You know, now that I'm thinking about things I've heard about Viet Nam and Korea, I'm having a hard time thinking of a ligitimate war since the Revolutionary War or maybe the Civil War that was about something other than getting money off the war itself. :/ Sad.
And never have we said so... but piracy is expression, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. And if you stifle protected expression (which a blog is) to stop unprotected expression, that's prior restraint.
Why would we want to move on to the next idiot when you're more than enough to go around?
You know what? No. If you're too damned lazy to read the past posts about that, too dense to understand it, or to ignorant to admit when you're wrong... not my problem. If you want to hide behind the ignorance of claiming AvCB, go ahead. When this gets overturned for prior restraint despite your Holy Arcara v. Cloud, I'll pass you the salt for the humble pie.
"The US government (as well as many others) see an issue, where the current laws on the books do not address the issue of cyber attacks, thefts, and snooping properly, certainly not in ways that make negative acts easy enough to bring to court. The wikileaks situation just creates a situation where new laws can be crafted with this sort of undesirable situation in mind."
So, where does the whole wikileaks thing address these 'holes in the dam'? Wiki didn't 'steal' the docs or break into high-security servers to grab them... that was the work of someone else.
Instead of perusing the person who did steal the docs and addressing it with the laws already on the books to handle such actions, they are going after the entity that they can see and revealed their dirty little secrets.
If this is not the government taking advantage of an opportunity to increase control, then it's simply a case of thumping your little sister for telling on you for doing something wrong.
"The most blatant example of this was probably the two World Wars...."
I'd challenge that with the invasion of Iraq and the current Afghani war. At least with the two WW's, we had the (granted, overly-inflated) call to stop the repression of 'free peoples' by a tyrannical boogeyman (Hitler). Here though, we have some vague connection to stopping Al Qaeda, who no longer even seems to be doing as much as we were led to believe... all while dragging on and on with no real, clear objective.
If ever you wanted a 'war for the sake of being at war'...
Again, for the... damn, I lost count... time, the point is that Sherman Fredericks does have a problem with borrowing and quoting. So when Mr. Don't Steal My Stuff starts 'stealing' other peoples stuff, it bears pointing out since it speaks to Sherm's credibility and conviction-to-ideals.
First guess: hip-hop discussions. I seriously doubt that a blog would host infringing material itself. And, last I checked, discussing infringed material was not illegal.
"Were they owned by the same people running the other sites?"
What would that have to do with the allegations of copyright infringement? It's the actions on the sites themselves which were cited as the reasons for the take-down... not the people running them.
"Were they on the same server?"
As we've previously discussed, the servers were never seized... just the domain names. So what do the servers have to do with it?
"Were the hip-hop sites being used as front doors to the other sites, contributing to them?"
What do you mean by 'front door sites'? Are we going to start prosecuting websites that link to sites that are infringing? What about the sites that link to those? You do realize that it's called a "web" for a reason, right?
"You can jump up and down and list of them amendments all you like, but the truth is simple: The seizure was done with a court order, and the delay to reveal the reasons for the seizure are up to and as long as it takes to get a preliminary hearing"
Why do people continue to insist that judges can do no wrong? Just because the court issued an order does NOT mean that the order is suddenly beyond reproach and in all ways legal and constitutional. I have already cited at least one case where a judge's court order was overturned for being unconstitutional. Just because someone is in charge does not make them right.
And you're missing one point here... they aren't waiting on a hearing, they're waiting on being told what the illegal activity was that warranted the take-down in the first place. There's no backlog in hearings that would cause a delay in the notification of legal action to be taken.
"I am sure that the actions taken were not done randomly, and I am equally sure that the judge that signed the order did so in good faith. Now the site owners get to enjoy the legal system in all of it's glory. It would go faster, but there are so many other people in court arguing about their rights to this or that, so there is a bit of a backlog."
I'm sure they were not done randomly either... but that does not mean that the reason was a valid or just one. In fact, the cynic in me feels that there is a very distinct reason for it.
I'm glad you're sure the judge signed in good faith, but that doesn't mean he was correct. And I can't believe you're willing to throw out the First Amendment just because 'that's the process'.
And would you like to cite examples or evidence that it's the overload of people arguing rights in courts that are causing this delay?
Re: Re: Re: Copyright isn't just about selfish corporations
"In the book publishing field, copyrights are almost never sold to the publisher. They're licensed to them for a period, but owned by the author or illustrator. And, as I said earlier, even when the corporation is the publisher, the majority of the little profit there is, goes as royalties to the author. "
And that's good too! But again, what we're focusing on here is the abuse of the system. What about Tarzan? The creator is dead and the copyright is owned by someone who had no hand in it's creation.
Or Superman? Yeah, the original creators sold their right which was a bad business decision, but what does the retention of that copyright as it stands now accomplish other than securing that copyright owner's legal claim to the money generated by those copyrights? How was the death of Captain Marvel (read: competition) anything other than the stifling of said competition?
"I beg to differ. I think we all know that some of the people who download now would buy a copy if they couldn't pirate. Not all, but certainly some. And so, some of the downloads really are lost sales."
You're arguing what 'might have been if...' which is fallacious logic. With that kind of logic, I could say that without making that one bad decision in my past, I would be a millionaire by now.
And Copyright (abuse) advocates are trying to make that false logic into law by saying that a downloader is liable for those lost sales if they are found guilty of copyright infringement. And that's the problem.
I would like to point out that this is exactly what we were afraid COICA would do. So when we said it was a possibility, and the Copyright shills said "oh no, you're being rediculous"... where are they now?
Ah, you're right... Looks like no one silenced anyone, so mea culpa.
Although, I do want to point out that the last comment by the author was "ignorant babble". In fact, reading back through them... it looks like the only comments are personal attacks on others. The one legitimate 'question' he posed was the challenge to demonstrate his personal relationship in the Right haven issue... which was shown, I believe. What does it mean when the author of a blog is the troll and the readers are the ones making legitimate conversational points? :)
Re: Re: Who benefits from new art? Those who can sell it, of course.
Coming from the guy who defends his position with "LOL". Are you actually going to make some kind of ~snerk~ intelligent argument, or just keep trolling?
"Those who create and own the content will always have the upper hand."
So the recording industy created all that content? I call 'bullshit'.
"You need to realize that the last 10 years were a blip in history, not the future."
You say that like the two things are mutually exclusive. This 'blip in history' is going to (and has) changed the way it all works. If it didn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
By the way, nice argument skills with the name-calling.
And yet you attack my 'uninformed, sweeping generalizations' with your own as though yours had more validity. Intersting.
And what did I 'lie' about? Hmm? What in my post was a lie? The fact that I enjoy live music more than I enjoy recorded music? The fact that more than one artist has cried out against record labels? The fact that the recording industry is looking out for their own interests and not the artists? Which of that was a lie?
"Leave it to an IT guy to not understand that recorded music is often considered the fullest expression of a musician's vision."
But we're not talking about the expression of the vision; we're talking about building business around the expression of that vision.
Look at it this way and you'll see how the recorded music is a promotional tool...
1) I have a vision that I want to express musically
2) I record that vision to share with others
3) I give that recording of the vision to other so they want to see it
4) I now have an audience for my presentation of my vision.
I personally believe that I have gotten a much better sense and feeling of the artist's vision at a live performance than a recorded copy because I was there. I felt the emotion the artist wanted to evoke.
You can rant and rave about artists expressing themselves all you want... I'm going to keep hearing from artists crying out against these labels abusing their fans. And I'm going to keep experiencing these artists' visions on their terms, not the label's terms.
And let's keep that honest... every. single. step... the recording industry has made in this is to protect themselves... not the artist.
On the post: Is The US Response To Wikileaks Really About Overhyping Online Threats To Pass New Laws?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a word...
On the post: Owners Of Hiphop Blogs Seized By Homeland Security Still Haven't Been Told Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I regret to inform you that you are of a specifically dark color.
Sincerely,
Kettle
On the post: Owners Of Hiphop Blogs Seized By Homeland Security Still Haven't Been Told Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would we want to move on to the next idiot when you're more than enough to go around?
On the post: Owners Of Hiphop Blogs Seized By Homeland Security Still Haven't Been Told Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know what? No. If you're too damned lazy to read the past posts about that, too dense to understand it, or to ignorant to admit when you're wrong... not my problem. If you want to hide behind the ignorance of claiming AvCB, go ahead. When this gets overturned for prior restraint despite your Holy Arcara v. Cloud, I'll pass you the salt for the humble pie.
On the post: Is The US Response To Wikileaks Really About Overhyping Online Threats To Pass New Laws?
Re:
So, where does the whole wikileaks thing address these 'holes in the dam'? Wiki didn't 'steal' the docs or break into high-security servers to grab them... that was the work of someone else.
Instead of perusing the person who did steal the docs and addressing it with the laws already on the books to handle such actions, they are going after the entity that they can see and revealed their dirty little secrets.
If this is not the government taking advantage of an opportunity to increase control, then it's simply a case of thumping your little sister for telling on you for doing something wrong.
On the post: Is The US Response To Wikileaks Really About Overhyping Online Threats To Pass New Laws?
Re: Re: Re: Re: In a word...
I'd challenge that with the invasion of Iraq and the current Afghani war. At least with the two WW's, we had the (granted, overly-inflated) call to stop the repression of 'free peoples' by a tyrannical boogeyman (Hitler). Here though, we have some vague connection to stopping Al Qaeda, who no longer even seems to be doing as much as we were led to believe... all while dragging on and on with no real, clear objective.
If ever you wanted a 'war for the sake of being at war'...
On the post: Author Slams 'Piracy,' Then Admits To A Huge 'Pirated' Music Collection And Counterfeit Purses
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Author Slams 'Piracy,' Then Admits To A Huge 'Pirated' Music Collection And Counterfeit Purses
Re: Re:
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Owners Of Hiphop Blogs Seized By Homeland Security Still Haven't Been Told Why
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What would that have to do with the allegations of copyright infringement? It's the actions on the sites themselves which were cited as the reasons for the take-down... not the people running them.
As we've previously discussed, the servers were never seized... just the domain names. So what do the servers have to do with it?
What do you mean by 'front door sites'? Are we going to start prosecuting websites that link to sites that are infringing? What about the sites that link to those? You do realize that it's called a "web" for a reason, right?
Why do people continue to insist that judges can do no wrong? Just because the court issued an order does NOT mean that the order is suddenly beyond reproach and in all ways legal and constitutional. I have already cited at least one case where a judge's court order was overturned for being unconstitutional. Just because someone is in charge does not make them right.
And you're missing one point here... they aren't waiting on a hearing, they're waiting on being told what the illegal activity was that warranted the take-down in the first place. There's no backlog in hearings that would cause a delay in the notification of legal action to be taken.
I'm sure they were not done randomly either... but that does not mean that the reason was a valid or just one. In fact, the cynic in me feels that there is a very distinct reason for it.
I'm glad you're sure the judge signed in good faith, but that doesn't mean he was correct. And I can't believe you're willing to throw out the First Amendment just because 'that's the process'.
And would you like to cite examples or evidence that it's the overload of people arguing rights in courts that are causing this delay?
On the post: Comic Artist Dylan Horrocks Explains How Copyright Is Too Often Used To Kill Culture
Re: Re: Re: Copyright isn't just about selfish corporations
Or Superman? Yeah, the original creators sold their right which was a bad business decision, but what does the retention of that copyright as it stands now accomplish other than securing that copyright owner's legal claim to the money generated by those copyrights? How was the death of Captain Marvel (read: competition) anything other than the stifling of said competition?
You're arguing what 'might have been if...' which is fallacious logic. With that kind of logic, I could say that without making that one bad decision in my past, I would be a millionaire by now.
And Copyright (abuse) advocates are trying to make that false logic into law by saying that a downloader is liable for those lost sales if they are found guilty of copyright infringement. And that's the problem.
On the post: Owners Of Hiphop Blogs Seized By Homeland Security Still Haven't Been Told Why
Re: Re:
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: still there.
Although, I do want to point out that the last comment by the author was "ignorant babble". In fact, reading back through them... it looks like the only comments are personal attacks on others. The one legitimate 'question' he posed was the challenge to demonstrate his personal relationship in the Right haven issue... which was shown, I believe. What does it mean when the author of a blog is the troll and the readers are the ones making legitimate conversational points? :)
On the post: Sherman Fredericks 'Steals'* From Me
Re: Re: Re: Wow...
And you're welcome everyone :)
On the post: How Copyright Takes Away Rights From Consumers
Re: Re: Who benefits from new art? Those who can sell it, of course.
On the post: How Copyright Takes Away Rights From Consumers
Re: Re: Re:
"LOL"
That's your defense? That's the argument you make for your stance?
Epic Fail.
On the post: Oh Look, Digital Downloads Aren't Saving The Music Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You say that like the two things are mutually exclusive. This 'blip in history' is going to (and has) changed the way it all works. If it didn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
By the way, nice argument skills with the name-calling.
On the post: Oh Look, Digital Downloads Aren't Saving The Music Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And what did I 'lie' about? Hmm? What in my post was a lie? The fact that I enjoy live music more than I enjoy recorded music? The fact that more than one artist has cried out against record labels? The fact that the recording industry is looking out for their own interests and not the artists? Which of that was a lie?
On the post: How Copyright Takes Away Rights From Consumers
Re: Re: The Alexandrians Were Immoral Pagans
On the post: Oh Look, Digital Downloads Aren't Saving The Music Industry
Re: Re: Re:
But we're not talking about the expression of the vision; we're talking about building business around the expression of that vision.
Look at it this way and you'll see how the recorded music is a promotional tool...
1) I have a vision that I want to express musically
2) I record that vision to share with others
3) I give that recording of the vision to other so they want to see it
4) I now have an audience for my presentation of my vision.
I personally believe that I have gotten a much better sense and feeling of the artist's vision at a live performance than a recorded copy because I was there. I felt the emotion the artist wanted to evoke.
You can rant and rave about artists expressing themselves all you want... I'm going to keep hearing from artists crying out against these labels abusing their fans. And I'm going to keep experiencing these artists' visions on their terms, not the label's terms.
And let's keep that honest... every. single. step... the recording industry has made in this is to protect themselves... not the artist.
Next >>