I'm still here, waiting for you to identify the ONE question I haven't answered. And waiting for you to directly address my question about morality.
What's the point of you popping in to complain: "and *poof* AJ disappears into thin air."
I'm right here, ready and willing to answer whatever question you want, fully and to the best of my ability.
[You and I both know that you're just running away... again. And you're trying to save face by PRETENDING like it's me that ran away. Were you always this dishonest?]
At first, early on in the thread, I used right/wrong to mean legal/illegal. Now, it is abundantly, explicitly clear that I am asking Mike about the morality of it.
My question could not be any clearer. Mike said he couldn't answer without more facts. That shows that even he acknowledges that he has not answered it. I have supplied him with three simple fact patterns.
I await Mike to answer the question of whether infringement in each of those fact patterns is immoral. Not right. Not wrong. Not legal. Not illegal. Immoral yes, or immoral no.
I could not be any more clear about what the question is. He has not answered it. He said he needed facts. I gave him facts. There is no answer.
Saying it's not proper/right to go against the content creators is a concrete moral statment that you simply choose to ignore because it doesn't fit your anti-mike narritive.
As I've already explained, even that statement from him, which by the way he has explicitly said is the ONLY reason in his opinion piracy is not OK, comes with many qualifications. So many, in fact, that it's not at all clear to me that he thinks it immoral. And the fact that he is hemming and hawing and playing games and giving excuses and doing everything in his power to not directly the question about morality only tells me that he doesn't think it to be immoral. So, no, I don't agree with you.
Why don't we just let Mike come and speak for himself. You can try an psychoanalyze me all you want, but at the end of the day Mike has not answered the question directly. This is his m.o. to a "t." I've never seen anyone run away when questioned about his beliefs like Mike does. It's amazing to me that he's so critical of everyone else, yet so unwilling to be critical of himself.
I know you're reading this Mike. Where's the ONE question I didn't answer? And where's you answer to my question about morality?
In reading Mike's comments I think it's saft to say Mike was talking morals and not law when he was saying "it's not right/proper" and thus a satifactory answer to your question regarding morals and not a comment on a seperate issue.
I disagree. I've asked him to discuss morality directly. He has not. And don't forget that he later said his answer depends on the facts. I have supplied him with three fact patterns. He hasn't addressed those fact patterns. So no, he hasn't answered the question. The fact that he said he needed more facts before he could answer indicates that he hasn't answered.
I'm awaiting his answer. And I await his pointing out the ONE question I didn't answer that he wants answered. I've been checking back all morning waiting for him to chime in. And he says I don't answer questions and I run away? Weird. I'm here, ready to answer him.
I have one other, but I haven't used it in a long time. You know which one it is. Sometimes I use Tor, but usually I just use whatever wifi is available without a proxy. So what? You let people post anonymously or with any screen name they want. That what I do.
Oh, and I notice that Mr. YOU MUST ANSWER MY QUESTIONS! totally ignored every one of mine -- just like he did last time. Remember that time? When you promised me you'd answer my questions after I answered yours, and I answered yours... and *poof* AJ disappears into thin air.
I thought I addressed all of your points. Which question did I miss? Ask me a direct question, and I will give you direct answer. I'll check back regularly to make sure I don't miss it. I'll give you the best answer I can, addressing directly whatever your question may be.
Not sure why you're complaining about me not answering ONE question, when there are many, many questions of mine you've just ignored. For example, you said I've violated your rights. I asked you to explain which right I've violated. You have not. And there's many more where that came from.
And you still haven't answered the question about whether you think it's immoral. At first you said you answered it, then later you said you didn't have enough facts. I've provided you with three fact patterns. What else do you need? Where's the answer? Shall I type out the question again, or can you find it just above? Let me know. I await your answer.
Hilarious. AJ, you make me laugh.
I can tell that having a simple, direct conversation makes you uncomfortable. Were you always this way?
And I thought you only did it because of moral reasons -- at least that's what you were claiming this morning in a different thread. Yet here you are flat out admitting that if the statutory damages risks were lower, suddenly your morals would change and you'd let your kids file share?
Ha!
I expected one your minions to make this point. And I already had planned my response. You guys are too obvious. I had house-guests last week. I gave them the code for my wifi, and I told them to please not download/upload/stream/make available anything copyrighted. Why? Because I don't want to face that kind of liability and because I think it's wrong. I tell my kids not to infringe because it's wrong and I don't want the liability. Sad try at a "gotcha!", Mike. Really. The liability is but one factor for why I don't permit it in my house. This stuff isn't hard.
Now, why haven't you actually addressed my points, like about how you have no proof that it's an effective deterrent? Unwilling to admit you made that up?
Basically, it says that the fact that statutory damages are completely out of whack with actual damages doesn't matter, because the point of statutory damages is that they're disconnected from actual damages on purpose (because, in theory, they're put in place because actual damages are difficult to assess).
That's partially what the court said. You left out the inconvenient parts:
The Supreme Court in Williams, however, disagreed that the constitutional inquiry calls for a comparison of an award of statutory damages to actual damages caused by the violation. 251 U.S. at 66. Because the damages award “is imposed as a punishment for the violation of a public law, the Legislature may adjust its amount to the public wrong rather than the private injury, just as if it were going to the state.” Id. The protection of copyrights is a vindication of the public interest, Sony Corp. of Am., 464 U.S. at 429, and statutory damages are “by definition a substitute for unproven or unprovable actual damages.” Cass Cnty. Music Co., 88 F.3d at 643. For copyright infringement, moreover, statutory damages are “designed to discourage wrongful conduct,” in addition to providing “restitution of profit and reparation for injury.” F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, 344 U.S. 228, 233 (1952).
That they're "out of whack with actual damages doesn't matter" because they are about more than just private injury--they're about the public wrong and the public interest, and they're meant to deter others from committing the same wrongful acts. Truth sucks, I know. Don't blame the messenger (and don't skip over the parts you don't like).
This is so dumb, I can't believe we're still talking about it. Slavery has been against the law for well over a century. Why? Because it's unsound and immoral and disgusting and represents the absolute worst of humanity.
As I have already conceded several times explicitly, that would be an exception to my rule. You are all perfectly right to call me out for that, but considering it's been illegal for over a century and there's even an Amendment against it, I don't see the point. Slavery sucks, absolutely. I hate slavery.
Now answer me: What's that got to do with wholesale copyright infringement? Nothing.
On the question of damages, we conclude that a statutory damages award of $9,250 for each of the twenty-four infringed songs, for a total of $222,000, does not contravene the Due Process Clause. The district court erred in reducing the third jury’s verdict to $2,250 per work, for a total of $54,000, on the ground that this amount was the maximum permitted by the Constitution.
Tenenbaum and Thomas-Rasset, 0 for 2 on the due process challenges on appeal.
The court then accepts as fact that (a) these highly dubious claims that the record labels are in trouble and it's all due to copyright infringement online and (b) that such awards actually act as a deterrent. The truth is both of these statements are factually incorrect. The record labels are in trouble because they failed to adapt to a changing market. And awards of many thousands of dollars for infringing on a single song don't act as a deterrent at all. They just seem so far away from any sense of reality that they actually make people respect copyright even less.
They failed to adopt to a changing market? LOL! That's code for pirates ate their lunch and willfully violated their rights. Ever the apologist, Mikey. You blame the victims. The court of appeals knows better than to blame anyone but the pirates, i.e., the intentional wrongdoers. Funny how your pirate logic doesn't ever hold up in court. Rather than blame the party that did no wrong, they blame the part that actually did something wrong. Crazy.
And please, stop claiming that you know for 100% sure that these damages don't act as a deterrent ("don't act as a deterrent at all"). Rubbish. I don't let my kids or friends pirate at my house because I worry about such damages. I suspect others do as well. Only an apologist would claim that it has no deterrent effect whatsoever, and then offer zero proof to back it up. That's working backwards (your specialty!).
And you missed the point of my claim of being an open book. If you ask me a direct question, I give you a direct answer. I don't run away. I don't use double talk. You are a closed book; I'm an open book. This thread is instructive on the point. Ask me a question, and I give you an answer.
You're right, I post as an AC sometimes and sometimes I use this screenname. I understand the answer may be nuanced. Go ahead and answer, using as much nuance as you like. But please do answer, and don't pretend like you have answered when you know you have not.
I gave you an explanation, and you said it wasn't an answer because I didn't say yes or no. You're so full of it.
I want your answer, whatever it may be, as long as it addresses the question. Be it a "yes," or a "no," or 150 pages long. I just want the answer. Rather than complaining about me not accepting the answer you haven't given, why not just answer the question?
Don't pretend you're so dense you don't see the parallel. So, if slavery is immoral, but freeing the slaves was against the law and was a violation of property rights, by your own definition, you must admit that those poor plantation owners were "victims" right?
You are correct. The example of human beings as property is an exception to my rule. Even though it's illegal and hasn't existed in this country for 150 years and even though there's a constitutional amendment against it, you have spotted a flaw in my argument. You are absolutely 100% correct.
What's that got to do with wholesale copyright infringement? Are you suggesting that since slavery is wrong, that somehow makes copyright wrong? I fail to understand your point. Please explain.
Just as you said before. And, my morals have no impact on anyone else's, so as we've pointed out a million times at this point, the question is stupid and meaningless.
Here's some fact patterns:
(1) Person A uses bittorrent to download a copyrighted movie. He could pay for it on iTunes, but it's easy to file-share, so he just takes it without paying.
(2) Person B uses bittorrent to download a copyrighted movie. It's not available where he lives, but he really wants to see the movie because he likes the protagonist.
(3) Person C uses bittorrent to download a copyrighted movie. It's available on DVD, but he doesn't have a player. Instead he wants to stream it on his laptop.
If you assume facts not presented that are material to your answer, just add them in and explain why they matter.
Yet in this thread you also admit that slavery was immoral, but freeing the slaves meant taking away someone's property too, you realize?
That's right. You found one situation where I think it is immoral, and it's the extreme example of where the property is human beings. That's been against the law for almost a century and a half, and has nothing to do with widespread, wholesale copyright infringement. But you did in fact identify an exception to my rule.
No, it's tautological because you're saying if Person A has his rights violated than Person A has his rights violated. I'm questioning the implicit assumptions in that statement, because it's meaningless to argue by tautology. It shows someone who has no faith in the reality of the situation.
Huh? I'm pointing out that if someone has had their copyright rights violated, then that person is a victim. It's a conditional statement, not a tautology (I majored in logic, you know, so give me a break). Regardless, can you explain your theory that someone who has had their copyright rights violated is not a victim?
Perfect example of why debating with you is pointless. There's no such thing as "per se immoral." Morality is not a black or white situation, as you yourself admit later in this thread. Yet you aim to hold me to this "have you stopped beating your wife" standard, which is a logical fallacy only put forth by those who have no argument at all.
How does the correctness of my "per se immoral" have anything to do with your hemming and hawing and refusal to answer the question? Regardless, please tell me your personal opinion. Please answer the question. Your point that it's not "per se" is well received. When I ask you about the morality of infringement, I'm referring only to wholesale copyright infringement. My favorite example is downloading a Harry Potter movie rather for free rather than paying for it. I'm not talking about creative uses such as fair use.
As I stated, I don't want you posting to this blog any more, because you're disruptive, not constructive. You are violating my wishes. Why do you hold such a double standard.
This is my property. You are violating my rights.
Come on, hold yourself to a consistent standard and go away.
Please point to the right of yours I am violating. Quote me the statute or case law or whatever it is. You cannot, because I am not violating your rights. And what's that got to do with wholesale copyright infringement?
Nor have I argued that. Why do you lie so consistently? I am not saying it's a defense. I'm asking if there's really a victim. And you are arguing a tautology in response that they're a victim because they're a victim. That's not an argument. It's someone who has no argument.
I'm saying that all rightholders who have their rights violated are victims. If you disagree, then state why. I personally don't see how they are anything but a victim. It would only be a tautology if I said they were the same thing. They're not. All copyright holders who have their rights violated are victims, but not all victims are copyright holders. I think you base whether they're a victim on whether they are harmed. That only goes to damages. I'm talking about liability. Do you understand the difference? If you have reasoning for saying some people who have their copyright rights violated aren't victims, feel free to explain.
By your definition, fuck yeah you are. You said violating their wishes violates their rights. So, you're violating my rights. Deal with it.
I've NEVER said that. I said that if it's illegal, then it violates their rights. Whether it goes against their wishes is a separate matter. But I have never said that violating someone's wishes, without more, is a violation of that person's rights.
Wait, wait, wait. So you're allowed to equivocate and point out that "it depends on the facts" but when I do, I'm not answering your question?
The question I was answering concerned killing human beings, not copyright. And, as I indicated, whether the killing is justified depends on facts. Is it war? Is it abortion? Is it self-defense?
Re: Re: Start with Giving the DMCA Misuse Section Teeth
Then we have Lenz (the dancing baby), a district court case that applied Rossi, but was never published as a formal opinion that could have precedential value with the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California.
Lenz is ongoing. The court is sitting on cross-motions for summary judgment at the moment. Decision should come soon. Universal, IMO, carried its burden in demonstrating not only subjective, but objective, good faith in issuing the takedown.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
I'm still here, waiting for you to identify the ONE question I haven't answered. And waiting for you to directly address my question about morality.
What's the point of you popping in to complain: "and *poof* AJ disappears into thin air."
I'm right here, ready and willing to answer whatever question you want, fully and to the best of my ability.
[You and I both know that you're just running away... again. And you're trying to save face by PRETENDING like it's me that ran away. Were you always this dishonest?]
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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My question could not be any clearer. Mike said he couldn't answer without more facts. That shows that even he acknowledges that he has not answered it. I have supplied him with three simple fact patterns.
I await Mike to answer the question of whether infringement in each of those fact patterns is immoral. Not right. Not wrong. Not legal. Not illegal. Immoral yes, or immoral no.
I could not be any more clear about what the question is. He has not answered it. He said he needed facts. I gave him facts. There is no answer.
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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I've already explained, even that statement from him, which by the way he has explicitly said is the ONLY reason in his opinion piracy is not OK, comes with many qualifications. So many, in fact, that it's not at all clear to me that he thinks it immoral. And the fact that he is hemming and hawing and playing games and giving excuses and doing everything in his power to not directly the question about morality only tells me that he doesn't think it to be immoral. So, no, I don't agree with you.
Why don't we just let Mike come and speak for himself. You can try an psychoanalyze me all you want, but at the end of the day Mike has not answered the question directly. This is his m.o. to a "t." I've never seen anyone run away when questioned about his beliefs like Mike does. It's amazing to me that he's so critical of everyone else, yet so unwilling to be critical of himself.
I know you're reading this Mike. Where's the ONE question I didn't answer? And where's you answer to my question about morality?
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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree. I've asked him to discuss morality directly. He has not. And don't forget that he later said his answer depends on the facts. I have supplied him with three fact patterns. He hasn't addressed those fact patterns. So no, he hasn't answered the question. The fact that he said he needed more facts before he could answer indicates that he hasn't answered.
I'm awaiting his answer. And I await his pointing out the ONE question I didn't answer that he wants answered. I've been checking back all morning waiting for him to chime in. And he says I don't answer questions and I run away? Weird. I'm here, ready to answer him.
On the post: Court: Fining Jammie Thomas $9,250 Per Song Infringed Motivates Creative Activity
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have one other, but I haven't used it in a long time. You know which one it is. Sometimes I use Tor, but usually I just use whatever wifi is available without a proxy. So what? You let people post anonymously or with any screen name they want. That what I do.
Oh, and I notice that Mr. YOU MUST ANSWER MY QUESTIONS! totally ignored every one of mine -- just like he did last time. Remember that time? When you promised me you'd answer my questions after I answered yours, and I answered yours... and *poof* AJ disappears into thin air.
I thought I addressed all of your points. Which question did I miss? Ask me a direct question, and I will give you direct answer. I'll check back regularly to make sure I don't miss it. I'll give you the best answer I can, addressing directly whatever your question may be.
Not sure why you're complaining about me not answering ONE question, when there are many, many questions of mine you've just ignored. For example, you said I've violated your rights. I asked you to explain which right I've violated. You have not. And there's many more where that came from.
And you still haven't answered the question about whether you think it's immoral. At first you said you answered it, then later you said you didn't have enough facts. I've provided you with three fact patterns. What else do you need? Where's the answer? Shall I type out the question again, or can you find it just above? Let me know. I await your answer.
Hilarious. AJ, you make me laugh.
I can tell that having a simple, direct conversation makes you uncomfortable. Were you always this way?
On the post: Tweets... In... Space....
Hope E.T. loves it too.
On the post: Court: Fining Jammie Thomas $9,250 Per Song Infringed Motivates Creative Activity
Re: Re:
And I thought you only did it because of moral reasons -- at least that's what you were claiming this morning in a different thread. Yet here you are flat out admitting that if the statutory damages risks were lower, suddenly your morals would change and you'd let your kids file share?
Ha!
I expected one your minions to make this point. And I already had planned my response. You guys are too obvious. I had house-guests last week. I gave them the code for my wifi, and I told them to please not download/upload/stream/make available anything copyrighted. Why? Because I don't want to face that kind of liability and because I think it's wrong. I tell my kids not to infringe because it's wrong and I don't want the liability. Sad try at a "gotcha!", Mike. Really. The liability is but one factor for why I don't permit it in my house. This stuff isn't hard.
Now, why haven't you actually addressed my points, like about how you have no proof that it's an effective deterrent? Unwilling to admit you made that up?
On the post: Court: Fining Jammie Thomas $9,250 Per Song Infringed Motivates Creative Activity
That's partially what the court said. You left out the inconvenient parts:That they're "out of whack with actual damages doesn't matter" because they are about more than just private injury--they're about the public wrong and the public interest, and they're meant to deter others from committing the same wrongful acts. Truth sucks, I know. Don't blame the messenger (and don't skip over the parts you don't like).
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:
As I have already conceded several times explicitly, that would be an exception to my rule. You are all perfectly right to call me out for that, but considering it's been illegal for over a century and there's even an Amendment against it, I don't see the point. Slavery sucks, absolutely. I hate slavery.
Now answer me: What's that got to do with wholesale copyright infringement? Nothing.
On the post: Court: Fining Jammie Thomas $9,250 Per Song Infringed Motivates Creative Activity
The court then accepts as fact that (a) these highly dubious claims that the record labels are in trouble and it's all due to copyright infringement online and (b) that such awards actually act as a deterrent. The truth is both of these statements are factually incorrect. The record labels are in trouble because they failed to adapt to a changing market. And awards of many thousands of dollars for infringing on a single song don't act as a deterrent at all. They just seem so far away from any sense of reality that they actually make people respect copyright even less.
They failed to adopt to a changing market? LOL! That's code for pirates ate their lunch and willfully violated their rights. Ever the apologist, Mikey. You blame the victims. The court of appeals knows better than to blame anyone but the pirates, i.e., the intentional wrongdoers. Funny how your pirate logic doesn't ever hold up in court. Rather than blame the party that did no wrong, they blame the part that actually did something wrong. Crazy.
And please, stop claiming that you know for 100% sure that these damages don't act as a deterrent ("don't act as a deterrent at all"). Rubbish. I don't let my kids or friends pirate at my house because I worry about such damages. I suspect others do as well. Only an apologist would claim that it has no deterrent effect whatsoever, and then offer zero proof to back it up. That's working backwards (your specialty!).
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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I want your answer, whatever it may be, as long as it addresses the question. Be it a "yes," or a "no," or 150 pages long. I just want the answer. Rather than complaining about me not accepting the answer you haven't given, why not just answer the question?
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:
You are correct. The example of human beings as property is an exception to my rule. Even though it's illegal and hasn't existed in this country for 150 years and even though there's a constitutional amendment against it, you have spotted a flaw in my argument. You are absolutely 100% correct.
What's that got to do with wholesale copyright infringement? Are you suggesting that since slavery is wrong, that somehow makes copyright wrong? I fail to understand your point. Please explain.
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:
Just as you said before. And, my morals have no impact on anyone else's, so as we've pointed out a million times at this point, the question is stupid and meaningless.
Here's some fact patterns:
(1) Person A uses bittorrent to download a copyrighted movie. He could pay for it on iTunes, but it's easy to file-share, so he just takes it without paying.
(2) Person B uses bittorrent to download a copyrighted movie. It's not available where he lives, but he really wants to see the movie because he likes the protagonist.
(3) Person C uses bittorrent to download a copyrighted movie. It's available on DVD, but he doesn't have a player. Instead he wants to stream it on his laptop.
If you assume facts not presented that are material to your answer, just add them in and explain why they matter.
Thanks.
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:
That's right. You found one situation where I think it is immoral, and it's the extreme example of where the property is human beings. That's been against the law for almost a century and a half, and has nothing to do with widespread, wholesale copyright infringement. But you did in fact identify an exception to my rule.
No, it's tautological because you're saying if Person A has his rights violated than Person A has his rights violated. I'm questioning the implicit assumptions in that statement, because it's meaningless to argue by tautology. It shows someone who has no faith in the reality of the situation.
Huh? I'm pointing out that if someone has had their copyright rights violated, then that person is a victim. It's a conditional statement, not a tautology (I majored in logic, you know, so give me a break). Regardless, can you explain your theory that someone who has had their copyright rights violated is not a victim?
Perfect example of why debating with you is pointless. There's no such thing as "per se immoral." Morality is not a black or white situation, as you yourself admit later in this thread. Yet you aim to hold me to this "have you stopped beating your wife" standard, which is a logical fallacy only put forth by those who have no argument at all.
How does the correctness of my "per se immoral" have anything to do with your hemming and hawing and refusal to answer the question? Regardless, please tell me your personal opinion. Please answer the question. Your point that it's not "per se" is well received. When I ask you about the morality of infringement, I'm referring only to wholesale copyright infringement. My favorite example is downloading a Harry Potter movie rather for free rather than paying for it. I'm not talking about creative uses such as fair use.
As I stated, I don't want you posting to this blog any more, because you're disruptive, not constructive. You are violating my wishes. Why do you hold such a double standard.
This is my property. You are violating my rights.
Come on, hold yourself to a consistent standard and go away.
Please point to the right of yours I am violating. Quote me the statute or case law or whatever it is. You cannot, because I am not violating your rights. And what's that got to do with wholesale copyright infringement?
Nor have I argued that. Why do you lie so consistently? I am not saying it's a defense. I'm asking if there's really a victim. And you are arguing a tautology in response that they're a victim because they're a victim. That's not an argument. It's someone who has no argument.
I'm saying that all rightholders who have their rights violated are victims. If you disagree, then state why. I personally don't see how they are anything but a victim. It would only be a tautology if I said they were the same thing. They're not. All copyright holders who have their rights violated are victims, but not all victims are copyright holders. I think you base whether they're a victim on whether they are harmed. That only goes to damages. I'm talking about liability. Do you understand the difference? If you have reasoning for saying some people who have their copyright rights violated aren't victims, feel free to explain.
By your definition, fuck yeah you are. You said violating their wishes violates their rights. So, you're violating my rights. Deal with it.
I've NEVER said that. I said that if it's illegal, then it violates their rights. Whether it goes against their wishes is a separate matter. But I have never said that violating someone's wishes, without more, is a violation of that person's rights.
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: Re: Re:
The question I was answering concerned killing human beings, not copyright. And, as I indicated, whether the killing is justified depends on facts. Is it war? Is it abortion? Is it self-defense?
What's that got to do with infringement?
On the post: Two Copywrongs Don't Make A Right, But We Still Need A Way To Combat False Takedown Notices
Re: Re: Start with Giving the DMCA Misuse Section Teeth
Lenz is ongoing. The court is sitting on cross-motions for summary judgment at the moment. Decision should come soon. Universal, IMO, carried its burden in demonstrating not only subjective, but objective, good faith in issuing the takedown.
Next >>