Yes, lots of other things brought us those great works. State contract law, state property laws, federal workplace regulations, etc. So what? The point is that when Disney says that those great works were "brought to you by copyright," they are telling the truth. Mike's claim that "Disney's creativity wasn't brought to the world because of copyright" is wrong. Copyright is the sine qua non of Disney's investment in creativity. Without it, Disney's great works would not have been invested in. Did they give the works away for free? No. They relied on their marketable right provided by copyright, and but for that right, those great works would not have been created. Mike can never give copyright the credit it's due, that much is clear. He'll demonize it 'til the day he dies. But Disney's claim of "brought to you by copyright" is 100% correct.
Instead of admitting you were wrong, like Mike, you opted to justify what you had said in a half-assed egotistical stupor.
I see from the context that you could think the "it" in my sentence referred to royalties. It did not. The poster who I was responding to was responding to my point where I was only talking about the clause in his TOS. That poster changed the subject. I did not mean to give the impression that I was saying Mike has screwed anyone. He may have screwed every person he's ever done business with (wouldn't surprise), or he may not. I don't know. But the fact remains that I meant to infer or claim anything on that subject either way. If I thought I had done anything wrong, I would gladly admit it. Good job smoking me out on this.
Seriously, it's a constant battle to decipher whether/when Mike truly believes what he's saying, is just ill-informed, is just writing unclearly, or is being disingenuous.
I'm sure it's some combination of each. In this case, he's clearly being disingenuous. Anything to get the troops riled up against that evil Disney. Intellectual rigor has to sit at the back of the Techdirt bus.
Of course, that leaves out that Disney was more or less founded on both copyright infringement (the true history of Mickey Mouse involves Disney copying another movie that was still under copyright) and using the public domain, not copyright. Disney's creativity wasn't brought to the world because of copyright, but often in spite of copyright.
When you say stuff like this, I start to wonder whether you just don't really understand copyright of if you're just being willfully blind so you can continue your copyright crusade. When they say, "brought to you by copyright," they aren't referring to the source materials. What they mean is, because of the marketable right they get in their creation provided by copyright, they were willing to put in the time, energy, creativity, and money needed to create works that we all value. I'm sure you know this though. This stuff isn't hard. Whether the source material was itself copyrighted or public domain misses the point. It's "brought to you by copyright" because the copyright DISNEY RECEIVED made it possible. Sheesh.
LOL! Mike himself conceded the point and changed his own terms & conditions, yet you refuse to acknowledge that I had a point. Mike complained thusly: "We've seen this in other arenas as well -- and lots of online service providers also uses these clauses in the terms of service you sign -- basically trying to force you to use a court that's convenient for the company, but not for you." But then he himself was using the same type term that he was lambasting. I don't know if Mike's ever ripped anybody off. That wasn't my point. My point, which I made explicitly and clearly, was that Mike's own terms contained the very clause that he deemed to be evil. This stuff isn't hard.
No a baker owns the bread. That's entirely different than if a baker had a "bakerright" to stop otheres from taking the steps needed to make bread using their own ingredients.
A priveledge is a man made "right" granted to you but not something you have any moral claim to.
The baker has a monopoly over his particular loaf of bread. Others can make their own. An author has a monopoly over his particular book. Others can make their own.
All rights are man made. Your property rights are man made. So what? You never explain why that matters. Is it immoral if I violate your man made, personal property rights?
He *has* answered. You just, apparently, don't like his answer.
No he has not. The question is: Do you, Mike Masnick, personally think that violating someone's copyright rights against their wishes is immoral?
What is his exact answer? Please provide a link and please quote the exact text. I don't care if his answer is a yes or no, or if it takes 150 pages. I just want the explicit, direct answer to this question. I want an answer where he explains his personal beliefs about the morality. He hasn't answered, nor will he.
The problem with saying rights violated = victim is you yourself said that rights violated are defined by law and by that insane logic we could define a right that would not harm the victim if violated and yet they're still "vitctims"
Trespass on my lawn, pulling up weeds and making it more beautiful in the process, and you've still violated my rights and done me wrong.
But copyright does not giva an eclusive rigght to property, it takes away other's rights to mold their property into the form they widh.
It doesn't take the right away. The exclusive rights inhere in the author. They don't go to the public, only to be taken away and given to the author. Your ownership in the property you buy is limited. If you buy a DVD, you have certain rights in it, and you don't have other rights. If you buy a piece of land, same thing.
And it doesn't. It locks up a particular expression, but not the ideas expressed. And really the sort of uses you're referring to aren't the ones that are the problem. The uses I worry about are wholesale infringement. It's not stopping innovation from preventing people from downloading the latest game, movie, or music. That stuff is for sale, not for free, and just taking it hurts the right holder.
You guys love to throw those terms around but you never explain what you mean or why it matters. The Constitution says "exclusive right." The Copyright Act says "exclusive rights." The right/privilege distinction isn't important. Either someone has a right or they don't. Nor is this a monopoly in the big, bad, evil monopoly since. A baker has a monopoly over a loaf of bread, but he hasn't cornered the bread market. An author has a monopoly over his book, but he hasn't cornered the book market. You throw out the terms 'cause they sound bad, but I doubt you even understand them. Too much Techdirt will rot your brain. Learn to think for yourself.
Did you hear that sound, guy? That was the sound of you missing the point.
So, you *do* acknowledge that some questions are so complex that to answer them with a simple "yes" or "no" does not adequately explain one's position. Good, good. So, when Mike says that he thinks it's not right to go against the wishes of the content "creators" and infringe on their copyrights, but also says that they may not actually be victims, as they could actually be better off by someone infringing on their copyrights-- and you insist on converting that perfectly acceptable answer into a "yes" or "no", is that you being douche, or are you so blinded by wanting to be right that you can't realize when you're being illogical?
This is an honest question.
Of course some questions can't be answered yes or no. If Mike's answer is yes, he should say yes. If it's no, he should say no. If it requires some explanation, then I welcome the explanation. This isn't hard.
J, do you, personally, think it's okay to take another human's life, against their wishes? I want a yes or no answer. If you don't answer, you're clearly running away from me, like you always do. If you answer other than a simple "yes" or "no", you're dodging the question.
(Please note, I'm going to copy/paste this every single time I see you request a yes/no answer to a complicated question. You're warned.)
It depends on the facts. Is it an during a war while the rules of engagement and such have been followed? Yes. Murder away. Is it an abortion? I think that's murder too, but I'm OK with it. It's not for me and I think it's disgusting, but I respect the right to choose and this planet has too many people already. But illegal murder? No, that's wrong. Not sure what you think you're accomplishing with these questions, but I don't run away from questions.
Yep. The extreme example of slavery is one where I agree 100% that the law was wrong and immoral. I'm actually a human being. You got me. I think laws against same-sex marriage are immoral too since they're based on animus. OMG!
None of that has anything to do with copyright, and giving an author an exclusive right to his property is not in the least bit immoral. As I've noted practically every nation on earth grants these rights, and some even classify them as human rights.
I've answered your questions. That you disagree with the answers is your problem, not mine.
You haven't directly answered my direct question, and you know it. I'll take a yes or no: Do you, Mike Masnick, personally think that violating someone's copyright rights against their wishes is immoral?
Why do you insist that you've answered it when you know you haven't? Just answer the question instead of giving excuses and pretending like you already have answered it. You do that every time I ask something difficult.
Let me rephrase for the pedantic: Prior to emancipation (you should learn your history if you can't figure out what "event" that refers to -- though, let me guess, you live in the south where they sorta skip over that one...) slavery was "legal." Freeing a slave by helping them go north (for example) was considered a violation of someone's property right. Do you think that was immoral?
Events that came to mind were Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. You weren't clear what event you were talking about. Don't blame me for not being able to read your mind. No, I don't think freeing slaves is immoral. Slavery is immoral. So what? Are you suggesting that giving an author a property right in his creation is immoral? I know you won't answer.
Hilarious. When I made this exact point to you in the past, you mocked me mercilessly during one of your tirades.
Link. I don't think that's accurate. I'm glad you don't deny that my grasp of IP law is greater than yours. 'Cause to pretend otherwise would be hilarious. You're a total noob.
Wait, figuring out what the *best result is* and then trying to make sure policy creates that result is "working backwards"? Really? No, figuring out what "promotes the progress" is not working backwards. It's doing what we're supposed to be doing.
No, Mike. Your approach to analyzing legal problems is to start with the conclusion and then to try and force the law to get to that answer, whether that means applying the law or not. I don't care what kind of economic answer you want to give. I'm talking about when you misinterpret and misapply the law. For example, you through out "due process!" and "prior restraint!" yet you don't understand those complicated doctrines. You do it with tons of other doctrines too. Your legal analysis boils down to what you think the answer should be, not what the law, faithfully applied, results in.
Shall I break out the list of times you've told me to "fuck off and die" or called me "pirate mike" or told me that I was a "dishonest piece of shit" or any other such insult just because I didn't answer a question you asked in the precise manner you wanted me to answer it?
Sure. I'm sure you were misrepresenting things and I was trying to get you to address something but you refused. I'm sure you were working backwards and jumping to conclusions. Let's take a look. I'd love to. I know you won't, but the sentiment is nice.
AJ, you do not recognize multiple points of view at all. You never have. You come here solely to disrupt legitimate conversation because they don't support your world view. That's the definition of a troll.
I love multiple points of view. You're the one with the mind that's welded shut. You are the most arrogant and derisive person I know.
I don't bug you where you work. Why do you act so dishonest where I work?
I'm an open book. You're the conniving, double-talking snake. Nice try though.
You are arguing that it infringing automatically creates a victim. I am questioning if that's true. Your argument is that because the law is infringed, they're automatically a victim. I don't see it that way.
Yes, Mike. If someone willfully violates your personal rights, in my mind you are a victim. It worries me that you think someone's personal rights could be violated yet they aren't a victim. Since we're talking about rights, this is a legal issue, not an economic one.
I don't see it as obvious at all. I see a tautology that ignores reality.
It's not tautological since it's not repetitive. It's a conditional statement. The reality is that if Person A has his rights violated, Person A is a victim simpliciter.
Would you give up the bullshit "I know you won't answer" claims. Stop acting like a fucking five year old.
The point is that you keep insisting that any violation of the law is a violation of someone's rights, and people are questioning why that's the case, and the only answer you give is because you say it is.
You've dodged my questions thousands of times. You're doing so again in these very comments where you refuse to answer the question, which is whether in your opinion deliberately piracy against the copyright holder's wishes is per se immoral. So don't pretend like there's no basis for me pointing out the fact that you don't answer questions. You rarely answer the hard ones.
There is no question: If someone's copyright rights have been violated by a pirate, then that someone's rights have been violated. The fact that you think this is even debatable is hilarious. Infringement is by definition the violation of someone's rights.
No, I'm asking a simple question: is there really a victim if they're better off?
Yes, if someone doesn't want their rights to be violated, then they are a victim. It matters not that you, Mike Masnick, think they are or could be better off. We don't get to violate other people's property rights with the defense that we're doing them a favor. The issue you're talking about would go to damages, not liability. The infringer is always liable. That's what I'm talking about.
You're asking a different question and one that we've pointed out 100 times is not particularly important.
And yet that it goes against the owner's wishes is the ONLY reason you are able to give for why piracy is not OK. Now you're saying that it's "not particularly important." Shocker.
Case in point: I think you're not particularly smart and I'd honestly prefer that you stop polluting my comments with bogus comments that distract from important discussions. My wishes were that you stop polluting my blog. And I've asked you this directly in the past so you know it. Yet you violate my wishes. Do you believe you have violated my rights by ignoring my wishes? I think we'd both agree that you have not. Because wishes and rights are two separate things. And that's the point that you ignore.
Always with the insults. You allow people to post comments on your blog. I post comments. Am I violating your rights? Nope.
On the post: Disney Claims House Of Mouse Built With Copyright, Ignores Public Domain Foundation
Re: Re:
On the post: Disney Claims House Of Mouse Built With Copyright, Ignores Public Domain Foundation
Re: Re: Re:
Do you dispute that because of the incentives created by copyright, Disney creates wonderful works that we all love?
On the post: How The Major Labels Screw Artists: Jurisdiction & Venue
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see from the context that you could think the "it" in my sentence referred to royalties. It did not. The poster who I was responding to was responding to my point where I was only talking about the clause in his TOS. That poster changed the subject. I did not mean to give the impression that I was saying Mike has screwed anyone. He may have screwed every person he's ever done business with (wouldn't surprise), or he may not. I don't know. But the fact remains that I meant to infer or claim anything on that subject either way. If I thought I had done anything wrong, I would gladly admit it. Good job smoking me out on this.
On the post: Disney Claims House Of Mouse Built With Copyright, Ignores Public Domain Foundation
Re: Re:
I'm sure it's some combination of each. In this case, he's clearly being disingenuous. Anything to get the troops riled up against that evil Disney. Intellectual rigor has to sit at the back of the Techdirt bus.
On the post: Disney Claims House Of Mouse Built With Copyright, Ignores Public Domain Foundation
When you say stuff like this, I start to wonder whether you just don't really understand copyright of if you're just being willfully blind so you can continue your copyright crusade. When they say, "brought to you by copyright," they aren't referring to the source materials. What they mean is, because of the marketable right they get in their creation provided by copyright, they were willing to put in the time, energy, creativity, and money needed to create works that we all value. I'm sure you know this though. This stuff isn't hard. Whether the source material was itself copyrighted or public domain misses the point. It's "brought to you by copyright" because the copyright DISNEY RECEIVED made it possible. Sheesh.
On the post: How The Major Labels Screw Artists: Jurisdiction & Venue
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:
A priveledge is a man made "right" granted to you but not something you have any moral claim to.
The baker has a monopoly over his particular loaf of bread. Others can make their own. An author has a monopoly over his particular book. Others can make their own.
All rights are man made. Your property rights are man made. So what? You never explain why that matters. Is it immoral if I violate your man made, personal property 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: Re: Re:
No he has not. The question is: Do you, Mike Masnick, personally think that violating someone's copyright rights against their wishes is immoral?
What is his exact answer? Please provide a link and please quote the exact text. I don't care if his answer is a yes or no, or if it takes 150 pages. I just want the explicit, direct answer to this question. I want an answer where he explains his personal beliefs about the morality. He hasn't answered, nor will he.
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:
Yes. And so was the Missouri Compromise. You guys are beyond desperate at this point, attacking my choice of the word "events." Give me a break.
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:
Trespass on my lawn, pulling up weeds and making it more beautiful in the process, and you've still violated my rights and done me wrong.
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:
It doesn't take the right away. The exclusive rights inhere in the author. They don't go to the public, only to be taken away and given to the author. Your ownership in the property you buy is limited. If you buy a DVD, you have certain rights in it, and you don't have other rights. If you buy a piece of land, same thing.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And it doesn't. It locks up a particular expression, but not the ideas expressed. And really the sort of uses you're referring to aren't the ones that are the problem. The uses I worry about are wholesale infringement. It's not stopping innovation from preventing people from downloading the latest game, movie, or music. That stuff is for sale, not for free, and just taking it hurts the right holder.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You guys love to throw those terms around but you never explain what you mean or why it matters. The Constitution says "exclusive right." The Copyright Act says "exclusive rights." The right/privilege distinction isn't important. Either someone has a right or they don't. Nor is this a monopoly in the big, bad, evil monopoly since. A baker has a monopoly over a loaf of bread, but he hasn't cornered the bread market. An author has a monopoly over his book, but he hasn't cornered the book market. You throw out the terms 'cause they sound bad, but I doubt you even understand them. Too much Techdirt will rot your brain. Learn to think for yourself.
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:
So, you *do* acknowledge that some questions are so complex that to answer them with a simple "yes" or "no" does not adequately explain one's position. Good, good. So, when Mike says that he thinks it's not right to go against the wishes of the content "creators" and infringe on their copyrights, but also says that they may not actually be victims, as they could actually be better off by someone infringing on their copyrights-- and you insist on converting that perfectly acceptable answer into a "yes" or "no", is that you being douche, or are you so blinded by wanting to be right that you can't realize when you're being illogical?
This is an honest question.
Of course some questions can't be answered yes or no. If Mike's answer is yes, he should say yes. If it's no, he should say no. If it requires some explanation, then I welcome the explanation. This isn't hard.
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:
(Please note, I'm going to copy/paste this every single time I see you request a yes/no answer to a complicated question. You're warned.)
It depends on the facts. Is it an during a war while the rules of engagement and such have been followed? Yes. Murder away. Is it an abortion? I think that's murder too, but I'm OK with it. It's not for me and I think it's disgusting, but I respect the right to choose and this planet has too many people already. But illegal murder? No, that's wrong. Not sure what you think you're accomplishing with these questions, but I don't run away from questions.
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:
None of that has anything to do with copyright, and giving an author an exclusive right to his property is not in the least bit immoral. As I've noted practically every nation on earth grants these rights, and some even classify them as human 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:
You haven't directly answered my direct question, and you know it. I'll take a yes or no: Do you, Mike Masnick, personally think that violating someone's copyright rights against their wishes is immoral?
Why do you insist that you've answered it when you know you haven't? Just answer the question instead of giving excuses and pretending like you already have answered it. You do that every time I ask something difficult.
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:
Events that came to mind were Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. You weren't clear what event you were talking about. Don't blame me for not being able to read your mind. No, I don't think freeing slaves is immoral. Slavery is immoral. So what? Are you suggesting that giving an author a property right in his creation is immoral? I know you won't 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:
Link. I don't think that's accurate. I'm glad you don't deny that my grasp of IP law is greater than yours. 'Cause to pretend otherwise would be hilarious. You're a total noob.
Wait, figuring out what the *best result is* and then trying to make sure policy creates that result is "working backwards"? Really? No, figuring out what "promotes the progress" is not working backwards. It's doing what we're supposed to be doing.
No, Mike. Your approach to analyzing legal problems is to start with the conclusion and then to try and force the law to get to that answer, whether that means applying the law or not. I don't care what kind of economic answer you want to give. I'm talking about when you misinterpret and misapply the law. For example, you through out "due process!" and "prior restraint!" yet you don't understand those complicated doctrines. You do it with tons of other doctrines too. Your legal analysis boils down to what you think the answer should be, not what the law, faithfully applied, results in.
Shall I break out the list of times you've told me to "fuck off and die" or called me "pirate mike" or told me that I was a "dishonest piece of shit" or any other such insult just because I didn't answer a question you asked in the precise manner you wanted me to answer it?
Sure. I'm sure you were misrepresenting things and I was trying to get you to address something but you refused. I'm sure you were working backwards and jumping to conclusions. Let's take a look. I'd love to. I know you won't, but the sentiment is nice.
AJ, you do not recognize multiple points of view at all. You never have. You come here solely to disrupt legitimate conversation because they don't support your world view. That's the definition of a troll.
I love multiple points of view. You're the one with the mind that's welded shut. You are the most arrogant and derisive person I know.
I don't bug you where you work. Why do you act so dishonest where I work?
I'm an open book. You're the conniving, double-talking snake. Nice try though.
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:
Yes, Mike. If someone willfully violates your personal rights, in my mind you are a victim. It worries me that you think someone's personal rights could be violated yet they aren't a victim. Since we're talking about rights, this is a legal issue, not an economic one.
I don't see it as obvious at all. I see a tautology that ignores reality.
It's not tautological since it's not repetitive. It's a conditional statement. The reality is that if Person A has his rights violated, Person A is a victim simpliciter.
Would you give up the bullshit "I know you won't answer" claims. Stop acting like a fucking five year old.
The point is that you keep insisting that any violation of the law is a violation of someone's rights, and people are questioning why that's the case, and the only answer you give is because you say it is.
You've dodged my questions thousands of times. You're doing so again in these very comments where you refuse to answer the question, which is whether in your opinion deliberately piracy against the copyright holder's wishes is per se immoral. So don't pretend like there's no basis for me pointing out the fact that you don't answer questions. You rarely answer the hard ones.
There is no question: If someone's copyright rights have been violated by a pirate, then that someone's rights have been violated. The fact that you think this is even debatable is hilarious. Infringement is by definition the violation of someone's rights.
No, I'm asking a simple question: is there really a victim if they're better off?
Yes, if someone doesn't want their rights to be violated, then they are a victim. It matters not that you, Mike Masnick, think they are or could be better off. We don't get to violate other people's property rights with the defense that we're doing them a favor. The issue you're talking about would go to damages, not liability. The infringer is always liable. That's what I'm talking about.
You're asking a different question and one that we've pointed out 100 times is not particularly important.
And yet that it goes against the owner's wishes is the ONLY reason you are able to give for why piracy is not OK. Now you're saying that it's "not particularly important." Shocker.
Case in point: I think you're not particularly smart and I'd honestly prefer that you stop polluting my comments with bogus comments that distract from important discussions. My wishes were that you stop polluting my blog. And I've asked you this directly in the past so you know it. Yet you violate my wishes. Do you believe you have violated my rights by ignoring my wishes? I think we'd both agree that you have not. Because wishes and rights are two separate things. And that's the point that you ignore.
Always with the insults. You allow people to post comments on your blog. I post comments. Am I violating your rights? Nope.
Next >>