Your whole article is so full of hatred and so poorly reasoned, I don't even know where to begin. I know you won't actually discuss anything you wrote so I'm wasting my time, but here's a couple points.
The purpose of "property" is to best allocate scarce resources. "Property" does not make sense either intellectually or economically for things that are not scarce, such as content. Copyright is not a property right, no matter how many times maximalists incorrectly insist it is.
Property is a legal term of art. You are using a very narrow, economic definition of the word. He is using the legal definition, which is broader. To imply that he's wrong or intellectually dishonest is itself wrong and dishonest. You pretend like your narrow definition is the only one that matters. Since he's talking about the law, it makes sense for him to be using the legal definition.
And why don't you tell all of your readers about how even you admit that copyright is "property" as that word is used in the U.S. Constitution, Mike? Please, tell everyone that you believe that. And given that even you believe that copyright is property under the Constitution, isn't it dishonest of you to then pretend that it's dishonest to say that it's property?
Afraid to let your readers know the truth?
Mossoff just brushes all that off, saying that since both copyright and the First Amendment are in the Constitution, there's no conflict:
In fact, both copyright and the right to free speech are based in the Constitution — in the copyright and patent clause in Article I, Section 8, and in the First Amendment.
Strangely, people are now claiming that one part of the Constitution is an unconstitutional violation of another part of the Constitution.
Of course, that's neither accurate nor "strange." First off, free speech is a right in the Constitution. Copyright is not. It troubles me that a "law professor" would make such an obviously false claim. The Constitution's Article I, Section 8 only grants Congress the right to create a copyright law -- explicitly for the purpose of "promoting the progress of science" (the "useful arts" stuff was about patents). To suggest that the Constitution establishes copyright as a right is simply false.
Mossoff said: "In fact, both copyright and the right to free speech are based in the Constitution — in the copyright and patent clause in Article I, Section 8, and in the First Amendment."
That is true.
You twisted it to say: "First off, free speech is a right in the Constitution. Copyright is not."
That's not what Mossoff said. Mossoff said that copyright is "based in the Constitution," and then he even cited Article I, Section 8. You had to lie and pretend like he said copyright is a right in the Constitution.
You set up a strawman only to knock it down.
I could go on and on, but I know you just want to shit all over Professor Mossoff's piece like an irate zealot. You don't actually want to have a nuanced discussion of the issues. You never do.
This article demonstrates everything that is wrong with you, Mike. There is no reason to be such a fucking asshole. Mossoff makes great points, and you're too much of a coward to even discuss them like an adult.
Did you act ethically when you downloaded a movie in the public domain and where your downloading did not violate anyone's rights? Yes, that was ethical in my opinion.
You got it right. There is zero investigation. Everyone who wrote a bad check and didn't pay it right away receives a letter that seems to come from the DA, saying essentially, pay $200+ for a diversion class, or risk getting prosecuted. The letter is a lie b/c it's not from the DA, there's no evidence of a crime other than the unpaid check, and almost no one is ever going to be prosecuted.
How did you determine that there is "zero investigation" in this particular case? The letter is from the DA in that the DA authorized it via its agent, so I disagree with you there.
There is no FDCPA exemption unless the DA actually reviews the file and decides probable cause. This generally doesn't happen, since the checks go straight from the merchant to the collector.
The level of review necessary has been the subject of court battles, so I would assume the DAs are doing at least the minimum. Do you have any evidence that the DA in this particular case didn't examine the file sufficiently?
Cohen got arrested for disturbing the peace for wearing a "Fuck the Draft" jacket to court. That violated his First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction.
Salinger v. Colting is not an example of where someone's First Amendment rights were VIOLATED. No one denies that copyright limits free speech. The claim is that it doesn't legally violate it. Do you have an example of where copyright actually violates someone's First Amendment rights?
What I'm saying is simple: Before you get all excited and edit an article to add some half-baked theory about how hundreds of DAs are violating federal law, maybe put in a bit of research and thought. Trying to spin this like you can publish anything you like, no matter how poorly researched or thought out, because the comments are a vehicle of pointing out your errors is ridiculous. You would tear apart others if they tried to spin their nonsense that way. I'm calling you out on it. Instead of jumping to conclusions and letting your bias blind you, slow down, do some research, and give these things the thought that they deserve. Take some responsibility for what you publish. I know you think you're not a journalist, you're just a person who does journalism (LOL!), but that's just a bullshit spin you put on your laziness. If you want to be taken seriously, put some serious effort into your articles. This is just basic stuff. If you weren't so unable to look at yourself the way you hyper-focus on others, you would see that what I'm saying makes sense. There's no need to be such a reactionary extremist. You have good ideas. Hiding behind an arrogant facade (for example, being incredible mean towards Prof. Mossoff because of his article) doesn't get you as far as just being polite (yet forceful) would. There's no need for the extremism.
Can you point out one particular, concrete way that copyright violates someone's First Amendment rights? Not an example of where speech was limited--copyright can obviously limit speech--but an example of where First Amendment rights are in fact violated.
That's actually an interesting consideration. Thinking back on a few free speech cases; it's always been the speaker's rights at issue, not the recipient. I wonder if there's any case law out there by a plaintiff claiming his rights were violated by an inability to receive speech. And if the speech was copyright infringing, does that disqualify it from being protected?
The Supreme Court has identified the First Amendment right to receive speech several times, e.g.
Of course, courts should not “intervene in the resolution of conflicts which arise in the daily operation of school systems” unless “basic constitutional values” **2808 are “directly and sharply implicate[d]” in those conflicts. Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S., at 104, 89 S.Ct., at 270. But we think that the First Amendment rights of students may be directly and sharply implicated by the removal of books from the shelves of a school library. Our precedents have focused “not only on the role of the First Amendment in fostering individual self-expression but also on its role in affording the public access to discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas.” First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 783, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 1419, 55 L.Ed.2d 707 (1978). And we have recognized that “the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 482, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 1680, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965). In keeping with this principle, *867 we have held that in a variety of contexts “the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas.” Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 1247, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969); see Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762-763, 92 S.Ct. 2576, 2581, 33 L.Ed.2d 683 (1972) (citing cases). This right is an inherent corollary of the rights of free speech and press that are explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, in two senses. First, the right to receive ideas follows ineluctably from the sender's First Amendment right to send them: “The right of freedom of speech and press ... embraces the right to distribute literature, and necessarily protects the right to receive it.” Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143, 63 S.Ct. 862, 863, 87 L.Ed. 1313 (1943) (citation omitted). “The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers.” Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 308, 85 S.Ct. 1493, 1497, 14 L.Ed.2d 398 (1965) (BRENNAN, J., concurring).
Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 866-67 (1982).
I don't think anyone would have a right to receive copyright infringing speech though since ideas can't be blocked but particular expressions can.
However, his latest piece, for the Austin American-Statesman takes the cake, entitled simply: Copyright doesn't limit online speech. Of course, this is empirically false. Anyone who is even remotely intellectually honest admits that copyright can (and has) been used to limit speech.
The newspaper editor turned this into, “Copyright Doesn’t Limit Online Speech.” Sigh. Actually, copyright does limit online speech — the copyright laws prohibit digital speech that accesses or copies copyrighted speech without authorization — and the point of my op-ed is that this is not a violation of the right to free speech.
So before you go off all half-cocked, maybe take such considerations into account.
And honestly, Mike, attacking his credibility and being so incredibly hostile and degrading because you disagree just makes you look bad. Ever wonder why you're seen as an extremist? It's because of stuff like this.
I didn't "jump to conclusions." I saw an interesting article from someone with about the same experience as you, and added it to the post for people to look at. You've now added some more details, from which we can all learn, which is helpful and why we leave comments open.
Once again: we post what we find interesting and we leave comments wide open for discussion, knowing that people will add to it. Some people do so nicely. Some people... not so much.
Wow. Not very honest, are you? You didn't just link to what he wrote. You said it was "likely" that hundreds of DAs were violating federal law "in a very, very big way." You jumped to the conclusion that this guy's 10 minutes of research was plausible and likely.
It's a total cop-out to pretend like it's OK for you to make unsubstantiated accusations that hundreds of DAs are violating federal law because readers can correct your ridiculous mistakes in the comments. You should do a little bit of research in the first place so your arguments have an informed basis.
Are you really admitting that you don't know what you're talking about in your articles and it's all OK because the comments are available? I doubt it. But that's exactly what you're saying. What a ridiculous excuse.
Never mind legal, how about moral? Joe's been up on his moral high horse a lot lately, so perhaps he can explain how it's moral or ethical for DA's to allow private parties to obviously impersonate them for the sole purpose of intimidation?
There is no impersonation. These collectors are the agents of the district attorneys, operating under authority granted to them for the purpose. Federal law allows this (I quoted the law above), and California law allows it too (I quoted the law above). Collection of a sum certain is pretty mundane. The fact that someone wrote a bad check is prima facie evidence of fraud. If they have some defense, e.g., the check was postdated or there was an error at the bank, the system in place allows them to make those arguments and pursue those defenses. I think this system is great. People who write bad checks get a chance to avoid criminal charges and get to attend classes where they learn responsible money management techniques, and district attorneys' offices don't get bogged down on enforcement since their agents handle it. And best of all, the actual victims, i.e., the people who received the bad checks, get their money.
I'm asking Mike about the situation where the downloading is in fact infringement and where the downloader knows that it's infringement. I'm not asking about other scenarios where there's fair use, or innocent infringement, or anything like that. I'm asking him about plain vanilla infringement.
If you have a serious question for me, just state it plainly and I will give you a plain answer.
Um, I read a whole bunch of IP law and learned a bunch of new stuff in the meantime (currently trying to master publicity rights). Then I thought, "I wonder if there's something in CA state law about these diversion programs?" 30 seconds later, I found that statute.
Imagine what Mike would know if he spent even 30 seconds researching a point of law before accusing hundreds of DAs of being lawbreakers. I know, I know. Never gonna happen. He's too busy lashing out in hatred at the world.
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
The purpose of "property" is to best allocate scarce resources. "Property" does not make sense either intellectually or economically for things that are not scarce, such as content. Copyright is not a property right, no matter how many times maximalists incorrectly insist it is.
Property is a legal term of art. You are using a very narrow, economic definition of the word. He is using the legal definition, which is broader. To imply that he's wrong or intellectually dishonest is itself wrong and dishonest. You pretend like your narrow definition is the only one that matters. Since he's talking about the law, it makes sense for him to be using the legal definition.
And why don't you tell all of your readers about how even you admit that copyright is "property" as that word is used in the U.S. Constitution, Mike? Please, tell everyone that you believe that. And given that even you believe that copyright is property under the Constitution, isn't it dishonest of you to then pretend that it's dishonest to say that it's property?
Afraid to let your readers know the truth?
Mossoff just brushes all that off, saying that since both copyright and the First Amendment are in the Constitution, there's no conflict:
In fact, both copyright and the right to free speech are based in the Constitution — in the copyright and patent clause in Article I, Section 8, and in the First Amendment.
Strangely, people are now claiming that one part of the Constitution is an unconstitutional violation of another part of the Constitution.
Of course, that's neither accurate nor "strange." First off, free speech is a right in the Constitution. Copyright is not. It troubles me that a "law professor" would make such an obviously false claim. The Constitution's Article I, Section 8 only grants Congress the right to create a copyright law -- explicitly for the purpose of "promoting the progress of science" (the "useful arts" stuff was about patents). To suggest that the Constitution establishes copyright as a right is simply false.
Mossoff said: "In fact, both copyright and the right to free speech are based in the Constitution — in the copyright and patent clause in Article I, Section 8, and in the First Amendment."
That is true.
You twisted it to say: "First off, free speech is a right in the Constitution. Copyright is not."
That's not what Mossoff said. Mossoff said that copyright is "based in the Constitution," and then he even cited Article I, Section 8. You had to lie and pretend like he said copyright is a right in the Constitution.
You set up a strawman only to knock it down.
I could go on and on, but I know you just want to shit all over Professor Mossoff's piece like an irate zealot. You don't actually want to have a nuanced discussion of the issues. You never do.
This article demonstrates everything that is wrong with you, Mike. There is no reason to be such a fucking asshole. Mossoff makes great points, and you're too much of a coward to even discuss them like an adult.
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not the government taking down the YouTube videos.
On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors
Re:
How did you determine that there is "zero investigation" in this particular case? The letter is from the DA in that the DA authorized it via its agent, so I disagree with you there.
On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors
Re:
The level of review necessary has been the subject of court battles, so I would assume the DAs are doing at least the minimum. Do you have any evidence that the DA in this particular case didn't examine the file sufficiently?
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cohen got arrested for disturbing the peace for wearing a "Fuck the Draft" jacket to court. That violated his First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction.
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
Re: Re: Thinking about copyrighted works
The Supreme Court has identified the First Amendment right to receive speech several times, e.g.Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 866-67 (1982).
I don't think anyone would have a right to receive copyright infringing speech though since ideas can't be blocked but particular expressions can.
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
Re: Re:
How so? Can you elaborate?
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
The title he came up with for the article was "Copyright Does Not Violate the Right to Free Speech." The publisher changed it. Mossoff explains it here: http://truthonthemarket.com/2012/09/17/copyright-does-not-violate-the-right-to-free-speech/
Mosso ff states:So before you go off all half-cocked, maybe take such considerations into account.
And honestly, Mike, attacking his credibility and being so incredibly hostile and degrading because you disagree just makes you look bad. Ever wonder why you're seen as an extremist? It's because of stuff like this.
On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors
Re: Re: Re: Updated
Once again: we post what we find interesting and we leave comments wide open for discussion, knowing that people will add to it. Some people do so nicely. Some people... not so much.
Wow. Not very honest, are you? You didn't just link to what he wrote. You said it was "likely" that hundreds of DAs were violating federal law "in a very, very big way." You jumped to the conclusion that this guy's 10 minutes of research was plausible and likely.
It's a total cop-out to pretend like it's OK for you to make unsubstantiated accusations that hundreds of DAs are violating federal law because readers can correct your ridiculous mistakes in the comments. You should do a little bit of research in the first place so your arguments have an informed basis.
Are you really admitting that you don't know what you're talking about in your articles and it's all OK because the comments are available? I doubt it. But that's exactly what you're saying. What a ridiculous excuse.
On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors
Re: Re: Re:
There is no impersonation. These collectors are the agents of the district attorneys, operating under authority granted to them for the purpose. Federal law allows this (I quoted the law above), and California law allows it too (I quoted the law above). Collection of a sum certain is pretty mundane. The fact that someone wrote a bad check is prima facie evidence of fraud. If they have some defense, e.g., the check was postdated or there was an error at the bank, the system in place allows them to make those arguments and pursue those defenses. I think this system is great. People who write bad checks get a chance to avoid criminal charges and get to attend classes where they learn responsible money management techniques, and district attorneys' offices don't get bogged down on enforcement since their agents handle it. And best of all, the actual victims, i.e., the people who received the bad checks, get their money.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm asking Mike about the situation where the downloading is in fact infringement and where the downloader knows that it's infringement. I'm not asking about other scenarios where there's fair use, or innocent infringement, or anything like that. I'm asking him about plain vanilla infringement.
If you have a serious question for me, just state it plainly and I will give you a plain answer.
On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors
Re: Re:
On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors
Re: Re:
Biting repartee! Wow!
Um, I read a whole bunch of IP law and learned a bunch of new stuff in the meantime (currently trying to master publicity rights). Then I thought, "I wonder if there's something in CA state law about these diversion programs?" 30 seconds later, I found that statute.
Imagine what Mike would know if he spent even 30 seconds researching a point of law before accusing hundreds of DAs of being lawbreakers. I know, I know. Never gonna happen. He's too busy lashing out in hatred at the world.
Next >>