the "analytical methods employed" by other studies, when it's been shown repeatedly that they refuse to even allow others access to how they "compute" their findings much less what formulas they use to determine how bad piracy is and all that jazz.
So you haven't read it and you can't address its substance. Got it. You assume that since some other study was questionable, then this one must be too. That's called working backwards. Did you learn that from Mike? He's the guru of that discipline.
Don't hold your breath. They work backwards just like Mike. If it says piracy is good, it's gospel truth handed down by God. If it says piracy is bad, it's completely debunked nonsense that's completely devoid of substance.
"So... back down at the district court, with a different judge, who doesn't seem nearly as sympathetic. Given that the judge is 80-years-old, it's perhaps not a surprise that she seemed to spend more time talking about what a naughty kid Tenenbaum was, rather than the actual reasonableness of the rates."
Or do you only cast aspersion upon their age when you don't agree with their conclusion (i.e., you work backwards)?
Its conclusion seems to cut across the grain of "benign-ity".
Who let you in here? Did you not get your Kool-Aid at the door? You're not supposed to question the man behind the curtain. Just agree with everything he says and there won't be any trouble. Got it?
Nowhere in this article did Mike make any statement of his beliefs about Kim Dotcom's guilt or innocence (or make any statement about him at all).
You sure you're reading the same article? I'll even quote it:
"And each time these mishaps come to light, it just raises more and more questions about whether or not law enforcement really had any legitimate evidence or reasons to do what they did."
He explicitly questions whether they "really had any legitimate evidence." Of course, he must have completely "forgotten" about the evidence presented in the superseding indictment that's got nothing to do with this story. But Mike tends to "forget" the inconvenient parts when it suits him. Why let anything get in the way of a good anti-government/pirate-apologist rant, right?
They got all the evidence they needed from the servers in the U.S., no? That's got nothing to do with this. This is just Mike gloating in every little perceived misstep in Dotcom's prosecution while ignoring all the horrible things that Dotcom did. Dotcom gets a free pass while the prosecution gets put under the microscope. None of this erases the crimes or the evidence that was presented in the indictment. How many stories has Mike run now where he questions the legitimacy of the prosecution and where he spreads FUD all over it? He couldn't be a more blatant pirate-apologist if he tried. This is textbook apologism.
I don't have to show it to you since all you will do is ignore it (just like this comment), and continue to believe that's no better option for me out there.
That's not true at all. If free were so obviously better, authors would be going with the free business model in droves. As it is, they are relying for the most part on copyright for their business models. When you win the hearts, minds, and wallets with free, we'll all know it. That hasn't happened yet.
As it is though, you guys are all pretending like free has won the debate. That's just not so, and the proof is that authors are still using the copyright model (Gasp!). It's true that "the stability provided by the UK's robust and flexible copyright framework" is providing us with new and better works. That there is piracy does not disprove that.
Arguing that free wins because some people pirate copyrighted works doesn't hold much water. If you want free to win, that's fine. But let's see free to win legitimately and fairly. Let's see works provided for by the free model compete and beat works provided for by the copyright model. We don't have that yet. Copyright is still the dominant business model.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He said "piracy is not OK" because it goes against artists' wishes. He refuses to directly answer the question of whether he thinks it's immoral. I've explained before all of the qualifications he places on that statement (such as the fact that he doesn't think artists should worry about it)--so many that I don't see how he could think it's immoral. He admits that some people don't like it, which is just the admission of a fact. That's a separate issue from whether he thinks it's immoral.
And you haven't explained how even though he has explicitly said, "There is no moral issue at all," you still think that he thinks it's immoral. I don't buy it. Those two statements are irreconcilable, and I think the most obvious answer is that he in fact does not think piracy is immoral. He doesn't want to have to admit this explicitly, so he's avoiding the question like the plague. He avoids any and all direct discussion about his personal beliefs, from what I can tell.
So, are you finally going to say why your viewpoint is ethical, or not?
Really? I gave a lengthy (several paragraphs) explanation of the basis of my personal beliefs and why I think the moral issue tracks the legal issue. I think for the most part the two are coextensive, as I explained above.
On the post: Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Another Judge Blasts Copyright Trolls
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Another Judge Blasts Copyright Trolls
Re: Nice show (of lack of logical reasoning ability)
On the post: Another Judge Blasts Copyright Trolls
Re:
On the post: Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You should hear the things I'm called for merely making legitimate observations.
On the post: Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist
Re: Can we get "kool-aid" trigger the comment spam-filter ? We're being flooded here!
On the post: Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist
Re: Re: Re:
So you haven't read it and you can't address its substance. Got it. You assume that since some other study was questionable, then this one must be too. That's called working backwards. Did you learn that from Mike? He's the guru of that discipline.
On the post: Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Another Judge Blasts Copyright Trolls
"So... back down at the district court, with a different judge, who doesn't seem nearly as sympathetic. Given that the judge is 80-years-old, it's perhaps not a surprise that she seemed to spend more time talking about what a naughty kid Tenenbaum was, rather than the actual reasonableness of the rates."
Or do you only cast aspersion upon their age when you don't agree with their conclusion (i.e., you work backwards)?
On the post: Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist
Re: Re:
Nuff said.
In other words, you can't refute any of it on the merits. Convincing.
On the post: Switzerland Questions Crazy Hollywood Claims About File Sharing... Ends Up On Congressional Watchlist
Re:
The below paper examines several such studies and the analytical methods employed:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2132153
Its conclusion seems to cut across the grain of "benign-ity".
Who let you in here? Did you not get your Kool-Aid at the door? You're not supposed to question the man behind the curtain. Just agree with everything he says and there won't be any trouble. Got it?
On the post: NZ Prime Minister Admits That The Government Illegally Wiretapped Megaupload Employees
Re: Re:
You sure you're reading the same article? I'll even quote it:
"And each time these mishaps come to light, it just raises more and more questions about whether or not law enforcement really had any legitimate evidence or reasons to do what they did."
He explicitly questions whether they "really had any legitimate evidence." Of course, he must have completely "forgotten" about the evidence presented in the superseding indictment that's got nothing to do with this story. But Mike tends to "forget" the inconvenient parts when it suits him. Why let anything get in the way of a good anti-government/pirate-apologist rant, right?
On the post: NZ Prime Minister Admits That The Government Illegally Wiretapped Megaupload Employees
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: NZ Prime Minister Admits That The Government Illegally Wiretapped Megaupload Employees
Re: Re:
You're right. My bad. Lord High Pirate-Apologist. I'll get it right next time.
On the post: NZ Prime Minister Admits That The Government Illegally Wiretapped Megaupload Employees
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Publishers Can't Seem To Celebrate The Ebook Boom Without Slipping In Odes To Copyright
Re: Re: Re:
That's not true at all. If free were so obviously better, authors would be going with the free business model in droves. As it is, they are relying for the most part on copyright for their business models. When you win the hearts, minds, and wallets with free, we'll all know it. That hasn't happened yet.
As it is though, you guys are all pretending like free has won the debate. That's just not so, and the proof is that authors are still using the copyright model (Gasp!). It's true that "the stability provided by the UK's robust and flexible copyright framework" is providing us with new and better works. That there is piracy does not disprove that.
Arguing that free wins because some people pirate copyrighted works doesn't hold much water. If you want free to win, that's fine. But let's see free to win legitimately and fairly. Let's see works provided for by the free model compete and beat works provided for by the copyright model. We don't have that yet. Copyright is still the dominant business model.
Next >>