Copyright by definition violates someone's (in fact, everyone's) rights.
That makes no sense. Copyright doesn't violate everyone's rights. It gives to an author an exclusive right. It also takes away rights that other people would have had but for the copyright, but those other people's rights are violated. They are taken away LEGALLY. If it's done legally, then it's not a violation OF THE LAW. And they're obviously not inalienable rights, nor is the First Amendment absolute. Copyright is a well known exception. Nice try though.
If I thought for one second that either dajaz1 or rojadirecta had their rights violated, I'm be there with you. As I see it, they're two criminals that got lucky when the government decided to not prosecute. And the people Righthaven sued, as far as I can tell, were committing copyright infringement. There might have been one or two with a decent fair use defense, but suing someone with a potentially sound defense doesn't violate their rights--they were still prima facie infringers.
I don't know, but nothing would surprise me. He's using the same "tricks of the trade" as the sneaky, evil labels. I know that much. Watch out for those evil jurisdiction clauses. Only the really evil people use them!
So when Mike uses the same type clause, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. But when the labels do it, it's evil. And what about everyone else who does it? This really is standard language that you probably agree to more than you realize. This article is just more evidence of Mike's incessant need to demonize the labels, and the very thing he's complaining about is something he himself does to his offerees.
Can none of you even admit that it's funny that Mike complains about the "tricks of the trade" and about how the evil companies are "basically trying to force you to use a court that's convenient for the company, but not for you" but then he does the same exact thing himself? I mean, I know you guys all love Mike, but this is hilarious.
And where were you when Mike was being rude to me and calling me names just earlier today?
Because, you ignoramus, Mike doesn't offer to pay anyone, no one pays Mike any money, for anything.
Mike doesn't pay anyone? Then why does his contract talk about paying people?
It says: "Commission Cases are assigned to specific individuals for a pre-determined fee. Challenge Cases are made available to subgroups within the Insight Community with compensation awarded to a group of those respondents deemed to provide the best answer."
I didn't say it was this site. I said it was one of Mike's other sites. I even provided a link. And you don't sign anything to indicate your assent to the contract. Read the contract over there for yourself if you want to know its terms. But be careful, Mike uses the same exact "tricks of the trade" as the evil labels.
Better watch out, Masnick is "trying to force you to use a court that's convenient for the company, but not for you." Just like the evil labels do! Hilarious.
Either way, it's good to see Frascogna back to revealing some of the "tricks of the trade" of the major labels in setting up a contract that is inherently biased against artists.
Let's look at the Terms & Conditions of Mike's own website:
18.3 Governing Law; Jurisdiction
These Terms will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to any principles of conflicts of law. You agree that any action at law or in equity arising out of or relating to these Terms or Floor64 will be filed only in the state or federal courts in and for Santa Clara County, California, and you hereby consent and submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of such courts for the purposes of litigating any such action.
Marty's back with some new work, this time a video explaining some more of the little clauses that most musicians probably overlook in their contracts, but which allow the major labels to screw over artists. Key terms this time around: jurisdiction and venue. 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.
This is standard fare in many contracts. Nothing special about the major labels doing it. The fact that you point it out says more about you and your crusade than it does about anything else.
I'm less convinced by the next two suggestions: mandatory mediation and binding arbitration. Those are certainly cheaper than full on litigation, but there are details that matter there as well. Various studies have shown that, at least with arbitration, the big companies win a ridiculous percentage of the time -- and it's often because (even if the arbitrator is agreed upon by both parties) the arbitrator is going to do a lot more business with the big company over time and wants to be on the "recommended" list. So they have incentives to side with the company in order to "keep the business."
Ah, so we're back to this. What happened to the person who claimed to understand nuance.
I answered the question. Now I'm off to go do work. I'm not "running away" from you. I have a lunch meeting and then a staff meeting and I have discovered, from personal experience in multiple discussions with you that you have no desire for an actual discussion. You just want to prove a point by ignoring any sort of nuance.
I've answered your questions. That you disagree with the answers is your problem, not mine.
So no, you won't give a simple yes or no answer to the direct question of whether you personally believe that piracy is immoral. Shocker.
[And yes, Mike, you clearly are running away. In the time it took you type your nonanswer, you could have actually answered the question. But instead you're playing the "I have to run" excuse. You'll never answer a difficult question directly.]
My morality is meaningless. Morality is something that each person decides for themselves. You are asking a question as if morality is some sort of objective thing.
Personally, as I've said time and time again -- despite your direct refusal to accept that it is an answer -- I do not believe it is right to disobey the wishes of content creators. Whether or not is "moral" or "immoral" is a decision that each individual can only decide for themselves.
So close. You almost actually answered the question. I want to know what you, Mike Masnick, thinks. When Person A violates Person B's copyright rights against Person B's wishes, has Person A acted immorally?
Saying that your opinion is meaningless misses the point. Saying that's it's not "right" isn't quite what I'm asking. Your opinion is precisely what I want to know, no matter how meaningless you believe it to be. Please answer my direct question with a direct answer. Thanks.
When I walk up past your "No trespassing" sign to your front door and inform you that your house is built on a shoddy foundation and could collapse at any moment.
Have you ever studied the law on knocking on someone's front door?
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:
That makes no sense. Copyright doesn't violate everyone's rights. It gives to an author an exclusive right. It also takes away rights that other people would have had but for the copyright, but those other people's rights are violated. They are taken away LEGALLY. If it's done legally, then it's not a violation OF THE LAW. And they're obviously not inalienable rights, nor is the First Amendment absolute. Copyright is a well known exception. Nice try though.
If I thought for one second that either dajaz1 or rojadirecta had their rights violated, I'm be there with you. As I see it, they're two criminals that got lucky when the government decided to not prosecute. And the people Righthaven sued, as far as I can tell, were committing copyright infringement. There might have been one or two with a decent fair use defense, but suing someone with a potentially sound defense doesn't violate their rights--they were still prima facie infringers.
On the post: How The Major Labels Screw Artists: Jurisdiction & Venue
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How The Major Labels Screw Artists: Jurisdiction & Venue
Re: Re:
Good deal.
On the post: How The Major Labels Screw Artists: Jurisdiction & Venue
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How The Major Labels Screw Artists: Jurisdiction & Venue
Re: Re:
On the post: How The Major Labels Screw Artists: Jurisdiction & Venue
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How The Major Labels Screw Artists: Jurisdiction & Venue
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And where were you when Mike was being rude to me and calling me names just earlier today?
On the post: How The Major Labels Screw Artists: Jurisdiction & Venue
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike doesn't pay anyone? Then why does his contract talk about paying people?
It says: "Commission Cases are assigned to specific individuals for a pre-determined fee. Challenge Cases are made available to subgroups within the Insight Community with compensation awarded to a group of those respondents deemed to provide the best answer."
Weird. It's almost like you're clueless.
On the post: How The Major Labels Screw Artists: Jurisdiction & Venue
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How The Major Labels Screw Artists: Jurisdiction & Venue
Re: Re:
On the post: How The Major Labels Screw Artists: Jurisdiction & Venue
Re: Re:
On the post: How The Major Labels Screw Artists: Jurisdiction & Venue
Re: Re:
And you're right, Mike didn't back up his claim with any sort of evidence.
On the post: How The Major Labels Screw Artists: Jurisdiction & Venue
Re: Re:
On the post: How The Major Labels Screw Artists: Jurisdiction & Venue
Re: Re:
On the post: How The Major Labels Screw Artists: Jurisdiction & Venue
Let's look at the Terms & Conditions of Mike's own website:Source: https://www.insightcommunity.com/terms.php
LMAO! Duplicity thy name is Masnick.
On the post: How The Major Labels Screw Artists: Jurisdiction & Venue
This is standard fare in many contracts. Nothing special about the major labels doing it. The fact that you point it out says more about you and your crusade than it does about anything else.
I'm less convinced by the next two suggestions: mandatory mediation and binding arbitration. Those are certainly cheaper than full on litigation, but there are details that matter there as well. Various studies have shown that, at least with arbitration, the big companies win a ridiculous percentage of the time -- and it's often because (even if the arbitrator is agreed upon by both parties) the arbitrator is going to do a lot more business with the big company over time and wants to be on the "recommended" list. So they have incentives to side with the company in order to "keep the business."
Not even one link to back up your claim. Shocker.
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:
I answered the question. Now I'm off to go do work. I'm not "running away" from you. I have a lunch meeting and then a staff meeting and I have discovered, from personal experience in multiple discussions with you that you have no desire for an actual discussion. You just want to prove a point by ignoring any sort of nuance.
I've answered your questions. That you disagree with the answers is your problem, not mine.
So no, you won't give a simple yes or no answer to the direct question of whether you personally believe that piracy is immoral. Shocker.
[And yes, Mike, you clearly are running away. In the time it took you type your nonanswer, you could have actually answered the question. But instead you're playing the "I have to run" excuse. You'll never answer a difficult question directly.]
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:
Personally, as I've said time and time again -- despite your direct refusal to accept that it is an answer -- I do not believe it is right to disobey the wishes of content creators. Whether or not is "moral" or "immoral" is a decision that each individual can only decide for themselves.
So close. You almost actually answered the question. I want to know what you, Mike Masnick, thinks. When Person A violates Person B's copyright rights against Person B's wishes, has Person A acted immorally?
Saying that your opinion is meaningless misses the point. Saying that's it's not "right" isn't quite what I'm asking. Your opinion is precisely what I want to know, no matter how meaningless you believe it to be. Please answer my direct question with a direct answer. 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright rights are personal property rights.
When I walk up past your "No trespassing" sign to your front door and inform you that your house is built on a shoddy foundation and could collapse at any moment.
Have you ever studied the law on knocking on someone's front door?
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:
[I know you won't answer, 'cause you never do. You always run away when your beliefs are challenged.]
Next >>