Wrong. Mike doesn't want anyone to control his content. Someone else (namely, Gregory Evans) wants control of Mike's work. This situation only exists BECAUSE OF BAD COPYRIGHT LAWS.
"Dictating that it's free to everyone is still 'control'."
Again, without poor copyright laws this situation wouldn't even exist. Gregory Evans could not make a copyright claim without these poor laws.
Without copyright in its current form, it becomes an issue of plagiarism (dealt with by society, specifically the authors' (both of them) peers.
"Making it free is a wonderful notion, but what is going to protect his right to make it happen the way he wants it to?
Nothing.
Except copyright."
As noted above, plagiarism protects his work (in the absence of copyright).
"Anyone that can't understand this simple concept will just look like a fool when they claim Mike should have more control over what happens to his content than artists do."
Once again, Mike has not claimed that he should have control over his works.
If copyright didn't exist (or was much weaker and more reasonable than its current incarnation) Mike's work could remain free, without anyone else claiming the copyright.
...you can find the lazy and worthless employees in any job.
But the guy in a cubicle doesn't have the backing of the government to detain me, threaten me with loss of income and freedom, blemish my future reputation, and so forth like the guy with the badge does.
Mike, I understand that the law puts the burden on the copyright holder.
No, you don't. You prove it here:
But once the copyright holder says "this file, and all duplicate copies of it are infringing", the site should be aware, and take action to avoid having that same file appear again. Scanning for the file name, a duplicate file, or using pattern matching / fingerprint style software could make sure that the site in question isn't in violation in the future.
So EMI should notify the site the first time only? After that, the site should pay for further monitoring?
No. No. No. EMI should have to enforce their own copyright. PERIOD.
The only one "slithering" here is EMI trying to wriggle out of enforcing their own shit. But I wouldn't expect a shill to admit to that; you wouldn't be doing your job if you did.
On the post: More People Waking Up To The Troubling Implications Of The Gov't Taking $500 Million From Google
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Would We Have Art Without Copyright Law?
Re: Re:
Thanks for playing, would you like another try?
On the post: You Can Copy Our Articles All You Want... But Please Don't Claim The Copyright Belongs To You
Re: Re: Re:
Wrong. Mike doesn't want anyone to control his content. Someone else (namely, Gregory Evans) wants control of Mike's work. This situation only exists BECAUSE OF BAD COPYRIGHT LAWS.
"Dictating that it's free to everyone is still 'control'."
Again, without poor copyright laws this situation wouldn't even exist. Gregory Evans could not make a copyright claim without these poor laws.
Without copyright in its current form, it becomes an issue of plagiarism (dealt with by society, specifically the authors' (both of them) peers.
"Making it free is a wonderful notion, but what is going to protect his right to make it happen the way he wants it to?
Nothing.
Except copyright."
As noted above, plagiarism protects his work (in the absence of copyright).
"Anyone that can't understand this simple concept will just look like a fool when they claim Mike should have more control over what happens to his content than artists do."
Once again, Mike has not claimed that he should have control over his works.
If copyright didn't exist (or was much weaker and more reasonable than its current incarnation) Mike's work could remain free, without anyone else claiming the copyright.
On the post: US Copyright Group, Hurt Locker Producers Sue Dead Man & Others Unlikely To Have Infringed
Re:
On the post: Federal Court Invents A New Intellectual Property Right: The Money Makes It So Exclusive Right To Record
Re: Re:
On the post: Federal Court Invents A New Intellectual Property Right: The Money Makes It So Exclusive Right To Record
Re: Public has become the "Smurf" of the legal world
On the post: Appeals Court: Arresting Guy For Filming Cops Was A Clear Violation Of Both 1st & 4th Amendments
Re: Re: Re:
But the guy in a cubicle doesn't have the backing of the government to detain me, threaten me with loss of income and freedom, blemish my future reputation, and so forth like the guy with the badge does.
On the post: Gamestop Discovers The Streisand Effect; Gives OnLive Tons Of Free Publicity In Trying To Take Away Coupons
Re:
;)
On the post: US Copyright Group, Hurt Locker Producers Sue Dead Man & Others Unlikely To Have Infringed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean, if you set up a TOR exit node, then you KNOW you are supporting infringement!
What do you have to hide?
On the post: US Copyright Group, Hurt Locker Producers Sue Dead Man & Others Unlikely To Have Infringed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gotta love shills.
On the post: Former Top Government Secrets Keeper Blasts Administration For Abusing Espionage Act To Punish Whistleblowers
Re: Re:
On the post: EA's Origin Service Wants To Exchange Games For Your Personal Data [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So don't pay or play! -- But I know you'll pirate it,
On the post: Dutch Communications Agency Cracks Down On Pirate Stations; Can Go From 'Warning' To 'Fine' In 30 Minutes
Re:
On the post: Dutch Communications Agency Cracks Down On Pirate Stations; Can Go From 'Warning' To 'Fine' In 30 Minutes
Re:
On the post: EMI Doesn't Pay Royalties, Or It Does, But To The Wrong People, Or It Doesn't, Or Maybe It Does...
Re: Re: So which one hurts worse...?
Except that if the artist is signed to a label, they can't legally take your check, because they don't own the copyright!
Besides that, why would anyone pay twice for the same music?
On the post: Don Henley Hatred Of YouTube Clouding His Vision On PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unofficial EFF response to Don Henley
Take a look at this list and tell me what you see.
Do you see a pattern? (Hint for the slow: Look at the 'Literary Source' column.)
On the post: Don Henley Hatred Of YouTube Clouding His Vision On PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!
On the post: Don Henley Hatred Of YouTube Clouding His Vision On PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow!
On the post: Guy Suing Google For $500 Billion, Now Suing Microsoft For The Same Amount
Re:
On the post: MP3Tunes Ruling Protects DMCA Safe Harbors
Re: Re: Re:
No, you don't. You prove it here:
But once the copyright holder says "this file, and all duplicate copies of it are infringing", the site should be aware, and take action to avoid having that same file appear again. Scanning for the file name, a duplicate file, or using pattern matching / fingerprint style software could make sure that the site in question isn't in violation in the future.
So EMI should notify the site the first time only? After that, the site should pay for further monitoring?
No. No. No. EMI should have to enforce their own copyright. PERIOD.
The only one "slithering" here is EMI trying to wriggle out of enforcing their own shit. But I wouldn't expect a shill to admit to that; you wouldn't be doing your job if you did.
Next >>