Judicial review is a dangerous shortcut to the democratic process. Judges essentially become politicians in robes who polarize views on issues. I'm not surprised you don't understand the implications of having a Supreme Court with the power to overthrow elected officials.
Dred Scott is but one example here in the US that polarized views on slavery.
Right now, it's Citizens United. Learning about some of the most corrupt SCs of yesteryear is fun, but it is indeed dangerous to have a Supreme Court with that power.
Because of judicial review, the public lost 4th Amendment rights in the drug war. Police lie on a regular basis for convictions and money for funding. Hell, on a daily basis, you can hear about police killing innocents, getting paid leave, and no punishment.
Because of judicial review, people have less 1st Amendment protections than corporations. In regards to copyright, fair use as a defense works less if you have a baby video with music than if you have a million dollars to sue people.
Oh, and I'm not an anarchist, btw. I just now that since 1803, Judge Marshall took the power of judicial review which the Congress can elect to take back nullifying it since the legislative branch is the one that makes the laws.
So wake me up when you actually are aware of how government works.
Contrary to your belief, the public doesn't like being treated like criminals, the power of judicial review is not a constitutional power and your idea of thinkingeveryone a copyright heretic and charging them for the crimes of millions might not be a new idea, but it's still so ridiculous that it should be right next to McCarthyism or the Salem witch trials for unpopular ideas that have destroyed lives for no positive gains.
" The idea that inducing someone to break the law makes the inducer liable for the resulting lawbreaking is centuries old. It's just old wine in a new bottle, not something pulled from thin air."
Wrong. While the idea is old, it was never passed in Congress. The Supreme Court passed that into law with their Grokster decision. Which is my point.
And since that decision, innovation in the cloud service industry has declined and gone to other countries with better laws.
I guess this is the party where I tell the SC "Nice job breaking it".
" So when you say it is fiction and I say show me where the actual law is different than what is in the book, I mean show me something they cite that they made up out of thin air."
I can talk you that... Inducement. They made that up even though it was never in the law. You can see how that has hurt the US market considerably.
You have to disparage the Quaker religion? Are you telling me that Ben Franklin, playboy and innovator, is crazy for getting laid more times on Sunday than his Catholic brethren, equates to Apple's view that nudity doesn't happen?
I mean... Why we gotta diss our Forefathers like that? The brotha be down with kites and lightning, making money, buildin' hospitals for the public and keeping church and state separated.
And now we gotta go and misrepresent on him. Brotha Tim, that be ill yo...
I keep hearing that copyright monopolies equate to increased profits for artists and it's been debunked forty ways from Sunday.
I hear that corporations should have the ability to control copyrighted works yet the MPAA & RIAA disprove that notion monthly.
We look at the Supreme Court and their inaction destroys the public domain while Congress acts in the interests of the rich who but laws to protect them.
I just wish we had a strong argument for copyright instead of weak excuses based on out of context quotes and ignorance of the people that opposed monopolies and insane punishments for the public.
If Google were the entire internet, their magic button of stopping piracy might worked. But because of those meddling kids, their plans of stopping infringement were thwarted!
During the NES era, they were worse. If I had the time, I would bear their entire history out, but believe me that their licensing program for the NES was unnecessarily expensive, complicated, and took back gaming by a number of years in its infancy. I'm just glad for the PC movement that is looking to surpass consoles so that we won't need consoles in the same capacity as gate keepers in the next decade.
Hold the phone... Nintendo was the little guy only in this regard. Nintendo's history is revolved around pushing the little guy around. It pushed Gunpei Yokoi, inventor of Samus and the Virtual Boy asking withthe Game Boy, out of the company when his products didn't sell well.
It bullied third parties for years before Sony got fed up to try the Playstation. And in terms of its customers... Have you tried using their online services? Nintendo nostalgia is very dangerous.
Their business practices have been horrible for markets and that shouldn't be ignored.
This is not a great service at all. Just of the top of my head, I can think of ways to make a great website:
1) Free pdf = reduced discount on the hardcover book. Maybe hidden in the book is a random code for a discount in the first thirty days.
2) Author participation = sales. Look, if I can, I would love to learn more about a subject by becoming involved with the author. Why not extend this instead of micro transactions?
3) New ideas. This is a retread. This was tried in the 90s and no, people prefer having options on what they read and when they read it. That option is a library. All this will do is piss off people enough to go to better services.
It takes a lot of nerve to sit down and attack the public as a writer...
Particularly one that uses history in a subversive manner.
"I don't want to write history," he says, firmly. "I'm not a historian, and I wouldn't want to be. I want to change the world. Attack the elite. Overturn the hierarchy. Look at my stories and you'll notice that the villains are always, always, those in power. The heroes are the little people. I hate the establishment. Always have, always will."
It's funny but once he becomes the establishment, he chooses to declare class warfare on the public. He used the history of the Tudors, Cleopatra, and the Victorian era to get famous and rich, now he wants to prevent the next generation from making anything that builds off his work.
This is the power of censorship... You have a person willing to brazenly attack the public even in a marketing gimmick to sell a few more books thanks to the controversy. You can attack an institution that benefits people with no profit motive who work diligently to archive information, ensure the preservation of culture, and fight very hard to make our stockist just that more equal.
Because if we had no historians, how would he have gotten rich in the first place? Someone had to teach this contrarian asshole in the first place!
Yet, this is the endgoal of copyright, as naked as a jaybird... The ability to control dissemination of information by destroying public goods and services for the private benefit of a select few.
Maybe Deary can do us all a favor and invest in a Horrible History of the Dark Ages and how the Spanish Inquisition worked to sniff out those that would preserve culture, and change society for the better, in a horrid witch hunt many to preserve the status quo over actual progress.
Or maybe the next time he wants to fight the establishment, he shouldn't come off as a grumpy old Luddite, interested in his bottom line over the betterment of society.
In order for them to make a living off their work, they need to protect their rights to exploit those works.
This does not make logical sense... In every way that you can think of, no one is exploiting a work but creating new markets for a work to flourish.
If I make a video tape to share to a friend, I've expanded the market.
If I tell someone about a video that they may like, there is a possibility to buy.
In the art of remixing, I'm using copies of words or video to create a new story with the music or video as reference material.
That's all copyright infringement or sharing.
You aren't making sense in explaining that logical fallacy that your entire discussion works on
Copyright is an "exclusive right". an exclusive right doesn't mean the affirmative right to do something (although it does entail that right); it mean the right to exclude others form doing something.
And it's not a "right" that comes natural to man. It's a government granted monopoly that does nothing more than destroys free markets as Derek Khanna (correctly) points out. From a social equality standpoint, it puts more resources to those with the ability to afford the protections of copyright such as Hollywood over the lowly actor that they screw over. Were it not for copyright laws being a massive pain for everyone, I'm sure that artists could find new studios to work with instead of having their cafe shops, their record labels and their respective businesses shut down as a form of mercantilism to protect the very rich and affluent who rely on sharing videos to make money.
We start from the position that anyone can do anything. Then we temper it by saying that anyone can do anything except those things that are against the law. When we do that, we restrict other people's rights. But this isn't necessarily bad. We have to restrict some rights to ensure others.
What the hell are you going on about? How about we use the First Amendment as a basis, then modify copyright law so that it doesn't interfere with the free speech of those affected by arbitrary laws?
As I wrote in a reply above, there is a balance to be struck and there's a lot of nuance, but the principle is the same.
An extreme example of assassination and copyright is NOT a balance filled with nuance. We've had 30 years of copyright law becoming more and more intrusive on people's lives. How about if we're going to start from scratch, we start from pre-1976 with less statutory laws, less punishments, and more innovation in radio, technology, and less patents and copyrights?
The outcome you want to achieve doesn't require the abolition of copyright law; it requires a paradigm shift in business practices. Killing copyright isn't the best way-and certainly not the only way- to achieve that, unless of course you can prove that it is. Again, I haven't seen anyone prove that, only claim it.
For me, it most certainly does. The first victims of copyright law are usually students and the academia class. Copyright has become an end-all-be-all for inflicting class warfare on the haves and have nots. In terms of research against it...
First, I and a few others would take the position that copyright should be abolished. Not Mike, who seeks to find good evidence that copyright monopolies are used to benefit the public. If it doesn't do that express purpose of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, then it it's useless.
But let's discuss the "abolishment movement" which you claim that Mike is a party to...
He's not. He makes an informed decision that copyright doesn't create new works by giving temporary monopolies. But I would explain that copyright harms culture by making it harder to create online libraries of content or build communities for the discussion of material.
If I want to tell people to watch Game of Thrones, I'm not going to wait for a TV broadcast on a specific channel which costs me $50 a month plus $25 for a premiere channel to wait just once a week for a show that most people would like. That doesn't make sense when the internet allows for the removal of artificial barriers.
If you're looking to strike a balance on copyright, I'm pretty sure you're lookingfor the wrong things to come out of it. Dow me someone that's made a living off copyright and I'm pretty sure it's someone limiting the rights of others to share content.
Not only are they pissing off their business clients by forcing them into bad deals, but their gaming sector is pulling the same shenanigans in not allowing used games onto their console.
Fine if you think that every new download is a sale, but the truth us, you've lost the piracy wars if you think only of protecting your former markets. Microsoft isn't expanding their markets and is inviting me competition to come in and destroy their business models.
It's a great way to show how vulnerable their positions are truly becoming in the digital age.
Reason being, those in higher tax brackets have more access to better education options. Of course, those that make money on the internet might be less tolerant of being disconnected from the internet.
On the post: To Argue That 'Copyright And The First Amendment Coexisted For 200 Years' Is To Ignore Reality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh man...
Dred Scott is but one example here in the US that polarized views on slavery.
Right now, it's Citizens United. Learning about some of the most corrupt SCs of yesteryear is fun, but it is indeed dangerous to have a Supreme Court with that power.
Because of judicial review, the public lost 4th Amendment rights in the drug war. Police lie on a regular basis for convictions and money for funding. Hell, on a daily basis, you can hear about police killing innocents, getting paid leave, and no punishment.
Because of judicial review, people have less 1st Amendment protections than corporations. In regards to copyright, fair use as a defense works less if you have a baby video with music than if you have a million dollars to sue people.
Oh, and I'm not an anarchist, btw. I just now that since 1803, Judge Marshall took the power of judicial review which the Congress can elect to take back nullifying it since the legislative branch is the one that makes the laws.
So wake me up when you actually are aware of how government works.
On the post: To Argue That 'Copyright And The First Amendment Coexisted For 200 Years' Is To Ignore Reality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh man...
On the post: To Argue That 'Copyright And The First Amendment Coexisted For 200 Years' Is To Ignore Reality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh man...
Wrong. While the idea is old, it was never passed in Congress. The Supreme Court passed that into law with their Grokster decision. Which is my point.
And since that decision, innovation in the cloud service industry has declined and gone to other countries with better laws.
I guess this is the party where I tell the SC "Nice job breaking it".
On the post: To Argue That 'Copyright And The First Amendment Coexisted For 200 Years' Is To Ignore Reality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh man...
I can talk you that... Inducement. They made that up even though it was never in the law. You can see how that has hurt the US market considerably.
On the post: Copyright Dispute Means Germans Can't See All Those Russian Meteor Videos
Re:
On the post: No Nudity: Playboy's iPhone App To Test Men's 'For The Articles' Excuse
Hold it...
Seriously?
You have to disparage the Quaker religion? Are you telling me that Ben Franklin, playboy and innovator, is crazy for getting laid more times on Sunday than his Catholic brethren, equates to Apple's view that nudity doesn't happen?
I mean... Why we gotta diss our Forefathers like that? The brotha be down with kites and lightning, making money, buildin' hospitals for the public and keeping church and state separated.
And now we gotta go and misrepresent on him. Brotha Tim, that be ill yo...
On the post: To Argue That 'Copyright And The First Amendment Coexisted For 200 Years' Is To Ignore Reality
Re: Oh man...
I keep hearing that copyright monopolies equate to increased profits for artists and it's been debunked forty ways from Sunday.
I hear that corporations should have the ability to control copyrighted works yet the MPAA & RIAA disprove that notion monthly.
We look at the Supreme Court and their inaction destroys the public domain while Congress acts in the interests of the rich who but laws to protect them.
I just wish we had a strong argument for copyright instead of weak excuses based on out of context quotes and ignorance of the people that opposed monopolies and insane punishments for the public.
On the post: RIAA: Google Isn't Trying Hard Enough To Make Piracy Disappear From The Internet
On the post: Historical Hypocrisy: Donkey Kong, King Kong, & The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Historical Hypocrisy: Donkey Kong, King Kong, & The Public Domain
Re:
It bullied third parties for years before Sony got fed up to try the Playstation. And in terms of its customers... Have you tried using their online services? Nintendo nostalgia is very dangerous.
Their business practices have been horrible for markets and that shouldn't be ignored.
On the post: The Insanely Complex Rules The Supreme Court Requires You To Meet To Ask It To Hear Your Case
On the post: The Next eBook Evolution: Pay As You Read eBooks
ugh...
1) Free pdf = reduced discount on the hardcover book. Maybe hidden in the book is a random code for a discount in the first thirty days.
2) Author participation = sales. Look, if I can, I would love to learn more about a subject by becoming involved with the author. Why not extend this instead of micro transactions?
3) New ideas. This is a retread. This was tried in the 90s and no, people prefer having options on what they read and when they read it. That option is a library. All this will do is piss off people enough to go to better services.
On the post: Bestselling Author Of Children's Books Accuses Public Libraries Of Stealing His Paychecks
Moxy
Particularly one that uses history in a subversive manner.
"I don't want to write history," he says, firmly. "I'm not a historian, and I wouldn't want to be. I want to change the world. Attack the elite. Overturn the hierarchy. Look at my stories and you'll notice that the villains are always, always, those in power. The heroes are the little people. I hate the establishment. Always have, always will."
It's funny but once he becomes the establishment, he chooses to declare class warfare on the public. He used the history of the Tudors, Cleopatra, and the Victorian era to get famous and rich, now he wants to prevent the next generation from making anything that builds off his work.
This is the power of censorship... You have a person willing to brazenly attack the public even in a marketing gimmick to sell a few more books thanks to the controversy. You can attack an institution that benefits people with no profit motive who work diligently to archive information, ensure the preservation of culture, and fight very hard to make our stockist just that more equal.
Because if we had no historians, how would he have gotten rich in the first place? Someone had to teach this contrarian asshole in the first place!
Yet, this is the endgoal of copyright, as naked as a jaybird... The ability to control dissemination of information by destroying public goods and services for the private benefit of a select few.
Maybe Deary can do us all a favor and invest in a Horrible History of the Dark Ages and how the Spanish Inquisition worked to sniff out those that would preserve culture, and change society for the better, in a horrid witch hunt many to preserve the status quo over actual progress.
Or maybe the next time he wants to fight the establishment, he shouldn't come off as a grumpy old Luddite, interested in his bottom line over the betterment of society.
On the post: Chris Dodd Sounding Like A Broken Recording Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Radical Mike
On the post: Chris Dodd Sounding Like A Broken Recording Industry
Re: Re: Seriously?
This does not make logical sense... In every way that you can think of, no one is exploiting a work but creating new markets for a work to flourish.
If I make a video tape to share to a friend, I've expanded the market.
If I tell someone about a video that they may like, there is a possibility to buy.
In the art of remixing, I'm using copies of words or video to create a new story with the music or video as reference material.
That's all copyright infringement or sharing.
You aren't making sense in explaining that logical fallacy that your entire discussion works on
Copyright is an "exclusive right". an exclusive right doesn't mean the affirmative right to do something (although it does entail that right); it mean the right to exclude others form doing something.
And it's not a "right" that comes natural to man. It's a government granted monopoly that does nothing more than destroys free markets as Derek Khanna (correctly) points out. From a social equality standpoint, it puts more resources to those with the ability to afford the protections of copyright such as Hollywood over the lowly actor that they screw over. Were it not for copyright laws being a massive pain for everyone, I'm sure that artists could find new studios to work with instead of having their cafe shops, their record labels and their respective businesses shut down as a form of mercantilism to protect the very rich and affluent who rely on sharing videos to make money.
We start from the position that anyone can do anything. Then we temper it by saying that anyone can do anything except those things that are against the law. When we do that, we restrict other people's rights. But this isn't necessarily bad. We have to restrict some rights to ensure others.
What the hell are you going on about? How about we use the First Amendment as a basis, then modify copyright law so that it doesn't interfere with the free speech of those affected by arbitrary laws?
As I wrote in a reply above, there is a balance to be struck and there's a lot of nuance, but the principle is the same.
An extreme example of assassination and copyright is NOT a balance filled with nuance. We've had 30 years of copyright law becoming more and more intrusive on people's lives. How about if we're going to start from scratch, we start from pre-1976 with less statutory laws, less punishments, and more innovation in radio, technology, and less patents and copyrights?
The outcome you want to achieve doesn't require the abolition of copyright law; it requires a paradigm shift in business practices. Killing copyright isn't the best way-and certainly not the only way- to achieve that, unless of course you can prove that it is. Again, I haven't seen anyone prove that, only claim it.
For me, it most certainly does. The first victims of copyright law are usually students and the academia class. Copyright has become an end-all-be-all for inflicting class warfare on the haves and have nots. In terms of research against it...
Media Piracy
The Sky is rising
Copyright Subsidies suck
There's plenty more. But to sit down to say copyright works without any type of evidence strikes me as the same flaw that Mike discusses countless times on this site
On the post: Chris Dodd Sounding Like A Broken Recording Industry
Seriously?
But let's discuss the "abolishment movement" which you claim that Mike is a party to...
He's not. He makes an informed decision that copyright doesn't create new works by giving temporary monopolies. But I would explain that copyright harms culture by making it harder to create online libraries of content or build communities for the discussion of material.
If I want to tell people to watch Game of Thrones, I'm not going to wait for a TV broadcast on a specific channel which costs me $50 a month plus $25 for a premiere channel to wait just once a week for a show that most people would like. That doesn't make sense when the internet allows for the removal of artificial barriers.
If you're looking to strike a balance on copyright, I'm pretty sure you're lookingfor the wrong things to come out of it. Dow me someone that's made a living off copyright and I'm pretty sure it's someone limiting the rights of others to share content.
On the post: Microsoft Makes Retail Versions Of Office Single Install
Microsoft on a roll
Not only are they pissing off their business clients by forcing them into bad deals, but their gaming sector is pulling the same shenanigans in not allowing used games onto their console.
Fine if you think that every new download is a sale, but the truth us, you've lost the piracy wars if you think only of protecting your former markets. Microsoft isn't expanding their markets and is inviting me competition to come in and destroy their business models.
It's a great way to show how vulnerable their positions are truly becoming in the digital age.
On the post: Another Victory For The Public Speaking Up: Canada Drops Digital Spying Bill (For Now)
Re:
On the post: Germany's Curious Income Divide On Infringement Remedies: High-Earners Support Content Blocking, Oppose Disconnection
Re: Brains?
Reason being, those in higher tax brackets have more access to better education options. Of course, those that make money on the internet might be less tolerant of being disconnected from the internet.
On the post: New Research: Extending Copyright Massively Increases Prices, Limits Dissemination Of Knowledge
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>