The lesson is this: If you fire on all approaching ships, don't be surprised if the only people who visit your island are flying under the Jolly Roger.
Re: Re: Pirates aren't necessary to success of these "islands".
Clarifying: "And no, consumers don't have any say in those decisions, except to NOT buy the products" -- AND HAVE NO RIGHT TO CONSUME THE PRODUCTS WITHOUT PAYING.
Yeah, just like consumers have no right to listen to the radio, or watch TV, or check out books from the library, or borrow CD's from a friend.
I agree that they don't have a right to pirate works, but "piracy" is not the same thing as "consumption without payment."
And, in fact, there's no way for copyright holders to know by looking at their balance sheets if people are pirating their works, or simply not paying for them.
Copyright exists to try and prevent YOUR immoral takings.
No, it absolutely does not.
In the words of Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, the Constitution grants Congress the power to promote "the broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts."
Copyright exists to make works available to the public. It has no other purpose. It does not, and has never, existed to prevent anyone's "immoral takings."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a simple way to resolve this...
However, state courts nevertheless went ahead and created systems of common law copyrights regardless.
Actually, even at the state level, copyright isn't based on common law. State copyright laws were not created by the courts, but by state legislators, and are based solely on state statutes.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a simple way to resolve this...
In common law countries, like the US, the common law is actual law
This is true, insofar as you mean civil law (criminal law must be based upon statutes).
But, I don't think OOTB knows what the hell "common law" actually means. It means law that is either recognized or created by the judiciary (depending upon who you ask), not the legislature, and is based upon prevailing social ethics, and basic principles of equity.
As I've explained to him before, Copyright is not, and was never, common law in the U.S. (Nor anywhere else in the world, to my knowledge.) It is wholly and completely a product of legislative statutes - both at the state and Federal level. On the Federal level, copyright arises solely from the Congressional power to "promote the progress of science."
You know what is based on common-law notions of equity? Fair use. Before the fair use doctrine was enshrined in the 1976 statutes, the courts long recognized that the rights of copyright holders could not be absolute:
From the infancy of copyright protection, some opportunity for fair use of copyrighted materials has been thought necessary to fulfill copyright's very purpose, "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...." [...]
Congress meant S.107 "to restate the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way" and intended that courts continue the common law tradition of fair use adjudication.
the only legit reasons I can think of for still writing in C is a) target system has less than 2MB of RAM or b) it fits in with other archaic corporate practices
That's not true. There are other reasons, such as more direct access to the hardware layer (drivers, embedded systems). Or when garbage collection causes problems, and you want to manage memory yourself (audio, games).
But, yeah, writing a slider in C is just asking for trouble.
Correction, Fox News pays less taxes by doing these nefarious (if legal)things. They do not get more of my taxes.
I get your point about the money not flowing from the government to Fox News. But the plain fact is that if Fox News paid the same taxes as you and I, it would pay for NPR's annual budget many times over, and NPR wouldn't be getting your tax money at all.
So, criticizing NPR for this seems a little weak.
What you said equates to saving $250 by buying a $500 dress for $250.
More like, retailers jack up the price from $250 to $500, to pay for the dresses that they give away to their rich friends.
Or more likely, to shake down companies for donations.
I agree that the whole PAC money thing is ridiculous. But that has nothing to do with tax codes, nor with either NPR or Fox News.
By this reasoning you contribute to every religion in the US
Believe me, I don't want to. If I had a choice, all religions would be taxed to the fullest extent of the law.
But, regardless, that's a distraction. The plain fact is that Fox News gets more of the taxpayers' money (in the form of tax breaks) than NPR does. So, criticizing NPR for taking money out of the taxpayers' pockets is misguided, to say the least.
Last I checked my wallet, I haven't "donated" a dime to Fox News.
Yes you have, in so far as Fox News consistently uses loopholes and shell companies to avoid paying any income tax. (See e.g. these articles from The Economist or the New York Times. You can dig up more if you try.)
In the meantime, NPR gets just 4.6% of its funding from state or local governments.
At no point has Steele previously indicated that there was another Alan Cooper, yet now he's trying to get out of this case by shrugging it off and saying it could be any Alan Cooper?
Personally, I think he has a point.
"Your Honor, I was not forging this Alan Cooper's name. It just happens to be a very nice name. It's the one I use to forge all my documents!"
Re: Re: Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
I know this thread is dead, but I just thought of one more point on the matter. After that I'll let it be.
I previously said this:
The purpose of copyright, however, is enshrined in the Constitution
But, thinking about it, this is not quite true either. The reason I thought about it was as a response to this:
The copyright clause simply tasks Congress and provides a rationale.
Promoting the progress is not "a rationale" for the power that Congress is granted. Neither is it really the "purpose" for granting that power.
Rather, promoting the progress is itself the power that is granted to Congress. The Constitution reads "Congress shall have the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." It does not read "In order to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, Congress shall have the power... (etc.)"
Were that the end of it, then Congress could promote the progress in any way it chose - whether through IP laws, or through the establishment of national arts acadamies, or through direct funding of artists, or whatever. But that is not the end of it, for the Constitution restricts the power granted to Congress, by explicitly defining the method by which that power can be exercised: "by securing for limited Times to Authors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings."
Re: Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
Actually Karl, the Constitution tasks Congress with that. Copyright itself is not enshrined in the Constitution.
The purpose of copyright, however, is enshrined in the Constitution:
It will be seen, therefore, that the spirit of any act which Congress is authorized to pass must be one which will promote the progress of science and the useful arts, and unless it is designed to accomplish this result and is believed, in fact, to accomplish this result, it would be beyond the power of Congress.
- House Report on the Copyright Act of 1909
It may seem unfair that much of the fruit of the compiler's labor may be used by others without compensation. As Justice Brennan has correctly observed, however, this is not "some unforeseen byproduct of a statutory scheme." It is, rather, "the essence of copyright," and a constitutional requirement. The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
- Feist v. Rural
That's why the cries of "unconstitutional" surrounding various enforcement actions or court decisions fall on deaf ears.
The Courts have traditionally allowed Congress a huge amount of leeway when they determine what does or does not "promote the Progress of Science" (here, meaning "learning" or "culture"). Far too much leeway, IMO, but there is a good reason for this. Congress is supposed to be the voice of the people. And copyright is supposed to be a voluntary contract between the public and authors: the public voluntarily gives up some of its free speech and property rights, granting a monopoly on those rights to authors, in exchange for "broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts." (Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken.)
Thus, if the people (through Congress) decide what contract is fair, it is largely outside the scope of the Courts to intervene. But it is a fact that Congress is required to make this sort of determination, and in any challenge to copyright statutes, the Courts have determined whether they did. If they did (and they have thus far), then the Courts have a hands-off approach, even if that "determination" is questionable.
Simply put: to the degree (which you overstate) that "the cries of 'unconstitutional' [...] fall on deaf ears," it's primarily because the Courts trust the judgement of Congress. This is unfortunate, because when it comes to copyright law, almost no members of Congress are the "voice of the people." They are the voice of the highest donor, and corporate copyright interests have been throwing money at Congress for decades.
...But this is all a red herring. OOTB believes that all of us would turn on Mike, because he is "pro-copyright" for thinking that copyright must adhere to its Constitutional requirement. He is right that it makes Mike "pro-copyright," to some degree, but wrong that most people here ever thought any differently.
Mike simply believes that copyright must in fact benefit the public - as shown by empirical evidence, and not taken on faith or unproven theories, or from the biased beliefs of rights holders. That does not make him, or anyone who agrees with him, "anti-copyright." But OOTB can't accept that anyone who doesn't adhere to their own beliefs is anything other than "anti-copyright."
I'm just pointing out that he's wrong. Then again, he's always been obviously wrong, about pretty much everything, so maybe I shouldn't have bothered.
Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
If that's truly your opinion, then you have absolutely no right to bring up the "$200 million movie" argument ever again.
After all, the artists who work on a movie do not, and never did, hold the copyright on the work that they put into that movie. Their work is a "work for hire" under the Copyright Act.
Unless you somehow believe that movie studios are less of a "corporation" than Apple is?
I expect to see the anti-copyright crowd here revile Mike for his pro-copyright position.
The "crowd" here has largely been in agreement with Mike: that copyright must serve the sole purpose of promoting the public good, as is required by the Constitution.
So, no, "we" won't criticize Mike for his "pro-copyright position," since it's the same position that "we" have had all along.
It is people like you who are against copyright. Or at least against the form of copyright espoused by the Founders and codified in the Constitution.
At least according to Cowardly Joe, who will claim that Goldman's argument is that the ISP's are state actors, and that the laws are completely beyond Constitutional scrutiny if that argument is wrong.
Oh, good, Cowardly A.J. takes another swipe in the Techdirt comments. You know it's him, because:
1. He presents his opinions as absolutes, that nobody could possibly disagree with: "This stuff isn't hard..."
2. He does it in the most condescending way possible: "...Mikey."
As it happens, you're incorrect, yet again:
Do I have your authorization to DDOS techdirt.com, bringing down your website?
You're confusing "permission" with "authorization." For the purposes of 18 USC 1030, "authorization" means "authorized to access a computer," not "authorized by the owner of the computer."
There is no question whatsoever that, on an individual level, every request made by a DDoS is authorized under the CFAA.
The question is whether the sheer bulk of authorized accesses, possibly in combination with the intent of the accessor, turns authorized access into unauthorized access.
Mike said that this is an open question. I think it is probably not unauthorized under the CFAA, you probably think it is. But either way, you're wrong when you said "this stuff isn't hard."
On the post: How The Legacy Entertainment Industry Poisoned The Well For The Innovation It Desperately Needs
Pirate Island
On the post: How The Legacy Entertainment Industry Poisoned The Well For The Innovation It Desperately Needs
Re: Re: Pirates aren't necessary to success of these "islands".
Yeah, just like consumers have no right to listen to the radio, or watch TV, or check out books from the library, or borrow CD's from a friend.
I agree that they don't have a right to pirate works, but "piracy" is not the same thing as "consumption without payment."
And, in fact, there's no way for copyright holders to know by looking at their balance sheets if people are pirating their works, or simply not paying for them.
Copyright exists to try and prevent YOUR immoral takings.
No, it absolutely does not.
In the words of Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, the Constitution grants Congress the power to promote "the broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts."
Copyright exists to make works available to the public. It has no other purpose. It does not, and has never, existed to prevent anyone's "immoral takings."
On the post: Wikipedia Fights Back Against Socking
Re: Socking?
"Socking" sounds dirtier, and vaguely masturbatory, and is therefore more appropriate.
On the post: Labels Use Questionable Ruling On Pre-1972 Recordings To Sue United Airlines For Streaming In Flight Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a simple way to resolve this...
Actually, even at the state level, copyright isn't based on common law. State copyright laws were not created by the courts, but by state legislators, and are based solely on state statutes.
On the post: Important Survey On Fair Use Practices And Understanding
Re: Second-handers.
Copyright is not based on common law.
Fair use, on the other hand, is based on common law.
It's amazing how completely wrong you are about everything.
On the post: Labels Use Questionable Ruling On Pre-1972 Recordings To Sue United Airlines For Streaming In Flight Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a simple way to resolve this...
This is true, insofar as you mean civil law (criminal law must be based upon statutes).
But, I don't think OOTB knows what the hell "common law" actually means. It means law that is either recognized or created by the judiciary (depending upon who you ask), not the legislature, and is based upon prevailing social ethics, and basic principles of equity.
As I've explained to him before, Copyright is not, and was never, common law in the U.S. (Nor anywhere else in the world, to my knowledge.) It is wholly and completely a product of legislative statutes - both at the state and Federal level. On the Federal level, copyright arises solely from the Congressional power to "promote the progress of science."
You know what is based on common-law notions of equity? Fair use. Before the fair use doctrine was enshrined in the 1976 statutes, the courts long recognized that the rights of copyright holders could not be absolute:
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose
Yes, that's right. The people who OOTB called "hacks who steal all they can get away with" actually have a common-law right to their actions, and copyright holders do not.
OOTB isn't just wrong, he is the exact opposite of right.
On the post: Gov't Contractor Uses Copyright, Fear Of Hackers To Get Restraining Order Against Open Source Developer
Re: Re:
That's not true. There are other reasons, such as more direct access to the hardware layer (drivers, embedded systems). Or when garbage collection causes problems, and you want to manage memory yourself (audio, games).
But, yeah, writing a slider in C is just asking for trouble.
On the post: Fox News Engaged In Institutionalized Astroturfing Of The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Following the Money
I get your point about the money not flowing from the government to Fox News. But the plain fact is that if Fox News paid the same taxes as you and I, it would pay for NPR's annual budget many times over, and NPR wouldn't be getting your tax money at all.
So, criticizing NPR for this seems a little weak.
What you said equates to saving $250 by buying a $500 dress for $250.
More like, retailers jack up the price from $250 to $500, to pay for the dresses that they give away to their rich friends.
Or more likely, to shake down companies for donations.
I agree that the whole PAC money thing is ridiculous. But that has nothing to do with tax codes, nor with either NPR or Fox News.
On the post: Fox News Engaged In Institutionalized Astroturfing Of The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Not Following the Money
Believe me, I don't want to. If I had a choice, all religions would be taxed to the fullest extent of the law.
But, regardless, that's a distraction. The plain fact is that Fox News gets more of the taxpayers' money (in the form of tax breaks) than NPR does. So, criticizing NPR for taking money out of the taxpayers' pockets is misguided, to say the least.
On the post: Fox News Engaged In Institutionalized Astroturfing Of The Internet
Re: Not Following the Money
Yes you have, in so far as Fox News consistently uses loopholes and shell companies to avoid paying any income tax. (See e.g. these articles from The Economist or the New York Times. You can dig up more if you try.)
In the meantime, NPR gets just 4.6% of its funding from state or local governments.
So, yeah, you're "donating" more to Fox News.
On the post: John Steele Tries To Get Out Of Alan Cooper's Lawsuit By Arguing That The Use Of 'Alan Cooper' Was 'Coincidental'
He has a point, actually
Personally, I think he has a point.
"Your Honor, I was not forging this Alan Cooper's name. It just happens to be a very nice name. It's the one I use to forge all my documents!"
Totally believable.
On the post: EFF's Parker Higgins' Favorite Techdirt Stories Of The Week
Re:
On the post: Lobbyists Looking To Call Themselves Something Else: Here Are A Few Suggestions
Re: how about
Actually, around here, "Anonymous Coward" works more.
And I do mean "works" in the sense of "employed."
On the post: Apple Makes Questionable Copyright Claim To Pull Down iTunes Contract
Re: Re: Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
I previously said this:
The purpose of copyright, however, is enshrined in the Constitution
But, thinking about it, this is not quite true either. The reason I thought about it was as a response to this:
The copyright clause simply tasks Congress and provides a rationale.
Promoting the progress is not "a rationale" for the power that Congress is granted. Neither is it really the "purpose" for granting that power.
Rather, promoting the progress is itself the power that is granted to Congress. The Constitution reads "Congress shall have the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." It does not read "In order to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, Congress shall have the power... (etc.)"
Were that the end of it, then Congress could promote the progress in any way it chose - whether through IP laws, or through the establishment of national arts acadamies, or through direct funding of artists, or whatever. But that is not the end of it, for the Constitution restricts the power granted to Congress, by explicitly defining the method by which that power can be exercised: "by securing for limited Times to Authors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings."
On the post: Apple Makes Questionable Copyright Claim To Pull Down iTunes Contract
Re: Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
The purpose of copyright, however, is enshrined in the Constitution:
- House Report on the Copyright Act of 1909
- Feist v. Rural
That's why the cries of "unconstitutional" surrounding various enforcement actions or court decisions fall on deaf ears.
The Courts have traditionally allowed Congress a huge amount of leeway when they determine what does or does not "promote the Progress of Science" (here, meaning "learning" or "culture"). Far too much leeway, IMO, but there is a good reason for this. Congress is supposed to be the voice of the people. And copyright is supposed to be a voluntary contract between the public and authors: the public voluntarily gives up some of its free speech and property rights, granting a monopoly on those rights to authors, in exchange for "broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts." (Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken.)
Thus, if the people (through Congress) decide what contract is fair, it is largely outside the scope of the Courts to intervene. But it is a fact that Congress is required to make this sort of determination, and in any challenge to copyright statutes, the Courts have determined whether they did. If they did (and they have thus far), then the Courts have a hands-off approach, even if that "determination" is questionable.
Simply put: to the degree (which you overstate) that "the cries of 'unconstitutional' [...] fall on deaf ears," it's primarily because the Courts trust the judgement of Congress. This is unfortunate, because when it comes to copyright law, almost no members of Congress are the "voice of the people." They are the voice of the highest donor, and corporate copyright interests have been throwing money at Congress for decades.
...But this is all a red herring. OOTB believes that all of us would turn on Mike, because he is "pro-copyright" for thinking that copyright must adhere to its Constitutional requirement. He is right that it makes Mike "pro-copyright," to some degree, but wrong that most people here ever thought any differently.
Mike simply believes that copyright must in fact benefit the public - as shown by empirical evidence, and not taken on faith or unproven theories, or from the biased beliefs of rights holders. That does not make him, or anyone who agrees with him, "anti-copyright." But OOTB can't accept that anyone who doesn't adhere to their own beliefs is anything other than "anti-copyright."
I'm just pointing out that he's wrong. Then again, he's always been obviously wrong, about pretty much everything, so maybe I shouldn't have bothered.
On the post: Apple Makes Questionable Copyright Claim To Pull Down iTunes Contract
Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
If that's truly your opinion, then you have absolutely no right to bring up the "$200 million movie" argument ever again.
After all, the artists who work on a movie do not, and never did, hold the copyright on the work that they put into that movie. Their work is a "work for hire" under the Copyright Act.
Unless you somehow believe that movie studios are less of a "corporation" than Apple is?
I expect to see the anti-copyright crowd here revile Mike for his pro-copyright position.
The "crowd" here has largely been in agreement with Mike: that copyright must serve the sole purpose of promoting the public good, as is required by the Constitution.
So, no, "we" won't criticize Mike for his "pro-copyright position," since it's the same position that "we" have had all along.
It is people like you who are against copyright. Or at least against the form of copyright espoused by the Founders and codified in the Constitution.
On the post: Justin Amash: Mike Rogers Isn't Overseeing The Intelligence Community, He's Conspiring To Cover Up Its Activities
Re: Re: Re:
Say, if you have an "in" with these guys, can you ask them to jump straight to version 2.0?
That way, we can get the cyborgs that look like Angelina Jolie.
On the post: Every Time A State Tries To 'Protect The Children' Online, It Makes Things Worse
No First Amendment issues here
On the post: Anonymous Indictment Raises Serious Question: Is It Really A CFAA Violation To DDoS A Website?
Re:
1. He presents his opinions as absolutes, that nobody could possibly disagree with: "This stuff isn't hard..."
2. He does it in the most condescending way possible: "...Mikey."
As it happens, you're incorrect, yet again:
Do I have your authorization to DDOS techdirt.com, bringing down your website?
You're confusing "permission" with "authorization." For the purposes of 18 USC 1030, "authorization" means "authorized to access a computer," not "authorized by the owner of the computer."
There is no question whatsoever that, on an individual level, every request made by a DDoS is authorized under the CFAA.
The question is whether the sheer bulk of authorized accesses, possibly in combination with the intent of the accessor, turns authorized access into unauthorized access.
Mike said that this is an open question. I think it is probably not unauthorized under the CFAA, you probably think it is. But either way, you're wrong when you said "this stuff isn't hard."
On the post: Comcast's CEO: As Long As I Keep Saying Aereo Is Illegal, Sooner Or Later Someone Will Believe Me, Right?
Re:
Yeah, he "pretends like they didn't happen" so much, that he wrote a story about it:
As Expected, TV Networks Win Copyright Ruling Against Alki David's Name-Changing TV Streaming Service
Next >>