Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?
In fact, the only people who seem to are a couple of trolls who complain about it, as if what he thinks is absolutely crucial.
Actually, the reason these trolls care about what Mike thinks, is because people actually listen to Mike, and nobody listens to the trolls.
They just can't accept the fact that people listen to Mike because he actually has sane and reasonable things to say, and nobody listens to the trolls because they have nothing. So, like anyone who can't attack the argument, they attack the speaker instead.
None of those movies were produced because of copyright. Studios will gladly take advantage of their copyright monopoly, but there's no evidence that this monopoly caused production.
Also, the fact that the movies are being heavily pirated, yet more movies are being made, provides evidence that you are wrong.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?
Ah, yet another missive of outright lies and insults from average_joe's sockpuppet. I must've done something right.
Also, I love the way you claim Mike "has not stated an opinion" on whether it's immoral to pirate... yet, in the same post, discusses the opinion Mike stated for why it's immoral to pirate. (Incidentally, Mike said "artists," not "rightsholders" - since Mike, unlike you, is pro-artist.)
Bonus points for an appeal to emotion, by equating rape - a physical violation, done through violence - with copyright infringement, which is neither a physical violation nor a violent act.
Of course, portraying your "enemies" as thuggish, subhuman rapists is a classic propaganda technique, so I'm not at all surprised you're using it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?
The fact that a bunch of politicians say something doesn't make it true.
The Constitution granted these exact politicians the exclusive right to create copyright laws, so in this case, it is true if they say it. (Assuming they're representing the will of the general public, as they should.)
But they're not the only ones to have said it:
The central plank of the 1710 Act was then, and remains, a cultural quid pro quo. Parliament, to encourage "learned Men to compose and write useful Books", provided a guaranteed, if finite, right to print and reprint those works so composed. The legislators were not concerned with the recognition of any pre-existing authorial right...
- Ronan Deazley, "Commentary on the Statute of Anne 1710"
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. [...]
Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not.
- Thomas Jefferson
That congress, in passing the act of 1790, did not legislate in reference to existing rights, appears clear...
- Wheaton v. Peters
I could dig up more, if you want. But the upshot is pretty clear: copyright simply is not a natural right. It is a statutory right, one that does not exist unless Congress declares it so.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?
The value of living among others is that those others will support one's NATURAL RIGHTS
Copyright is not a natural right.
The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writings, [...] but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be served [...] by securing to authors for limited periods the exclusive rights to their writings.
No, you didn't. The question was: " What quote are you using as the basis for what you think the guy meant by 'too much'?"
In other words: why do you believe that the phrase "too much" had anything to do with fair use?
You didn't answer this question... because you can't. Because the fact is that "too much" is not a fair use argument.
You're lying. And, why are you lying? Thankfully, you've answered this yourself:
What I hope to accomplish is (1) get the answer from him that he doesn't want to admit but that we can all see to be true (namely, that he doesn't think authors/artists should have any exclusive rights, and (2) keep reminding everyone that Mike is slimy and dishonest.
So, your goal is:
(1) Try to get Mike to admit to something he probably doesn't believe, by tricking him into answering "gotcha" questions; and
(2) To smear Mike personally, regardless of his actual viewpoints, because you are a fixated psycho.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Can you name a single company that is doing that right now?
Well, 111(a)(1) explicitly exempts "the management of a hotel, apartment house, or similar establishment," so I imagine they're doing it. Other people are exempt as well, including certain carriers, educational instructors, government bodies, or nonprofits.
The point is that Congress set up those rules and "fees" (actually, statutory licenses) specifically for cable companies. They do not apply to everyone.
So when you say Aero should pay "the same fee," you are saying - arbitrarily - that they should follow the laws that were created for a different type of company. And you seem to be doing so for no reason other than making you and/or your friends some money.
Incidentally: it's entirely possible that certain rebroadcasters could do exactly what you suggest, completely legally, but don't. They want to also carry the non-free-over-the-air content that is being produced by the same parent companies, so they work out a deal.
It's ironic that this opinion piece comes out when I watched "The Net" last night.
Not to mention "Skyfall," which has some of the worst depictions of "hacking" I've ever seen (though it's still a good movie).
Frankly, I've never seen a depiction of hacking in a film that was even halfway accurate... probably because it's boring.
Also, the real way to "hack" systems isn't through computer programming; it's through social engineering. Of course, saying "you got hacked because you acted like an idiot" doesn't scare people enough to enforce bad laws, so...
Terrorists are not from a single state, nor a single "civilization."
I'd also like to point out that we don't know who perpetrated the bombings at this point. It could just as easily be Tea Party extremists as Islamic terrorists. Or it could be mass murderers without a political agenda, like many of the school shooters. Or someone completely different.
What would have been our best response to that attack?
Well, for starters, going after the people who were actually responsible, and not preyed on that fear to invent scare stories to go to war with Iraq. Not bombing civilian targets would have helped. Not gunning down journalists from helicopters, or running them over with tanks, probably would have been a good idea.
These actions may not have convinced the actual terrorists to love us, but they wouldn't have created more terrorists.
And that, in the end, the United States will respond to attacks on civilians in American cities by ordering the complete destruction of the enemy civilization.
And what civilization would that be, exactly? Terrorists are not from a single state, nor a single "civilization."
So, what, we should wipe out all Muslims across the world? Or everyone in the Middle East?
And what do you do about terrorists like the Oklahoma City bombers? Kill all the white people? Murder anyone in an American militia?
Do you honestly think doing that would not lead to a police state?
Our open society will not last under sustained terrorist assault.
This, of course, is complete bullshit. The only way our "open society will not last," is if we listen to people like you, and grant our government's military carte blanche to do whatever they want.
Or do you honestly think they'd stop with genocidal actions against foreign citizens? Please.
Also:
What do you want to do about that?
Well, if your goal is actually to save lives and keep America free, then it would be better to do nothing than to take your advice. Fewer lives would be lost (even American lives) from terrorist attacks than would be lost in an all-out war. And we'd certainly have more freedom, though less safety.
On the other hand, if your goal is to cleanse the planet of all human beings, then you've got some good ideas. I can understand that, I'm a fan of Boyd Rice too.
you have to keep in mind that they found and diffused two other bombs (one of which was at the JFK Library)
The latest news is that the fire at the JFK Library was unrelated. Whatever the case, no bombs were "diffused" (obviously, or the JFK fire wouldn't have happened).
I think now is the time to put the politics behind us and concentrate on helping those in need at the moment.
Seconded.
In fact, I think it would be best if we left politics out of it altogether. People who do that are usually just exploiting a tragedy for political gain.
On the post: YouTube Wins Yet Another Complete Victory Over Viacom; Court Mocks Viacom's Ridiculous Legal Theories
Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?
Actually, the reason these trolls care about what Mike thinks, is because people actually listen to Mike, and nobody listens to the trolls.
They just can't accept the fact that people listen to Mike because he actually has sane and reasonable things to say, and nobody listens to the trolls because they have nothing. So, like anyone who can't attack the argument, they attack the speaker instead.
On the post: YouTube Wins Yet Another Complete Victory Over Viacom; Court Mocks Viacom's Ridiculous Legal Theories
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
None of those movies were produced because of copyright. Studios will gladly take advantage of their copyright monopoly, but there's no evidence that this monopoly caused production.
Also, the fact that the movies are being heavily pirated, yet more movies are being made, provides evidence that you are wrong.
On the post: YouTube Wins Yet Another Complete Victory Over Viacom; Court Mocks Viacom's Ridiculous Legal Theories
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?
Also, I love the way you claim Mike "has not stated an opinion" on whether it's immoral to pirate... yet, in the same post, discusses the opinion Mike stated for why it's immoral to pirate. (Incidentally, Mike said "artists," not "rightsholders" - since Mike, unlike you, is pro-artist.)
Bonus points for an appeal to emotion, by equating rape - a physical violation, done through violence - with copyright infringement, which is neither a physical violation nor a violent act.
Of course, portraying your "enemies" as thuggish, subhuman rapists is a classic propaganda technique, so I'm not at all surprised you're using it.
On the post: YouTube Wins Yet Another Complete Victory Over Viacom; Court Mocks Viacom's Ridiculous Legal Theories
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?
The Constitution granted these exact politicians the exclusive right to create copyright laws, so in this case, it is true if they say it. (Assuming they're representing the will of the general public, as they should.)
But they're not the only ones to have said it:
- Ronan Deazley, "Commentary on the Statute of Anne 1710"
- Thomas Jefferson
- Wheaton v. Peters
I could dig up more, if you want. But the upshot is pretty clear: copyright simply is not a natural right. It is a statutory right, one that does not exist unless Congress declares it so.
On the post: YouTube Wins Yet Another Complete Victory Over Viacom; Court Mocks Viacom's Ridiculous Legal Theories
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?
Copyright is not a common-law right.
- Wheaton v. Peters
On the post: YouTube Wins Yet Another Complete Victory Over Viacom; Court Mocks Viacom's Ridiculous Legal Theories
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?
Copyright is not a natural right.
- House Report on the Copyright Act of 1909
On the post: YouTube Wins Yet Another Complete Victory Over Viacom; Court Mocks Viacom's Ridiculous Legal Theories
Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?
Correct, according to the Supreme Court:
- Feist v. Rural
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Chilling Effects On Research
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you didn't. The question was: " What quote are you using as the basis for what you think the guy meant by 'too much'?"
In other words: why do you believe that the phrase "too much" had anything to do with fair use?
You didn't answer this question... because you can't. Because the fact is that "too much" is not a fair use argument.
You're lying. And, why are you lying? Thankfully, you've answered this yourself:
So, your goal is:
(1) Try to get Mike to admit to something he probably doesn't believe, by tricking him into answering "gotcha" questions; and
(2) To smear Mike personally, regardless of his actual viewpoints, because you are a fixated psycho.
Thanks for clearing that up.
On the post: YouTube Wins Yet Another Complete Victory Over Viacom; Court Mocks Viacom's Ridiculous Legal Theories
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, "he" being average_joe or his sockpuppet A.C. Not Mike, obviously.
On the post: YouTube Wins Yet Another Complete Victory Over Viacom; Court Mocks Viacom's Ridiculous Legal Theories
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you - I was looking for that post earlier, to show he was lying (as if it isn't obvious), but I couldn't find it.
I did find a couple other posts, though, which I quoted here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130404/03365722575/dmca-as-censorship-chilling-effects-res earch.shtml#c825
On the post: EFF On IsoHunt: Bad Facts Make Bad Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
Well, 111(a)(1) explicitly exempts "the management of a hotel, apartment house, or similar establishment," so I imagine they're doing it. Other people are exempt as well, including certain carriers, educational instructors, government bodies, or nonprofits.
The point is that Congress set up those rules and "fees" (actually, statutory licenses) specifically for cable companies. They do not apply to everyone.
So when you say Aero should pay "the same fee," you are saying - arbitrarily - that they should follow the laws that were created for a different type of company. And you seem to be doing so for no reason other than making you and/or your friends some money.
Incidentally: it's entirely possible that certain rebroadcasters could do exactly what you suggest, completely legally, but don't. They want to also carry the non-free-over-the-air content that is being produced by the same parent companies, so they work out a deal.
On the post: The Greatest Trick The Government Ever Pulled Was Convincing The Public The 'Hacker Threat' Exists
Re:
Not to mention "Skyfall," which has some of the worst depictions of "hacking" I've ever seen (though it's still a good movie).
Frankly, I've never seen a depiction of hacking in a film that was even halfway accurate... probably because it's boring.
Also, the real way to "hack" systems isn't through computer programming; it's through social engineering. Of course, saying "you got hacked because you acted like an idiot" doesn't scare people enough to enforce bad laws, so...
On the post: EFF On IsoHunt: Bad Facts Make Bad Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One from Big Search and one from its lobbyist lackeys
In fact, that's not always true. Generally speaking, it's not infringement if the rebroadcasting "is not made by a cable system."
The limitations and exemptions are in 17 USC 111.
On the post: DailyDirt: Helping People In Boston
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd also like to point out that we don't know who perpetrated the bombings at this point. It could just as easily be Tea Party extremists as Islamic terrorists. Or it could be mass murderers without a political agenda, like many of the school shooters. Or someone completely different.
On the post: DailyDirt: Helping People In Boston
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, for starters, going after the people who were actually responsible, and not preyed on that fear to invent scare stories to go to war with Iraq. Not bombing civilian targets would have helped. Not gunning down journalists from helicopters, or running them over with tanks, probably would have been a good idea.
These actions may not have convinced the actual terrorists to love us, but they wouldn't have created more terrorists.
And that, in the end, the United States will respond to attacks on civilians in American cities by ordering the complete destruction of the enemy civilization.
And what civilization would that be, exactly? Terrorists are not from a single state, nor a single "civilization."
So, what, we should wipe out all Muslims across the world? Or everyone in the Middle East?
And what do you do about terrorists like the Oklahoma City bombers? Kill all the white people? Murder anyone in an American militia?
Do you honestly think doing that would not lead to a police state?
Our open society will not last under sustained terrorist assault.
This, of course, is complete bullshit. The only way our "open society will not last," is if we listen to people like you, and grant our government's military carte blanche to do whatever they want.
Or do you honestly think they'd stop with genocidal actions against foreign citizens? Please.
Also:
What do you want to do about that?
Well, if your goal is actually to save lives and keep America free, then it would be better to do nothing than to take your advice. Fewer lives would be lost (even American lives) from terrorist attacks than would be lost in an all-out war. And we'd certainly have more freedom, though less safety.
On the other hand, if your goal is to cleanse the planet of all human beings, then you've got some good ideas. I can understand that, I'm a fan of Boyd Rice too.
On the post: DailyDirt: Helping People In Boston
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What "indicators"? The snowflake? AFAIK, it doesn't follow you from story to story.
I thought you might be AJ, because the vindictive way you talk about retribution at any cost is the same way that AJ talks about "piracy."
And, honestly, it was a dig at AJ... I think it's funny that AJ is so bad, even you don't want to be compared to him.
On the post: Boston Officials Allegedly Shut Down Mobile Service In Boston To Prevent Remote Detonation (Update: Or Not)
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Boston Officials Allegedly Shut Down Mobile Service In Boston To Prevent Remote Detonation (Update: Or Not)
Re:
The latest news is that the fire at the JFK Library was unrelated. Whatever the case, no bombs were "diffused" (obviously, or the JFK fire wouldn't have happened).
On the post: DailyDirt: Helping People In Boston
Re: Re:
Seconded.
In fact, I think it would be best if we left politics out of it altogether. People who do that are usually just exploiting a tragedy for political gain.
On the post: DailyDirt: Helping People In Boston
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Average Joe, is that you?
...Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Next >>