Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHOA! Stop at: "everyone just wants stuff for free".
Yeah, I'm pointing out that he isn't saying anything concrete or helpful. He isn't putting any skin in the game, as per usual. I'm not asking him to debate me because I know for a fact that he is too scared to. I'm challenging to say even one concrete idea about copyright reform.
The guy publishes something every day and you come here just to read it, but then contend he offers nothing?
Yes. Mike never takes a concrete stand on copyright. He pretends like he is completely unable to form a solid opinion on things. And he claims that since he doesn't know something for a fact with 100% certainty, he is unable to form an opinion on it. Now, he will of course cite with glee anything that anybody says that reflects negatively on copyright. And he'll latch onto just about any argument that calls for less copyright. But when pressed for his personal views to be stated concretely, he makes excuses and runs away every time. Just watch him over the next couple years with this copyright revision. He'll have all sorts of opinions, but none of them concrete and he won't discuss his views on the merits.
I just replied to three of your comments in a row, but you no debate me?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHOA! Stop at: "everyone just wants stuff for free".
That's not the same A.C. The whiny, "debate meeeee!!!" A.C. is in fact Average Joe.
I have not once asked Mike to debate me. Again, making up stuff and ignoring the evidence.
Average Joe would never, in a million years, say something like "IP is a privilege provided for by the government and no one is entitled to anything the government provides."
IP is rights provided by the government, not privileges, but I certainly agree that rightholders are not necessarily entitled to these rights. One day you'll represent my position accurately. Um, on second thought, probably not. You ignore evidence too much.
You don't have "artist friends." You have "lawyer friends."
Oh look. More sweeping pronouncements stated as fact that are not based on any evidence. Your specialty!
This is flat-out ridiculous. The public's interest is the only interest that matters.
So artists don't matter? Techies don't matter? I don't agree.
This is to say that the public doesn't benefit from artists and technology - certainly, they do. But as far a copyright is concerned, those two interests are derivative of the public's interest. Not the other way around.
But we give the exclusive rights to the artists/authors so that in turn can benefit the public. We don't give the rights to the public first.
I know you love to pretend that the public isn't a stakeholder, that they're just onlookers in the copyright debates. They're not.
And yet I said: "Of course the public is a stakeholder too . . . ." Again, ignoring all evidence you don't like to make claims not based on the evidence. You're really good at it, Karl. Kudos. It's truly remarkable.
Reading your comment threads reminds me of when Joe Scarborough went on Charlie Rose to debate Paul Krugman about the US debt and deficit. Paul presented salient points and well reasoned arguments, while all Joe could do was spew ad homs and scare up boogeymen. You've even got the same name! Coincidence? Maybe. But then again, maybe not?
I'm pointing out that Mike has not said one concrete thing. And I suspect, based on years of watching him only approach copyright from a high-level, he never will. I'd love to see him actually make even one concrete suggestion based on any of his "framework" above. Mike hasn't presented any "salient points." It's just a bunch of rhetoric. Krugman at least says concrete things about the economy. Mike just gives us the view from the clouds without ever putting any real skin in the debate.
LOL! I know he won't debate me. He's too scared. I'm just challenging him to actually say something concrete. This high-level nonsense doesn't tell us anything useful. Anyone can make sweeping pronouncements like this. Stating something concrete is difficult, but it's way more productive. Mike wants so desperately to be in on the debate. That's great. But he needs to actually bring something useful to the table.
As we've seen over and over again, consumers are actually spending more today on entertainment than ever before, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And tons of studies have shown that the biggest infringers also tend to be the biggest spenders.
Again, this is all just high-level stuff that doesn't tell us anything concrete. Let's assume that it's true that the biggest infringers are the biggest spenders. So what? What exactly do you think we should do about that fact, Mike? You never tell us anything concrete. Make an argument about what we should do given that fact. Get some skin in the game.
Decisions need to be made based on empirical data. As we've discussed in the past, historically, copyright reform discussions have been almost entirely faith-based. This is why the claims of "everyone just wants stuff for free" are so concerning," since the data suggests that's not even close to true. Given the recent call for objective research that would be useful in the copyright debate, by the US National Research Council, I'm hopeful that we'll actually begin to see some useful data for this discussion. Hopefully those in Congress will actually pay attention to the data, rather than continue to insist that blatantly false claims must be true.
This sounds good as a high-level principle, but you never explain exactly how we measure the "the progress." What variables are there? How are they weighted? How does one measure them? And what about all the things that simply cannot be measured? How do you account for that? You make it sound like this is simple to do, but it seems to me to be impossible.
I like objective data as much as you, but I fail to see how this stuff could ever really be measured in meaningful way. Thoughts? I'd love to hear the details of how you think we obtain and agree upon this data. As it is, I think you just keep repeating this as a rhetorical device, but I've yet to see you give it any concreteness.
Too many representatives continued to set this up as a battle between "content creators" and "the tech industry." This is dangerously misleading. In fact, at one point, Rep. Deutch flat out said that any copyright reform must carefully benefit "creators and the tech industry, as if those were the only two stakeholders. The real stakeholders of copyright law, however, have always been the public, who were barely mentioned at all in the hearing. Or, when they were mentioned, it was often with the somewhat disparaging term "users."
It seems pretty accurate to me. As your site demonstrates daily, it does boil down to your tech buddies vs. my artist friends. Of course the public is a stakeholder too, and they count at the ballot box, but the two interests who are going to drive most of this copyright reform are techies and artists. The public's interest is derivative of those two interests.
Because if copyright infringement were rape, Mike would be saying, "rape is not OK, because it happens against the victim's will."
This is not very controversial, and it is not even remotely like the argument that rape victims "should just like it."
Wow. So it's reasonable to think that the only reason rape is not OK is because it goes against the victim's will? That strikes me as very controversial. What about the fact that it causes harm to the victim? What about the interests of society?
So, not only are you an immoral scumbag, you're a lying immoral scumbag.
Getting personal much? It's one thing to disagree with me, but you needn't call me names like this.
He has provided none. Nobody else has provided any. The reason is that none exists.
And before you ask Mike to show "that there is no such evidence," you know very well that this is factually impossible. You can't prove a negative.
Contradict yourself much? You claim that it's impossible to prove there is no such evidence, but then you state categorically that there is no evidence. LOL! If you admit that you can't prove there is no evidence, then why are claiming that there is no such evidence? You can't prove that, as you admit.
If someone has a copyrighted work and an administrative agency adopts it as a standard by reference, that doesn't thrust the work into the public domain.
Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.
And he thinks piracy is not OK because (and only because) the victims don't like it. Reminds me of the argument that rape victims should just like it. I mean, they're getting laid, so it's OK, right? Funny how he's not man enough to actually discuss his beliefs on the merits. And by funny, I mean sad.
Yeah, wanting loud-mouthed zealots to calm down and have a reasonable conversation on the merits is such a bad thing. I'm tired of even asking him anymore since I know for a fact that he's a total fake and coward. I just feel sorry for him at this point. I can't imagine being so unsure of myself yet so demanding of others. Nor could I ever be so fundamentally dishonest.
Just last week he demanded that there were no allegations of specific criminal infringement against the Mega Conspirators. I pointed out the fact that specific criminal infringement is alleged, and he just ran away rather than admit an obvious truth.
Not at all. Mike has no evidence that it's not true, and the AG, the one who would have such evidence, says it is true. I know that Mike can't prove it's not true. Hence, my point. He shouldn't be saying it's not true just because he can't prove it. Under your logic, I can say all kinds of things aren't true even though I'm in no position to have any basis for my claims, and that's perfectly normal. How about some evidence instead of faith? I know. I know. It's Techdirt.
On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHOA! Stop at: "everyone just wants stuff for free".
On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform
Re: The Mike Masnick Copyright Reform Plan
On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. Mike never takes a concrete stand on copyright. He pretends like he is completely unable to form a solid opinion on things. And he claims that since he doesn't know something for a fact with 100% certainty, he is unable to form an opinion on it. Now, he will of course cite with glee anything that anybody says that reflects negatively on copyright. And he'll latch onto just about any argument that calls for less copyright. But when pressed for his personal views to be stated concretely, he makes excuses and runs away every time. Just watch him over the next couple years with this copyright revision. He'll have all sorts of opinions, but none of them concrete and he won't discuss his views on the merits.
I just replied to three of your comments in a row, but you no debate me?
Do you want the honest answer?
On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHOA! Stop at: "everyone just wants stuff for free".
I have not once asked Mike to debate me. Again, making up stuff and ignoring the evidence.
Average Joe would never, in a million years, say something like "IP is a privilege provided for by the government and no one is entitled to anything the government provides."
IP is rights provided by the government, not privileges, but I certainly agree that rightholders are not necessarily entitled to these rights. One day you'll represent my position accurately. Um, on second thought, probably not. You ignore evidence too much.
On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform
Re: Re:
Oh look. More sweeping pronouncements stated as fact that are not based on any evidence. Your specialty!
This is flat-out ridiculous. The public's interest is the only interest that matters.
So artists don't matter? Techies don't matter? I don't agree.
This is to say that the public doesn't benefit from artists and technology - certainly, they do. But as far a copyright is concerned, those two interests are derivative of the public's interest. Not the other way around.
But we give the exclusive rights to the artists/authors so that in turn can benefit the public. We don't give the rights to the public first.
I know you love to pretend that the public isn't a stakeholder, that they're just onlookers in the copyright debates. They're not.
And yet I said: "Of course the public is a stakeholder too . . . ." Again, ignoring all evidence you don't like to make claims not based on the evidence. You're really good at it, Karl. Kudos. It's truly remarkable.
On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm pointing out that Mike has not said one concrete thing. And I suspect, based on years of watching him only approach copyright from a high-level, he never will. I'd love to see him actually make even one concrete suggestion based on any of his "framework" above. Mike hasn't presented any "salient points." It's just a bunch of rhetoric. Krugman at least says concrete things about the economy. Mike just gives us the view from the clouds without ever putting any real skin in the debate.
On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform
Re: Re:
LOL! I know he won't debate me. He's too scared. I'm just challenging him to actually say something concrete. This high-level nonsense doesn't tell us anything useful. Anyone can make sweeping pronouncements like this. Stating something concrete is difficult, but it's way more productive. Mike wants so desperately to be in on the debate. That's great. But he needs to actually bring something useful to the table.
On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform
Again, this is all just high-level stuff that doesn't tell us anything concrete. Let's assume that it's true that the biggest infringers are the biggest spenders. So what? What exactly do you think we should do about that fact, Mike? You never tell us anything concrete. Make an argument about what we should do given that fact. Get some skin in the game.
On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform
This sounds good as a high-level principle, but you never explain exactly how we measure the "the progress." What variables are there? How are they weighted? How does one measure them? And what about all the things that simply cannot be measured? How do you account for that? You make it sound like this is simple to do, but it seems to me to be impossible.
I like objective data as much as you, but I fail to see how this stuff could ever really be measured in meaningful way. Thoughts? I'd love to hear the details of how you think we obtain and agree upon this data. As it is, I think you just keep repeating this as a rhetorical device, but I've yet to see you give it any concreteness.
On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform
It seems pretty accurate to me. As your site demonstrates daily, it does boil down to your tech buddies vs. my artist friends. Of course the public is a stakeholder too, and they count at the ballot box, but the two interests who are going to drive most of this copyright reform are techies and artists. The public's interest is derivative of those two interests.
On the post: Eric Holder Claims Terrorists Are Involved In 'IP Theft'
Re: Re: Re:
This is not very controversial, and it is not even remotely like the argument that rape victims "should just like it."
Wow. So it's reasonable to think that the only reason rape is not OK is because it goes against the victim's will? That strikes me as very controversial. What about the fact that it causes harm to the victim? What about the interests of society?
So, not only are you an immoral scumbag, you're a lying immoral scumbag.
Getting personal much? It's one thing to disagree with me, but you needn't call me names like this.
On the post: Eric Holder Claims Terrorists Are Involved In 'IP Theft'
Re: Re:
And before you ask Mike to show "that there is no such evidence," you know very well that this is factually impossible. You can't prove a negative.
Contradict yourself much? You claim that it's impossible to prove there is no such evidence, but then you state categorically that there is no evidence. LOL! If you admit that you can't prove there is no evidence, then why are claiming that there is no such evidence? You can't prove that, as you admit.
On the post: One Simple Copyright Reform Idea: Government Edicts Should Never Be Subject To Copyright
Sure. We talked about one scenario a few months ago: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130223/02505322081/sheet-metal-air-conditioning-contractors-use-b ogus-copyright-takedown-to-block-publication-federally-mandated-standards.shtml
If someone has a copyrighted work and an administrative agency adopts it as a standard by reference, that doesn't thrust the work into the public domain.
My post in that thread: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130223/02505322081/sheet-metal-air-conditioning-contractors-use-b ogus-copyright-takedown-to-block-publication-federally-mandated-standards.shtml#c920
Now you go.
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Eric Holder Claims Terrorists Are Involved In 'IP Theft'
Re:
And he thinks piracy is not OK because (and only because) the victims don't like it. Reminds me of the argument that rape victims should just like it. I mean, they're getting laid, so it's OK, right? Funny how he's not man enough to actually discuss his beliefs on the merits. And by funny, I mean sad.
On the post: Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just last week he demanded that there were no allegations of specific criminal infringement against the Mega Conspirators. I pointed out the fact that specific criminal infringement is alleged, and he just ran away rather than admit an obvious truth.
Mike claiming that no specific criminal infringement was alleged: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/16142522983/kim-dotcom-files-brief-his-trial-court-public- opinion.shtml#c824
Me pointing out that there was such infringement alleged (over the movie "Taken"): http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/16142522983/kim-dotcom-files-brief-his-trial-court-public- opinion.shtml#c878
Crickets. Total fake. Total coward.
On the post: Eric Holder Claims Terrorists Are Involved In 'IP Theft'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Eric Holder Claims Terrorists Are Involved In 'IP Theft'
Re: Re:
On the post: Eric Holder Claims Terrorists Are Involved In 'IP Theft'
Re: Re:
Next >>