The logical flaw here is not the availability heuristic, but confirmation bias. You have already decided you like Techdirt and dislike other middlemen, and must then invent reasons to justify what you already "know."
Confirmation bias exists, but it's not responsible for everything you disagree with, hon. I don't always agree with the Techdirt perspective on what they write about, but I absolutely appreciate that they think before they write. That's why I'm here, and that's why most of us are here.
Your favorite middlemen are ruthlessly exploiting as many flaws in the human psyche as they can find, and you are part of that equation. They have convinced you that it is more valuable to put three pieces of someone else's expensive work next to each other than to do the work in the first place.
What expensive work are you talking about? You mean the 'expensive work' of parroting the RIAA, Congress, or whatever talking head is being quoted in the original 'news' articles that TD posts usually link to? And how is that not comparable to the 'expensive work' of getting enough education to be able to analyze what those talking heads are saying?
They have convinced you that a bunch of people making mostly uninformed (but inflammatory) blather is more valuable than boring facts.
So posts that pick apart misinformation are blather? And the misinformation is fact? Lolwhut?
They use base rhetoric to incite primal feelings of distrust of authority and righteous indignation to create an in-group as false as any in the Stanford Prison Experiment and you jump at the chance to join: they present you a guard's uniform and you cannot put it on fast enough. Then they explain to you that it's the prisoners' own fault that they are in prison and it is right that they be beaten. You parrot their rhetoric as if it were your own.
Did you take your meds today? Because your paranoia is showing.
Enjoy being the tool of someone else's agenda.
I think you're just upset that we're not your tools, and we don't follow your agenda. God, us self-thinking folks, we suck so bad...
You could use that same argument against any website with outside links, which is pretty much all of them. It's not Facebook's fault. The blame lies somewhere between your niece and the malware site.
How are they 'private documents' if they were posted with the consent of the recipient of the documents? Also, where does the law guarantee you the right to privacy in regards to documents that you send to other people?
How are they 'private documents' if they were posted with the consent of the recipient of the documents? Also, where does the law guarantee you the right to privacy in regards to documents that you send to other people?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True, but... The Telegraph says
It's more important for people to be qualified to use proper punctuation than to walk on the street, so I'll take $80 in a punctuation correction tax before you can comment again. Thanks and have a nice day. :)
The big faceless corporation doesn't usually put anything on the table, or any skin in the game. In general, these people end up owing tons of money to the labels, with no way to pay it back.
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest.
This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
The jewelry store that I used to work at was all too happy to let you take photos of items. We'd even offer to e-mail stock shots of your chosen item to you, because it's hard to take a photo of light-refracting objects with a camera phone. :P
I remember one notable occasion when I walked a customer down to a competitor's store with an item, so she could compare the items in-person. (The other store? Not happy.) Our item was more money, but better quality and we got the sale.
Just one more way that we were better than everyone else.
i think this sounds like another Oops I spilled mcdonalds coffeee on me I should sue them for not having a hot warning on the cup.
Slightly OT but I have to respond to this statement.
That lawsuit was not about hot coffee being hot. This was about a restaurant violating local safety ordinances, and someone being injured because of that violation.
The coffee in question wasn't just hot - it was over 130° degrees, which is a scalding temperature that can cause 2nd and 3rd degree burns. The local laws allowed for liquids to be served at 120° or less, which is easily achievable by setting your hot water tank correctly and using your kitchen equipment properly.
People cite this as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, but it's not a good example. A better example is the recent and well-publicized Starbucks unstable cup lawsuit, which was dismissed for being frivolous. Of course, that wouldn't prove that our court system lets frivolous cases by, so people don't like to mention that case.
Re: Re: Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
Rose the entire article was about copyright transference..
Really? Please point out the words 'copyright transference'.
The facts remain the same, the music industry DID NOT LICENSE them to copy the music.
They didn't copy the music, idiot. The copyright owner gave the digital files to them to use. They used it as intended. Their sites were illegally seized, anyway.
Show me where there is a license, giving them permission to copy as much as they like OR ANY copies of music they have acquired by ANY means.
They didn't copy anything. They were in possession of digital files that were sent to them by the copyright owners. The copyright owners did the copying.
So show me the license, where the music industry, or the OWNER of the copyright of those songs says it is OK for them to make and distribite further copies.
Explain how they 'made' and distributed further copies.
It's the same old simple confusion that is always here, just because you buy a COPY of a song, or get a COPY of a song by any means, that is not an automatic license of copyright for that material.
It's certainly an automatic license to use that song, silly rabbit.
Why cant you work that out !!!??????? So show me the license, where the music industry, or the OWNER of the copyright of those songs says it is OK for them to make and distribite further copies.
Show me where they were making and distributing copies.
If they gave that web site the copyright, they would no longer have that copyright to that work.. Therefore the web site is within it's right to sue the record company for copyright breach..
Yes, if the blog owners violated their copyright by using the files that they were sent in an unauthorized way, the content owner would be within their rights to sue.
That's not what's happened here, in the slightest.
Do you honestly think that is possible or going to happen.. Really, some of you people on this web page, need to get a little grip on reality.. To busy appoligising for criminals to think about what is really happening.
What criminals? No one's been found guilty of anything. No one's even been charged with a crime.
...copyright transference... Mike, and the subject of this article for one, you for another, and most other people posting comment here for a corum. That is EXACTLY what mike is trying to say, it is the subject of this article.
I don't see the words 'copyright transference' anywhere in the title or post. This post isn't about copyright transference.
It is about, being sued for providing illegal copies of music, and the argument is that the music companies supplied the initial versions of the music..
No, it's not. It's about a speech-blocking illegal seizure of a site that's maybe guilty of a little civil infringement. Maybe.
Therefore somehow, by receiving copies of a song, they magically assume they have received the copyright to those works.
No one thinks that but you, Darryl.
And we all know that is not the case, and if you get upset by me having to explain that to you, and/or if you are upset that the facts hurt you.. too bad.. get over it..
You're the only one upset. Of course, we all know how much you detest being wrong. :)
welcome to the real world... you might of heard about it, its the place where even if you do not like or agree with a law you have to follow it anyway.
Yes, which is why we're upset that our own government officials did not follow the law.
Its the world, where you have to pay your way, and stealing is considered theft, and just because you are capable of theft, does not make the act ok, or legal, or moral, or ethical, or right.
I agree. Stealing is theft. What does that have to do with this post, though?
And just because Mike tells you its ok to break the law, it still does not make it ok, it just makes Mike wrong,
When did Mike ever condone copyright infringement?
...and willing and keen to incite criminal activity. For his own personal gains. (most criminal activity is for personal gains).
Again, when did he ever condone copyright infringement? When did his actions ever meet the legal standard of incitement? What does he gain if people choose to infringe?
But of course if you can cloak your crimes in something high sounding, and talk of 'rights' and 'freedoms', it sounds all that much better. Especially for self delusion.
At least the industry, the law, the law enforcers, the politicians, the actual content creators, see you people exactly for what you are.
Americans that can be milked for all their cash by their corporate overlords?
May be after 10,000 court ruling agaist your law breaking ways, you 'might' just work it out.. but I doubt it.
Whose law-breaking ways, Darryl? And what laws?
May be in your fantasy world you are winning this 'war' but back in the real world, you guys just look like a bunch of freaks. Spoiling it for everyone else.
Spoiling what, Darryl?
Always trying to disprove studies, with what ??? oh yea, conjecture and guesswork.. but hay its better than a study..
You have a problem with criticism of substandard study methodology? Really?
This site is full of amusement...
Yes, mostly provided by you. :)
...and dont worry I will continue to call FUD whenever I see it, (or as much as I can, there is ALOT here).. !!!
Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
They might of sent the songs, but im sure they did NOT send them also the copyright for those songs. Music industry, like every industry give away free samples, they do not give away the copyright to those samples.
That's right. They sent them a license, which they are now bring prosecuted for using.
So it does not matter how they got the content, they did not also get the copyright, rights to that conent, therefore they still broke the law.
It does matter how they got the content. You're right that they did not get the entire copyright, but they absolutely received rights to use those files.
Did they break the law? Maybe. But you can't prove it by this warrant, or at all if you don't change and try the domain owners.
Getting a song from a company, either purchased, stolen, or given, does not give you the copyright to that content..
Why do you think it does ? HOW can you think it does ?
Who said it does? You're the only one going on about copyright transference.
how can you have such a deep misunderstanding of something that is so simple.
Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
Might be hugely complex for you, or Mike, or anyone else who does not understand simple things, but to say copyright is hugely complex apart from being personal opinion, and irrevalent, is not even true.
Judges, IP attorneys, content owners, and the general public disagree with you.
I can see alot of people here have a great deal of trouble understanding IP law, but complex it IS NOT.
Its even common sense..
maybe you would like to explain why you find it complex that you are not allowed to copy something, you do not have the legal right to copy ?
Maybe because we do have the legal right to copy? Expression generally trumps copyright, so parodies, fair use, and so on are all valid and legal reasons to copying.
Is that 'hugely complex', does it even require any thinking ?
Not from you, hon. Not from you.
I'd like to point out, however, that at the beginning of your post, you copied Hulser's words, which were copyrighted the moment that he pressed Submit. You are now a pirate in your own eyes.
Of course, in the eyes of the law, your copying was for the intent of commentary, which is a legal and valid reason to copy.
Do you have to think hard about paying at the shop when you buy a burger ? is that 'hugely complex' too ? Is it hugely complex for you to understand that you pay for something like your burger, to pay the people who make that burger, who supply the shop, and who employ burget flippers and so on. Is that, THAT HARD ?? or hugely complex ?
So I should pay before the use the name Burger King in a review of that burger then, right? Because to do otherwise is theft. Got it.
Wait, what?
Then if that is not hard, how can you find it hard that even though you understand shoplifting is wrong, and you are supposed to pay for what you consume.
You pay for what you consume because you literally consume it. It's gone. The seller no longer has it to sell. Can you explain how digital goods are 'consumed' by pirates, so that none are left for legitimate buyers?
If you can, I have a picture of a spider for you. It's worth $233.95, so it's very valuable.
You can not work out that steal, in other forms is not illegal.
What I can't work out is your sentence. Lolwut?
yes, i know how 'some' of you could find that complex.. I guess some people are just stupid !!!
On the post: Anyone Notice That Sites Don't Have To Rely On Google So Much For Traffic Any More?
Re: Re: Re:
Confirmation bias exists, but it's not responsible for everything you disagree with, hon. I don't always agree with the Techdirt perspective on what they write about, but I absolutely appreciate that they think before they write. That's why I'm here, and that's why most of us are here.
Your favorite middlemen are ruthlessly exploiting as many flaws in the human psyche as they can find, and you are part of that equation. They have convinced you that it is more valuable to put three pieces of someone else's expensive work next to each other than to do the work in the first place.
What expensive work are you talking about? You mean the 'expensive work' of parroting the RIAA, Congress, or whatever talking head is being quoted in the original 'news' articles that TD posts usually link to? And how is that not comparable to the 'expensive work' of getting enough education to be able to analyze what those talking heads are saying?
They have convinced you that a bunch of people making mostly uninformed (but inflammatory) blather is more valuable than boring facts.
So posts that pick apart misinformation are blather? And the misinformation is fact? Lolwhut?
They use base rhetoric to incite primal feelings of distrust of authority and righteous indignation to create an in-group as false as any in the Stanford Prison Experiment and you jump at the chance to join: they present you a guard's uniform and you cannot put it on fast enough. Then they explain to you that it's the prisoners' own fault that they are in prison and it is right that they be beaten. You parrot their rhetoric as if it were your own.
Did you take your meds today? Because your paranoia is showing.
Enjoy being the tool of someone else's agenda.
I think you're just upset that we're not your tools, and we don't follow your agenda. God, us self-thinking folks, we suck so bad...
On the post: Anyone Notice That Sites Don't Have To Rely On Google So Much For Traffic Any More?
Re: beware malware ...
On the post: Perfect 10 Claiming That Passing Along Its DMCA Notices Is, Itself, Infringing
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UN Investigating Whether Or Not US Is Torturing Bradley Manning
Re: Re:
On the post: Free Speech Apparently Less Important Than US Attorney & Courts Silencing 'Annoying' Woman
Re: Could this mean further government expansion?
On the post: Perfect 10 Claiming That Passing Along Its DMCA Notices Is, Itself, Infringing
Re:
On the post: Perfect 10 Claiming That Passing Along Its DMCA Notices Is, Itself, Infringing
Re:
On the post: UN Investigating Whether Or Not US Is Torturing Bradley Manning
On the post: Woman Sues Google Because She Hung Her Underwear Outside, And Street View Caught It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True, but... The Telegraph says
On the post: Discussing The Music Industry Comically Speaking, With Mimi & Eunice
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet - Or The Law
Re: Re: Re: Would it be illegal ...
On the post: Discussing The Music Industry Comically Speaking, With Mimi & Eunice
Re:
On the post: Discussing The Music Industry Comically Speaking, With Mimi & Eunice
This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
-Robert Heinlein, Life-Line (1939)
On the post: Not All Retailers Overreacting To Mobile Phone Wielding Shoppers
Re:
I remember one notable occasion when I walked a customer down to a competitor's store with an item, so she could compare the items in-person. (The other store? Not happy.) Our item was more money, but better quality and we got the sale.
Just one more way that we were better than everyone else.
On the post: Woman Sues Google Because She Hung Her Underwear Outside, And Street View Caught It
Re: Re: Re: True, but... The Telegraph says
Slightly OT but I have to respond to this statement.
That lawsuit was not about hot coffee being hot. This was about a restaurant violating local safety ordinances, and someone being injured because of that violation.
The coffee in question wasn't just hot - it was over 130° degrees, which is a scalding temperature that can cause 2nd and 3rd degree burns. The local laws allowed for liquids to be served at 120° or less, which is easily achievable by setting your hot water tank correctly and using your kitchen equipment properly.
People cite this as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, but it's not a good example. A better example is the recent and well-publicized Starbucks unstable cup lawsuit, which was dismissed for being frivolous. Of course, that wouldn't prove that our court system lets frivolous cases by, so people don't like to mention that case.
On the post: Homeland Security's 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures Also Included Songs Sent By Labels
Re: Re: Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
Really? Please point out the words 'copyright transference'.
The facts remain the same, the music industry DID NOT LICENSE them to copy the music.
They didn't copy the music, idiot. The copyright owner gave the digital files to them to use. They used it as intended. Their sites were illegally seized, anyway.
Show me where there is a license, giving them permission to copy as much as they like OR ANY copies of music they have acquired by ANY means.
They didn't copy anything. They were in possession of digital files that were sent to them by the copyright owners. The copyright owners did the copying.
So show me the license, where the music industry, or the OWNER of the copyright of those songs says it is OK for them to make and distribite further copies.
Explain how they 'made' and distributed further copies.
It's the same old simple confusion that is always here, just because you buy a COPY of a song, or get a COPY of a song by any means, that is not an automatic license of copyright for that material.
It's certainly an automatic license to use that song, silly rabbit.
Why cant you work that out !!!??????? So show me the license, where the music industry, or the OWNER of the copyright of those songs says it is OK for them to make and distribite further copies.
Show me where they were making and distributing copies.
If they gave that web site the copyright, they would no longer have that copyright to that work.. Therefore the web site is within it's right to sue the record company for copyright breach..
Yes, if the blog owners violated their copyright by using the files that they were sent in an unauthorized way, the content owner would be within their rights to sue.
That's not what's happened here, in the slightest.
Do you honestly think that is possible or going to happen.. Really, some of you people on this web page, need to get a little grip on reality.. To busy appoligising for criminals to think about what is really happening.
What criminals? No one's been found guilty of anything. No one's even been charged with a crime.
...copyright transference... Mike, and the subject of this article for one, you for another, and most other people posting comment here for a corum. That is EXACTLY what mike is trying to say, it is the subject of this article.
I don't see the words 'copyright transference' anywhere in the title or post. This post isn't about copyright transference.
It is about, being sued for providing illegal copies of music, and the argument is that the music companies supplied the initial versions of the music..
No, it's not. It's about a speech-blocking illegal seizure of a site that's maybe guilty of a little civil infringement. Maybe.
Therefore somehow, by receiving copies of a song, they magically assume they have received the copyright to those works.
No one thinks that but you, Darryl.
And we all know that is not the case, and if you get upset by me having to explain that to you, and/or if you are upset that the facts hurt you.. too bad.. get over it..
You're the only one upset. Of course, we all know how much you detest being wrong. :)
welcome to the real world... you might of heard about it, its the place where even if you do not like or agree with a law you have to follow it anyway.
Yes, which is why we're upset that our own government officials did not follow the law.
Its the world, where you have to pay your way, and stealing is considered theft, and just because you are capable of theft, does not make the act ok, or legal, or moral, or ethical, or right.
I agree. Stealing is theft. What does that have to do with this post, though?
And just because Mike tells you its ok to break the law, it still does not make it ok, it just makes Mike wrong,
When did Mike ever condone copyright infringement?
...and willing and keen to incite criminal activity. For his own personal gains. (most criminal activity is for personal gains).
Again, when did he ever condone copyright infringement? When did his actions ever meet the legal standard of incitement? What does he gain if people choose to infringe?
But of course if you can cloak your crimes in something high sounding, and talk of 'rights' and 'freedoms', it sounds all that much better. Especially for self delusion.
At least the industry, the law, the law enforcers, the politicians, the actual content creators, see you people exactly for what you are.
Americans that can be milked for all their cash by their corporate overlords?
May be after 10,000 court ruling agaist your law breaking ways, you 'might' just work it out.. but I doubt it.
Whose law-breaking ways, Darryl? And what laws?
May be in your fantasy world you are winning this 'war' but back in the real world, you guys just look like a bunch of freaks. Spoiling it for everyone else.
Spoiling what, Darryl?
Always trying to disprove studies, with what ??? oh yea, conjecture and guesswork.. but hay its better than a study..
You have a problem with criticism of substandard study methodology? Really?
This site is full of amusement...
Yes, mostly provided by you. :)
...and dont worry I will continue to call FUD whenever I see it, (or as much as I can, there is ALOT here).. !!!
Please do.
On the post: Homeland Security's 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures Also Included Songs Sent By Labels
Re: Re:
YES!
On the post: Homeland Security's 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures Also Included Songs Sent By Labels
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Homeland Security's 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures Also Included Songs Sent By Labels
Re: they were not given the copyright, just the songs..
That's right. They sent them a license, which they are now bring prosecuted for using.
So it does not matter how they got the content, they did not also get the copyright, rights to that conent, therefore they still broke the law.
It does matter how they got the content. You're right that they did not get the entire copyright, but they absolutely received rights to use those files.
Did they break the law? Maybe. But you can't prove it by this warrant, or at all if you don't change and try the domain owners.
Getting a song from a company, either purchased, stolen, or given, does not give you the copyright to that content..
Why do you think it does ? HOW can you think it does ?
Who said it does? You're the only one going on about copyright transference.
how can you have such a deep misunderstanding of something that is so simple.
Ditto.
On the post: Homeland Security's 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures Also Included Songs Sent By Labels
Re: Re: IP "The Thicket of misunderstanding", and if you dont understand it,, its complex !!.. no.
Judges, IP attorneys, content owners, and the general public disagree with you.
I can see alot of people here have a great deal of trouble understanding IP law, but complex it IS NOT.
Its even common sense..
maybe you would like to explain why you find it complex that you are not allowed to copy something, you do not have the legal right to copy ?
Maybe because we do have the legal right to copy? Expression generally trumps copyright, so parodies, fair use, and so on are all valid and legal reasons to copying.
Is that 'hugely complex', does it even require any thinking ?
Not from you, hon. Not from you.
I'd like to point out, however, that at the beginning of your post, you copied Hulser's words, which were copyrighted the moment that he pressed Submit. You are now a pirate in your own eyes.
Of course, in the eyes of the law, your copying was for the intent of commentary, which is a legal and valid reason to copy.
Do you have to think hard about paying at the shop when you buy a burger ? is that 'hugely complex' too ? Is it hugely complex for you to understand that you pay for something like your burger, to pay the people who make that burger, who supply the shop, and who employ burget flippers and so on. Is that, THAT HARD ?? or hugely complex ?
So I should pay before the use the name Burger King in a review of that burger then, right? Because to do otherwise is theft. Got it.
Wait, what?
Then if that is not hard, how can you find it hard that even though you understand shoplifting is wrong, and you are supposed to pay for what you consume.
You pay for what you consume because you literally consume it. It's gone. The seller no longer has it to sell. Can you explain how digital goods are 'consumed' by pirates, so that none are left for legitimate buyers?
If you can, I have a picture of a spider for you. It's worth $233.95, so it's very valuable.
You can not work out that steal, in other forms is not illegal.
What I can't work out is your sentence. Lolwut?
yes, i know how 'some' of you could find that complex.. I guess some people are just stupid !!!
Yes, some people are. Some people are, Darryl.
Something is "thick" there, but its not IP..
Agreed, Darryl. Agreed.
Next >>