"If the telcos actually had built their network entirely on their own and negotiated privately with land owners for rights of way, they might have a point on this one."
Thanks for writing this up Mike, you expressed my thoughts exactly.
"is ASCAP paying Peter Himmelman, the guy who made the video, each time it's played?"
Sure they will. Out of the profits from the video. You see, they produced the video by setting up a shell company. That shell company owes a lot of money to ASCAP. After that money is paid, and if there is any profit left over, I'm sure Peter will get what's coming to him.
"Why is it that the biggest "defenders" of copyright are always the ones caught infringing on others' copyrights?"
I'll answer that one. To the copyright industry, copyright is not about protecting the work of authors, artists, musicians or coders. It's about eliminating competition and maintaining the status quo through the use of their government granted monopolies.
Big players can and do infringe copyrights all they want. They can do that because they're big. At the worst even if they're sued they have the money to quickly settle.
What the big players like about copyright is keeping the little guys from upsetting their gravy train. When the little guy infringes, the big guys can sue the little guy into oblivion.
So, with our current copyright system, the big guys can do whatever they want and infringe whatever they want. While the little guys and consumers are forced to comply.
As an example, you had a posting a short while ago about a fashion designer, who on one hand "stole" his designs and on the other hand, wanted strict copyright protection for his designs.
As I explained above, there's no contradiction in that. With a strong copyright, he'd still be free to "steal" any designs he wants and then drag it out in court and settle if he has too. However, any upcoming designer would be shut out. It's a win/win for the status quo designer because it eliminates competition. Which is the real purpose of copyright.
"The only purpose of these agreements is to try and prevent capitalism from working."
Welcome to the wonderful world of intellectual property. Where normal rules of economics and competing in a free market do not apply. Until a smart judge gets involved, that is.
Thanks for doing a thorough overview of this case. The Associated Press merely states that the appeals court reversed because "the trial judge had made errors in instructing the jury." I highly doubt if the "journalist" who wrote that piece had read the opinion, let alone attempted to even understand it.
It's a good thing your write-up is on the top for a search on the story at Google news. Interested readers will actually learn something.
"And what makes you think you should automatically get free money from people..."
That is shocking. But what would be really shocking would be a copyright monopolist who stated that it was going to earn a profit based upon hard work, giving real value to customers, and contributing to society.
I've already said this the last time this story was posted, I think she made up the story to make a point.
However, even assuming she really did accost children she didn't know, what Terry Savage is not recognizing, is that kids do this sort of stuff for fun! Does Terry Savage seriously believe that every single activity we do should be done solely for profit?
Should girls get paid for kissing their boyfriends?
Should 8 year old t-ball players hire managers and demand high salaries?
Should kids stay home from school because they're not being paid to go?
Besides writing asinine columns, Terry Savage has do other things in her life. Does she get paid to eat? Why the frick is she doing that? She should sign up for some medical testing and get paid to eat.
Does she sleep for free? What the frick?! Again she should be getting some green for that.
Does she drive in her car to see her mother? How much is her mother paying her for her time? Can she pick up so rides and earn some extra money on the way?
Does she hit up her kids to pay for their clothes and birthday presents/ What the frick?! You mean she's not profiting from her kids?! Why did she have them if not to profit from them? That's un-American!
Even if there were kids who gave away free lemonade. They did it for the fun of it. That's why we do the vast majority of the things we do. Now maybe Terry Savage profits from everything she does. Which makes her a virgin or a prostitute. But that's her choice, not mine.
"Savage's point: the children are giving away something (and presumably deriving pleasure therefrom) that isn't theirs."
So the children stole the lemonade? Because certainly stealing and giving away what you stole is wrong. Unless you're Robin Hood, of course.
I also agree that this story never happened, she's basically making an analogy by saying those in the Left think like children. They live in a world where nothing really costs money because their parents pay for everything.
But the analogy fails because parents willingly pay for everything. Parents give kids lemonade for their stand in the same way they might give a kid a baseball and bat to start a game with his friends. Not to make a profit, as you and Terry Savage seem to think. But because it's fun.
That's why everyone here is focusing on the fun the imaginary kids had by starting their imaginary lemonade stand. Because that's the point of having such a stand. That's the point of buying your kid a kiddie-pool. That's the point of buying your kid a football. Etc., etc., etc.
And that's why Terry Savage is utterly wrong in the issue she made up, then raised.
She's erroneously comparing childhood games which are not conducted for profits to situations where profits are expected. She's erroneously comparing situations where people willingly give money to situations where people are forced to pay money via taxes (except for the rich, of course.)
"This is a copyright issue, not a trademark issue"
I never said it was either. I was just responding to something an ignorant Anonymous Coward wrote.
And BTW, the CNN article linked above does mention trademark, although almost certainly erroneously. Laypeople can never get copyrights, trademarks, and patents right.
"created some confusion online with a large number of people immediately comparing the two"
It has not created any confusion. There is not a single person on this planet who was actually confused into thinking that this laser is in fact an actual Star Wars lightsaber. The "large number of people" were actually only a few bloggers making an analogy between them.
"But that reasoning also seems to lead to troubling conclusions..."
What I find troubling is that because Lucas has a copyright on specific instances of imaginary swords based on light, that he thinks he owns the entire idea of swords based on light.
The more I think about it the more I'm convinced she made this story up.
When does any kid ever make a real profit on a lemonade stand?! I'm not saying it never happens. Sure somewhere some kid made a fortune selling lemonade.
What I'm saying is that the vast majority of lemonade stands are never intended to make a profit. For the vast majority of such stands, no cost benefit analysis is ever done. Having a lemonade stand is just another activity parents have kids do. Like play baseball, swim in a kiddie-poll, play cops and robbers, etc.
My point is that this lady could have stopped at 99.999% of the world's lemonade stands and made the exact same speech. Because in those 99.999% the stands were not profitable and were never intended to be profitable.
But that story would not have been as good. So she made up a stand where the kids were giving it for free.
My guess is that she made the entire story up as a straw horse to attack the Left. The story just doesn't make sense, why would the parents even let the kids give away lemonade? And who stops and gives kids lessons on economics?! And it's just too perfect that that the kids don't get just like those idiot Left wingers don't get it. Because, as we all know, Left wingers are ignorant about the real world.
In the immortal words of Digg followers: pics or it didn't happen.
"I'm sorry to have to say this, but that remark exceeds Mr. Fitzgerald's being a jerk without even trying."
But I'm not being a jerk. I'm making a joke via a hip cultural reference. Hence the link. Which I'm assuming you didn't click. If you did, you're completely clueless. And I'm still not being a jerk, merely honest.
"the f rating is not warranted because there was no service"
But they failed at providing her any service. They promised free estimates in their ad, but failed/refused to give her one. Failing to do what you promise in your ads warrants an F.
On the post: ISP Accused Of Using One Unsubstantiated Strike From The ESA To Close Down Account
On the post: No, The Fifth Amendment Does Not Complicate Net Neutrality
Thanks for writing this up Mike, you expressed my thoughts exactly.
On the post: ASCAP Continues Propaganda Campaign With Laughably Bad Video [Updated]
Sure they will. Out of the profits from the video. You see, they produced the video by setting up a shell company. That shell company owes a lot of money to ASCAP. After that money is paid, and if there is any profit left over, I'm sure Peter will get what's coming to him.
On the post: US Copyright Group Caught Red Handed Copying Competitor's Website
I'll answer that one. To the copyright industry, copyright is not about protecting the work of authors, artists, musicians or coders. It's about eliminating competition and maintaining the status quo through the use of their government granted monopolies.
Big players can and do infringe copyrights all they want. They can do that because they're big. At the worst even if they're sued they have the money to quickly settle.
What the big players like about copyright is keeping the little guys from upsetting their gravy train. When the little guy infringes, the big guys can sue the little guy into oblivion.
So, with our current copyright system, the big guys can do whatever they want and infringe whatever they want. While the little guys and consumers are forced to comply.
As an example, you had a posting a short while ago about a fashion designer, who on one hand "stole" his designs and on the other hand, wanted strict copyright protection for his designs.
As I explained above, there's no contradiction in that. With a strong copyright, he'd still be free to "steal" any designs he wants and then drag it out in court and settle if he has too. However, any upcoming designer would be shut out. It's a win/win for the status quo designer because it eliminates competition. Which is the real purpose of copyright.
On the post: Judge Says Barbie Doesn't Get To Own The Bratz
Re: Make this standard reading...
On the post: Judge Says Barbie Doesn't Get To Own The Bratz
Re:
Welcome to the wonderful world of intellectual property. Where normal rules of economics and competing in a free market do not apply. Until a smart judge gets involved, that is.
On the post: Judge Says Barbie Doesn't Get To Own The Bratz
It's a good thing your write-up is on the top for a search on the story at Google news. Interested readers will actually learn something.
On the post: People Aren't Buying Blank CDs Any More, So Collection Agency Demands Media Levy Expanded To Mobile Phones
That is shocking. But what would be really shocking would be a copyright monopolist who stated that it was going to earn a profit based upon hard work, giving real value to customers, and contributing to society.
On the post: Financial Columnist Stands By Her Claim That Kids Giving Away Lemonade Are Destroying America
Re: Re:
It does not necessarily follow that merely because every word is true, the resulting story is true.
On the post: Financial Columnist Stands By Her Claim That Kids Giving Away Lemonade Are Destroying America
Re: Re:
Are they getting paid to be arrested? If not they should refuse to be arrested.
On the post: Financial Columnist Stands By Her Claim That Kids Giving Away Lemonade Are Destroying America
However, even assuming she really did accost children she didn't know, what Terry Savage is not recognizing, is that kids do this sort of stuff for fun! Does Terry Savage seriously believe that every single activity we do should be done solely for profit?
Should girls get paid for kissing their boyfriends?
Should 8 year old t-ball players hire managers and demand high salaries?
Should kids stay home from school because they're not being paid to go?
Besides writing asinine columns, Terry Savage has do other things in her life. Does she get paid to eat? Why the frick is she doing that? She should sign up for some medical testing and get paid to eat.
Does she sleep for free? What the frick?! Again she should be getting some green for that.
Does she drive in her car to see her mother? How much is her mother paying her for her time? Can she pick up so rides and earn some extra money on the way?
Does she hit up her kids to pay for their clothes and birthday presents/ What the frick?! You mean she's not profiting from her kids?! Why did she have them if not to profit from them? That's un-American!
Even if there were kids who gave away free lemonade. They did it for the fun of it. That's why we do the vast majority of the things we do. Now maybe Terry Savage profits from everything she does. Which makes her a virgin or a prostitute. But that's her choice, not mine.
On the post: Financial Columnist Lectures Little Kids Who Want To Give Away Lemonade That They're Destroying America
Re: Are you all missing the point?
So the children stole the lemonade? Because certainly stealing and giving away what you stole is wrong. Unless you're Robin Hood, of course.
I also agree that this story never happened, she's basically making an analogy by saying those in the Left think like children. They live in a world where nothing really costs money because their parents pay for everything.
But the analogy fails because parents willingly pay for everything. Parents give kids lemonade for their stand in the same way they might give a kid a baseball and bat to start a game with his friends. Not to make a profit, as you and Terry Savage seem to think. But because it's fun.
That's why everyone here is focusing on the fun the imaginary kids had by starting their imaginary lemonade stand. Because that's the point of having such a stand. That's the point of buying your kid a kiddie-pool. That's the point of buying your kid a football. Etc., etc., etc.
And that's why Terry Savage is utterly wrong in the issue she made up, then raised.
She's erroneously comparing childhood games which are not conducted for profits to situations where profits are expected. She's erroneously comparing situations where people willingly give money to situations where people are forced to pay money via taxes (except for the rich, of course.)
On the post: Can Laser Maker Be Blamed For Blogs Comparing Laser To Star Wars Lightsabers?
Re: Re: Re:
I never said it was either. I was just responding to something an ignorant Anonymous Coward wrote.
And BTW, the CNN article linked above does mention trademark, although almost certainly erroneously. Laypeople can never get copyrights, trademarks, and patents right.
On the post: Can Laser Maker Be Blamed For Blogs Comparing Laser To Star Wars Lightsabers?
Re:
It has not created any confusion. There is not a single person on this planet who was actually confused into thinking that this laser is in fact an actual Star Wars lightsaber. The "large number of people" were actually only a few bloggers making an analogy between them.
On the post: Can Laser Maker Be Blamed For Blogs Comparing Laser To Star Wars Lightsabers?
What I find troubling is that because Lucas has a copyright on specific instances of imaginary swords based on light, that he thinks he owns the entire idea of swords based on light.
On the post: Financial Columnist Lectures Little Kids Who Want To Give Away Lemonade That They're Destroying America
Re:
When does any kid ever make a real profit on a lemonade stand?! I'm not saying it never happens. Sure somewhere some kid made a fortune selling lemonade.
What I'm saying is that the vast majority of lemonade stands are never intended to make a profit. For the vast majority of such stands, no cost benefit analysis is ever done. Having a lemonade stand is just another activity parents have kids do. Like play baseball, swim in a kiddie-poll, play cops and robbers, etc.
My point is that this lady could have stopped at 99.999% of the world's lemonade stands and made the exact same speech. Because in those 99.999% the stands were not profitable and were never intended to be profitable.
But that story would not have been as good. So she made up a stand where the kids were giving it for free.
On the post: Financial Columnist Lectures Little Kids Who Want To Give Away Lemonade That They're Destroying America
In the immortal words of Digg followers: pics or it didn't happen.
On the post: How Many 'Significant Blows' Against File Sharing Will It Take For File Sharing To Actually Decrease?
On the post: Concrete Company Sues Woman For Posting Negative Review On Angie's List
Re: Re:
But I'm not being a jerk. I'm making a joke via a hip cultural reference. Hence the link. Which I'm assuming you didn't click. If you did, you're completely clueless. And I'm still not being a jerk, merely honest.
On the post: Concrete Company Sues Woman For Posting Negative Review On Angie's List
Re:
But they failed at providing her any service. They promised free estimates in their ad, but failed/refused to give her one. Failing to do what you promise in your ads warrants an F.
Next >>