I didn't mean to be so harsh, but I suspected you have a mild form of mental retardation and I feel I have to be completely blunt with you or you'll misunderstand. Apparently, that theory is not valid, as you, again, missed my point. Trying to be even blunter would look a lot like trolling, so I'm going to have to switch tactics.
My point was: I don't think you actually read and comprehend the posts. Either from a poor grasp of the english language, or laziness, you seem to see a few words, perhaps in the title, and then go off in a rant that no one can follow, using random words in all caps and excessive punctuation. (Seriously, one question mark is plenty)
My new theory is that you aren't mentally retarded, you're 12 years old. That actually fits quite nicely with your writing style, reading comprehension and general demeanor.
If you *do* get a blog, feel free to drop a link. :)
Joe, if you doodle your favorite horse sex toy, you can move it to the public domain if you want to not be part of copyright. That is up to you.
I understand this. Along the same lines, you don't seem to have adequately grasped my point, or the point of the OP. If you would like, I can try to explain it in more detail, but I would suggest re-reading it first. You can do it!
If you want to opt out of copyright you can.
No. You. Can't. I'm growing tired of this lie. Since *everything* is automatically under copyright, I can't view videos of my neice on youtube, because my brother doesn't know it's copyrighted, and doesn't care. This is the system *your* employer created. When it became opt-out instead of opt-in, the death warrant for copyright (or, at least, common respect for copyright) was signed. Since it is nearly impossible not to live a modern life without infringing on copyrights, no one takes copyrights seriously. Indeed, the average person doesn't even realize that they *are* infringing when they watch an unauthorized clip of the Simpsons on youtube. Also, the more ridiculous the rules, the terms, and the license requirements become, the less and less the average person will care.
I just know that most people here still want to benefit from the products of copyright holders, still want the movies, the music, and all that comes with it. But they don't want to accept their side of the deal to get it.
Most people want what they want, when they want, how they want, for a price they feel is fair. They don't care about copyrights. They have $20, and they want to give it to someone to watch a movie on their phone in an airport. If no one is there to take the $20, but someone offers it for free, then that's your employer's fault, not theirs.
I'd like to point out that I used to pirate exclusively. However, I now have a Mog subscription, a Netflix one and a Hulu one. I recently canceled my Gamefly account, but for months I had that too. I don't hate the content, I don't hate the content creators. I hate the useless, wasteful, clueless middlemen. I don't need them, I don't want them, I refuse to pay for them. However, *because* of said middlemen, I'm probably going to cancel my Netflix and Hulu accounts, because they keep making it suck more. For no good reason. My safety net is copyright infringement. I can *always* fall back on it, but I don't want to. I will get the content either way, the only variable is who, if anyone, will get paid for it.
Your employers are their own worst enemy, and wielding copyright as a weapon will be their undoing.
His argument becomes even more ridiculous when you realize that, because of the lobbying efforts of his employers, when I doodle a cartoon of a horse having sex with him, it is automatically under copyright. It is literally impossible to drive down the highway without being exposed to copyrighted material. He's asking you to do something that is literally impossible, but he thinks it strengthens his argument, when in fact it undermines it.
The only way you could realistically get this to happen would be for a general backlash where juries (and this must be nearly universal) simply nullify the law by finding defendants not guilty of copyright infringement.
It's probably more like 1 out of every 12 people, which is a far cry from "universal". There's hope yet.
I think you've missed the point of the post. It's not that CBS is legally wrong here, although I always thought a copyright had to be for a specific expression, but what do I know. The point is that it makes no sense to block a free app that might infringe on their copyrights. We're not talking trademarks here-- they didn't have to take it down. They wanted to. This guy is such a fan that he did all the work for *free*. Instead, they've gone out of their way to alienate at least one fan, and potentially many more, for no better reason than they can. That is the point.
When someone watches a pirated DVD, do you think they are going to run out and buy a copy of it after watching? Not likely, right? Do you think they are going to run out to the theater to go see it? Not likely. Are they going to pay for it on PPV as a result? Not likely.
Maybe not. (definitely not for PPV, that's a rip off!) However, how many people go on to buy *other* movies/shows? How many stories have you heard like: "so-and-so lent me their Battlestar Galactica Season 1 DVD, and I bought every other season after that, and had to go buy the first season so my collection would be complete." This sort of thing happens, but is completely ignored. You also ignore the fact that people will take something that is free even though they wouldn't buy it for $1. So, not every instance of copyright infringement, no matter the ripples, can be equated to "lost potential sales". The whole argument is a house of cards.
Whatever positive that the supporters of piracy point out, it is equally easy to point out the losses. It's net negative for the content production industries. Maybe a positive in other areas they are not part of, but certainly not helping the content producers.
I feel I've responded to this above.
Pirates don't pay for cable, they don't pay for theater tickets, they don't buy PPV movies, they don't buy DVDs.
Are you really going to make me find the links to the studies that show *the exact opposite*? Just do a search on the TechDirt search for "underserved customers" or "spend more". You'll find it. I believe in you.
No sense of ownership, no sense of value, no need to worry. If it gets lost in the shuffle, too bad.
You describe a nightmareish hellscape where everyone has access to their culture regardless of their financial situation-- and frankly, I'm terrified. /s
You're falling into the same trap I did with some of my assumptions above. (Even though it lead to the same result: these numbers are ridiculous!)
The MPAA didn't say anything about number of downloads *or* number of DVDs; They said piracy resulted in a "loss" of 58 Billion. Other people are then using those numbers to (maybe a little hyperbolicially) show "real world" examples of how ridiculous these numbers are.
It's funny that you point out the "ripples" that can be involved with downloading (you're correct that DVDs probably get burned for friends/family) but you ignore the positive ripples that are just as likely.
So, I leave you with this: To make an assumption on numbers like that is to create an incredibly huge strawman, and to ignore the realities of the real world.
It worries me that he doesn't even feel the need to use such double speak as "for the children" or "fight against terrorism" when he says this statement.
Side note: You need a new buzz word. I find it very difficult to keep reading your comments once I hit that word. It would be easier if you knew what that acronym meant, or if you didn't obviously have such an ax to grind for anything posted on this site, ever.
I'm only bothering to type this at all because if you could sound less like a frothing douche canoe (while keeping your own viewpoints, of course!) you'd be a valuable member of the community here; You seem intelligent and knowledgeable.
You're actually right. So as to not bias the number too much, let's lop off 50 DVDs right from the top. So, instead of turning to copyright infringement, these people would be buying only 150 new DVDs. While we're at it, I'm not sure I agree with the $10/DVD price point- let's bump it to $20/DVD instead. So, instead of 150 DVDs these people should be buying, they're only buying 75.
That's a DVD every 5 days (roughly)
Even when we drastically reduce the number, it's still nonsensical. One day, when you're no longer paid to type this crap, you're going to look back and wonder how you managed to type it without a resulting nosebleed.
Your complaints all hinge on speculation. If you believe someone is innocent until proven guilty then your argument falls apart pretty quickly. Of course it seems bad if you assume that he's already guilty. That's why we don't.
The unresolved issue is whether Google is prevented by copyright or other law from providing Jason’s take down notice to Chilling Effects
How is that "unresolved"? The "this form letter is copyrighted" scam already failed. The DMCA doesn't state that it is forbidden, so it is allowed.
There, I resolved it for you. :)
The issue presented in my blog post is that Google refused to take down the allegedly infringing material unless Jason consented to the dissemination of his take down notice.
Google didn't refuse anything. Jason tried to add something to his DMCA taketown request, namely, that it not be shared and Google responded by saying that the only way it won't be shared, per their policy, is that if it isn't issued at all. They then gave him the opportunity to rescind the takedown request.
I can't see a refusal there at all. How can you? Are you suggesting that if Jason sent a takedown and amended it to say that Google can't ever throw it away, that when Google said "our policy is to throw it away when we're done, and they only way we're not going to throw it away is if you don't send it" that they were refusing the takedown request?
This seems like a scummy move by yet another scummy lawyer.
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Re: Re: not all law is contract law
My point was: I don't think you actually read and comprehend the posts. Either from a poor grasp of the english language, or laziness, you seem to see a few words, perhaps in the title, and then go off in a rant that no one can follow, using random words in all caps and excessive punctuation. (Seriously, one question mark is plenty)
My new theory is that you aren't mentally retarded, you're 12 years old. That actually fits quite nicely with your writing style, reading comprehension and general demeanor.
If you *do* get a blog, feel free to drop a link. :)
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Me and everybody else ..
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: not all law is contract law
Do you have a blog or a google plus profile? I'd like to figure it out.
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Me and everybody else ..
I understand this. Along the same lines, you don't seem to have adequately grasped my point, or the point of the OP. If you would like, I can try to explain it in more detail, but I would suggest re-reading it first. You can do it!
If you want to opt out of copyright you can.
No. You. Can't. I'm growing tired of this lie. Since *everything* is automatically under copyright, I can't view videos of my neice on youtube, because my brother doesn't know it's copyrighted, and doesn't care. This is the system *your* employer created. When it became opt-out instead of opt-in, the death warrant for copyright (or, at least, common respect for copyright) was signed. Since it is nearly impossible not to live a modern life without infringing on copyrights, no one takes copyrights seriously. Indeed, the average person doesn't even realize that they *are* infringing when they watch an unauthorized clip of the Simpsons on youtube. Also, the more ridiculous the rules, the terms, and the license requirements become, the less and less the average person will care.
I just know that most people here still want to benefit from the products of copyright holders, still want the movies, the music, and all that comes with it. But they don't want to accept their side of the deal to get it.
Most people want what they want, when they want, how they want, for a price they feel is fair. They don't care about copyrights. They have $20, and they want to give it to someone to watch a movie on their phone in an airport. If no one is there to take the $20, but someone offers it for free, then that's your employer's fault, not theirs.
I'd like to point out that I used to pirate exclusively. However, I now have a Mog subscription, a Netflix one and a Hulu one. I recently canceled my Gamefly account, but for months I had that too. I don't hate the content, I don't hate the content creators. I hate the useless, wasteful, clueless middlemen. I don't need them, I don't want them, I refuse to pay for them. However, *because* of said middlemen, I'm probably going to cancel my Netflix and Hulu accounts, because they keep making it suck more. For no good reason. My safety net is copyright infringement. I can *always* fall back on it, but I don't want to. I will get the content either way, the only variable is who, if anyone, will get paid for it.
Your employers are their own worst enemy, and wielding copyright as a weapon will be their undoing.
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Re: Re: Me and everybody else ..
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Me and everybody else ..
Now, why did our revolutionary war start, again?
On the post: Shouldn't Unilateral Retroactive Copyright Extension Mean Copyright Is Void?
Re: Jury nulification
It's probably more like 1 out of every 12 people, which is a far cry from "universal". There's hope yet.
On the post: Google Kills Tricorder Android App After CBS Sends A DMCA Takedown?
Re: o_O
I think you've missed the point of the post. It's not that CBS is legally wrong here, although I always thought a copyright had to be for a specific expression, but what do I know. The point is that it makes no sense to block a free app that might infringe on their copyrights. We're not talking trademarks here-- they didn't have to take it down. They wanted to. This guy is such a fan that he did all the work for *free*. Instead, they've gone out of their way to alienate at least one fan, and potentially many more, for no better reason than they can. That is the point.
On the post: Can Someone Block Google From Passing Along A DMCA To ChillingEffects?
Re:
On the post: MPAA's Bogus 'Piracy' Numbers Mean It Thinks Downloaders Would Buy 200 More DVDs Per Year
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe not. (definitely not for PPV, that's a rip off!) However, how many people go on to buy *other* movies/shows? How many stories have you heard like: "so-and-so lent me their Battlestar Galactica Season 1 DVD, and I bought every other season after that, and had to go buy the first season so my collection would be complete." This sort of thing happens, but is completely ignored. You also ignore the fact that people will take something that is free even though they wouldn't buy it for $1. So, not every instance of copyright infringement, no matter the ripples, can be equated to "lost potential sales". The whole argument is a house of cards.
Whatever positive that the supporters of piracy point out, it is equally easy to point out the losses. It's net negative for the content production industries. Maybe a positive in other areas they are not part of, but certainly not helping the content producers.
I feel I've responded to this above.
Pirates don't pay for cable, they don't pay for theater tickets, they don't buy PPV movies, they don't buy DVDs.
Are you really going to make me find the links to the studies that show *the exact opposite*? Just do a search on the TechDirt search for "underserved customers" or "spend more". You'll find it. I believe in you.
No sense of ownership, no sense of value, no need to worry. If it gets lost in the shuffle, too bad.
You describe a nightmareish hellscape where everyone has access to their culture regardless of their financial situation-- and frankly, I'm terrified. /s
On the post: Google Kills Tricorder Android App After CBS Sends A DMCA Takedown?
Re: Just to let everyone know...
I have the apk, now safely backed up.
On the post: MPAA's Bogus 'Piracy' Numbers Mean It Thinks Downloaders Would Buy 200 More DVDs Per Year
Re: Re: Re:
The MPAA didn't say anything about number of downloads *or* number of DVDs; They said piracy resulted in a "loss" of 58 Billion. Other people are then using those numbers to (maybe a little hyperbolicially) show "real world" examples of how ridiculous these numbers are.
It's funny that you point out the "ripples" that can be involved with downloading (you're correct that DVDs probably get burned for friends/family) but you ignore the positive ripples that are just as likely.
So, I leave you with this: To make an assumption on numbers like that is to create an incredibly huge strawman, and to ignore the realities of the real world.
On the post: France: Copyright Is More Important Than Human Rights
Troubling
Very troubling.
On the post: Is Destroying A Hard Drive On A Work Issued Computer The Equivalent Of Hacking Or Fraud?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Side note: You need a new buzz word. I find it very difficult to keep reading your comments once I hit that word. It would be easier if you knew what that acronym meant, or if you didn't obviously have such an ax to grind for anything posted on this site, ever.
I'm only bothering to type this at all because if you could sound less like a frothing douche canoe (while keeping your own viewpoints, of course!) you'd be a valuable member of the community here; You seem intelligent and knowledgeable.
So, try and work on that, okay?
On the post: MPAA's Bogus 'Piracy' Numbers Mean It Thinks Downloaders Would Buy 200 More DVDs Per Year
Re:
That's a DVD every 5 days (roughly)
Even when we drastically reduce the number, it's still nonsensical. One day, when you're no longer paid to type this crap, you're going to look back and wonder how you managed to type it without a resulting nosebleed.
On the post: Is Destroying A Hard Drive On A Work Issued Computer The Equivalent Of Hacking Or Fraud?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Destroying A Hard Drive On A Work Issued Computer The Equivalent Of Hacking Or Fraud?
Re: WHY did he put personal info on company's computer?
On the post: Is Destroying A Hard Drive On A Work Issued Computer The Equivalent Of Hacking Or Fraud?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Can Someone Block Google From Passing Along A DMCA To ChillingEffects?
Re: Photo Attorney Blog Post
How is that "unresolved"? The "this form letter is copyrighted" scam already failed. The DMCA doesn't state that it is forbidden, so it is allowed.
There, I resolved it for you. :)
The issue presented in my blog post is that Google refused to take down the allegedly infringing material unless Jason consented to the dissemination of his take down notice.
Google didn't refuse anything. Jason tried to add something to his DMCA taketown request, namely, that it not be shared and Google responded by saying that the only way it won't be shared, per their policy, is that if it isn't issued at all. They then gave him the opportunity to rescind the takedown request.
I can't see a refusal there at all. How can you? Are you suggesting that if Jason sent a takedown and amended it to say that Google can't ever throw it away, that when Google said "our policy is to throw it away when we're done, and they only way we're not going to throw it away is if you don't send it" that they were refusing the takedown request?
This seems like a scummy move by yet another scummy lawyer.
3/10
On the post: Man Facing 75 Years In Jail For Recording The Police; Illinois Assistant AG Says No Right To Record Police
Re:
Incorrect. The Police do not require your consent. Convenient, that.
Next >>