Yes, quite valid point! Websites (ones which are so far removed from the protections built into this product, even to the point that there's practically nothing in common between the two other that digital media are involved) usually have similar verbiage in their TOS, therefore, clearly, the two are completely analogous and anything you can deduce about one must be true of the other. Critical thinking at its best!
Huh, and I had been thinking the thing that was noteworthy about requiring all users to sign this agreement was that the requirement is in addition to doing most everything short of attaching a TASER® Shockwave™ to the product to take down anyone who even thinks about using infringing media with it. Silly me!
I am glad someone pointed out the truly relevant point here. :P
Yes, thank you! To wit, if an action meets any part of the requirements of 'stealing', then (via one of two well-known principles of deductive reasoning: the "Synechdocheus" syllogistic form, or the rule of inference from first-order logic "Modus Synecdoche") we can deduce that the action is equivalent to stealing.
Elementary logic here, didn't everyone learn it in the Logic class they took in school? (What? There's no required public education on Logic here in the U.S.? And it's generally not even offered at all until secondary education here, and even then it's optional? Those facts strike me as somehow important, but I can't quite put my finger on why...)
[NOTE: I think wikipedia has been vandalized, so I was unable to link to the articles on "Synecdocheus" and "Modus Synecdoche". Also, suspiciously, I was unable to find mention of them in the article on deductive reasoning via syllogism or in the articles on propositional logic or first-order predicate logic. Quite strange, I hope that the damage will be reverted soon so that everyone can read the articles on this important principle: maybe at least on Techdirt we will no longer have to deal with the specious reasoning inherent in "Copying isn't stealing because no one is deprived of anything."]
Sure, because if they can tweak their algorithm to avoid sites based on a single criteria (those that appear frequently on services that report shady sites) then they can magically create an AI to do whatever they want (automagically send any infringing work to the bottom of the heap)?!
If you think it's so easy, how about just give us an idea of the algorithm that you think could work? Again, don't forget they have to address infringing works, fair use, similarly titled works, etc. as desribed in my post above.
The DecorMyEyes story is a red herring: are you really saying you think that detecting all (or even most) infringing sites, without incorrectly punishing other non-infringing sites is as simple as de-ranking sites based upon the particular websites that link to them?
Or, for that matter, that *that* is even particularly challenging? Here, some pseudeocode: "if (badsitereportersites.containsmorereportsthan(possiblesearchresults.current, 100)) then possiblesearchresults.current.remove()". Done.
Ok, now you: what's your suggestion for solving the 'detect whether site infringes' problem?
I think certain people here are demonstrating that they have very little idea what goes into making a search engine...
It's not like Mr. Google, the expert of searchology, gets the users' requests for what they want, then intelligently determines what the user means, looks at all the relevant pages, decides whether or not the pages actually match the meaning of what the user was searching for, then at some point judges the content and has the option to go "Oh, my! This site is clearly offering something that is illegal under current U.S. (or other) jurisdiction, and I will not be a party to that, oh ho ho!"
Nope, in fact simply making sure the results even match the intended query is practically impossible. Add on checking whether something is the same name but different content, or whether the content is legitimately provided via some other method, or for the thousand other reasons it may *not* be illegitimate, or whether the site is in a jurisdiction where the copyright of the work does not apply, or whether the link contains material under fair use, etc. and you've now just made the imagined search many orders of magnitude more difficult. (i.e. impossible)
Alternatively, if you can simply describe how this search engine works, algorithmically, just do so and make a zillion dollars doing it, because your algorithm surpasses any algorithm heretofore ever designed in the history of algorithms, and it's worth will far far exceed the value of simply being able to keep would-be infringers from infringing copyright.
Seriously, if Google (or anyone else) could write the search engine that some of you desire, then believe me they would do it because it would represent a new age in the development of natural language processing and artificial intelligence, and they would be more than happy to bring about the dawning of this new age. (Not to mention the mountains of cash...)
At best, rough approximations of these types of algorithms could be implemented piecemeal, a bit at a time, and always including too much while excluding too much. Searching for public domain images of the Madonna would result in no matches, and lots of hits for things people didn't want, to use a previously cited example... And this goes on forever, what about searches for creed?
Or, alternatively they could come up with some sort of system where particular pages could be blacklisted, perhaps by actual people who could claim copyright on the material on the pages, and file actions against anyone who puts up pages infringing on that copyright, say, a 'takedown notice'. Oh, wait...
And need I mention, many people are already filing their takedowns with nothing more than a keyword searching bot, and hitting tons and tons of material for which they do not have a right to do so, and for which no real punitive measures are available that do not cost more to those affected than the potential recompense. The system is already completely incentivized towards those who file them, and gives search providers no incentives to fight them. So, basically, the best possible system to achieve whatever those who want copyright easy to enforce on the Net *ALREADY* have the best possible way to do so.
And, okay, I did leave out one other alternative: just get rid of the search engines as we know them altogether: since there may be individuals out there intending to infringe no matter what, and since no system that is currently in existence (or will likely be in the foreseeable future) with the requisite capabilities in AI, then there is no way to prevent their results from cropping up on search engines. So, let's just out with the whole lot of 'em!
No, I got it: all web addresses one wishes to submit to a search index must be provided, in advance, in triplicate, double spaced, with glossy photographs of all the content and a notarized statement to the effect that the page will not be changed without advance notice and re-submission to the engines, to be sent to all copyright holders in the world for advance permission to post that content on the web! Woo! See, I just saved us from the scourge of possible infringement and it only took completely disabling the primary way the web manages to hook users up with the content (infringing or no) that they are searching for!
LOL! I'm on your side silly. :P I see the satire went over at least one person's head...
So, to clear it up for you: the premises given by the OP seem to lead quickly to the conclusion given above: if young people or those who don't give money to politicians have no ability to influence them, then SOPA's defeat clearly was by old rich people.
It's called reductio ad absurdum, and it's a way of showing a premise or set of premises to be invalid: by assuming true the premise(s) and then showing that they lead to a contradictory conclusion.
So, you miss blatant satire and misunderstand elementary logic. Who's the kissless, not smart virgin now, eh? Eh?
LOL! I'm on your side silly. :P I see the satire went over at least one person's head...
So, to clear it up for you: the premises given by the OP seem to lead quickly to the conclusion given above: if young people or those who don't give money to politicians have no ability to influence them, then SOPA's defeat clearly was by old rich people.
It's called reductio ad absurdum, and it's a way of showing a premise or set of premises to be invalid: by assuming true the premise(s) and then showing that they lead to a contradictory conclusion.
So, you miss blatant satire and misunderstand elementary logic. Who's the kissless, not smart virgin now, eh? Eh?
Having considered carefully whether you will get my message from this, seeing as how you would have to be able to recognize some (admittedly not-terribly-subtle) satire and my lame attempts at humor, I have decided it is almost certainly necessary to recapitulate my foregoing responses to your incoherent post in language which you and those of your ilk might better understand:
We're not all young.
We're not going away.
We're not going to take it anymore.
We're not fooled by your self-righteous proclamations, no matter how loud and indignant you are you make them.
We're ...
No, wait, I think I am overshooting a bit... Let me try once more.
By the way, I must complement you on your fine bit of reasoning that shows that the Government is itself "We, The People", and therefore finally providing an irrefutable line of reasoning for those that believe that the actions of the Government in our name are not actually our own actions, but those of a political overclass, essentially insulated from the will of the rest of us by a complicit media, election fraud, and mass systemic corruption.
And, but a short paragraph later (at least I think that was a paragraph--may I suggest that your ideas may spread more quickly if you work a bit on your presentation?) to then address what appeared to be a response from our "representatives" (as I used to believe they were supposed to be regardless of my vote (or not)... Ha! More like, they represent me as long as I "vote" for them with my dollars!) you clearly point out that regardless of appearances, the recent reversals (apparently due to the reaction of what is a predominately young community) must not be truly in reaction to them, but instead...
umm... to those who vote and give money! So, um, clearly... then... SOPA/PIPA were shelved, not due to the youth... errrm... but I guess, the rich and well-connected and um... oh yeah, the baby boomers!
And here anyone thought they had made a difference, fools all!
Well, I thought had a considered things from all angles, but your amazing command of logic and rational thought has clearly surpassed that of my own. I mean, how could I possibly argue against such a superbly constructed argument, all premises laid out and well founded, each leading inexorably to the next and culminating in one final conclusion, unassailable and complete.
Clearly, I and all those who have ever thought that the Government should be limited in its powers, or those who included the eighth clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, have been clearly shown wanting: to think that anyone could ever think that the point of copyright and patent law was simply a means of "promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts" by "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" or to think such nonsense as that the fact that such a clause was even necessary distinguishes infringement of such protection from 'stealing'... Such fools were we!
I am trying to explain such things now to all my friends, but, I am unfortunately in the uncomfortable position now of not being able to either quote from your argument or even link to it, since deep linking is obviously illegitimate and simply an indirect form of copyright infring... I mean, of stealing your words, so I'll simply state my conclusions to them and let my further silence denote that they should easily have come to these conclusions themselves, without the benefit of additional input from others--unless they pay, of course.
And in addition to the literal "font of wisdom" (that's out of copyright isn't it?) you have just provided us, you've proved your true wit to boot, using a clever play on Mr. Masnick's name! I mean, sure, I used to think name-calling was the sure sign that someone had a second-grade command of reason and therefore had nothing better to do than resort to petty insults, but Man"sick"! Does it get any better? I intend to immediately delete my thirty terabytes of pirated comedy material and simply re-read your message over and over, and I will gladly send you a check if you simply post a reply here with your full name and mailing address.
Yes, kind sir, you saw through my act: seeming as if I had true concerns for the political process or any sort of so-called "collateral damage" from such laws as SOPA/PIPA, when really I was simply trying to justify my large collection of pirated movies, music, and of course, the "warez" website upon which I based my immense profit from the Google ads placed thereupon. But, no longer, as you have cleansed me of my wicked ways! From henceforth, I will get a job, and start creating my own material: giving all rights to same to the glorious beasts which have clearly helped all our creative brethren make a living, earning immense amounts of money or no money at all instead of the clearly unfair system developing at present giving all a chance to make a living at what they enjoy and depriving the gatekeeping corporations and CEOs from making but a fraction (110% is it?) of what they were able to make before.
Yes, sad it is that the youth of America do not engage in politics; they used that age-old excuse that there was simply no candidate that appealed to them and I am glad to see that you have put the lie to that reasoning.
I know that I, for one, will be shouting this irrefutable truth from the rooftops until my dying day:
"WAKE [redacted pending permission from the author] IDIOTS !!!"
[That is, assuming you will give permission for me and/or others to use your fine arguments; if not I am sure we will all work hard to come up with similarly powerful arguments of our own. To be shared, for a price, of course.]
Although I understand the sentiment, I would bet a large centralized lobby (although perhaps having a positive impact in the short term) would quickly fall to the corruption inherent in making deals with politicians for political gain.
I'm rather hoping that we, instead, make them understand that the voice of "We, The People" is the only one they can afford to listen to, and that the halcyon days of political success via bucket loads of cash slathered on their campaigns in exchange for legislation are over... for GOOD. :)
Verse 1 Mike: This guy seems a bit shady and my work is public domain so he can't claim copyright. Trolls: Mike! Ha! Take that you copyright-lover! Hypocrite! [troll troll troll]
refrain Supporters: Here trolls, have some food! Eat the food! Enjoy the food! Trolls: nom nom nom nummy nom nummity num
Verse 2 Mike: Um, whatever. Just seems like he wasn't totally truthful. The notice seems nominally to say he has copyright on my work. Trolls: SEE?!? Copyright-lover copyright-lover! Clearly if a statement of copyright can in any way be interpreted to mean something we want, it MUST be interpreted that way or you're DUMB! Nyah nyah-nyah nyah nyah! We intentionally misunderstand our noses at yuuu!! [troll troll troll]
refrain Supporters: Here trolls, have some food! Eat the food! Enjoy the food! Trolls: nom nom nom nummy nom nummity num
Verse 3 Mike: Meh, seems to me he isn't exactly truthful; actually I think he used our work appropriately. [shruuuuug] Trolls: O... M... F... G...!! See what we mean NOW??!?[troll troll troll]
refrain Supporters: Here trolls, have some food! Eat the food! Enjoy the food! Trolls: nom nom nom nummy nom nummity num
On the post: Why Anti-Circumvention Laws Are Evil: Hollywood Gets To Veto DVD Jukebox, Despite Complete Lack Of Infringement
[CORRECTION: "SYNECDOCHE! strikes back"]
On the post: Why Anti-Circumvention Laws Are Evil: Hollywood Gets To Veto DVD Jukebox, Despite Complete Lack Of Infringement
SYNECDOCHE! strikes back
Huh, and I had been thinking the thing that was noteworthy about requiring all users to sign this agreement was that the requirement is in addition to doing most everything short of attaching a TASER® Shockwave™ to the product to take down anyone who even thinks about using infringing media with it. Silly me!
I am glad someone pointed out the truly relevant point here. :P
On the post: Guess What? Copying Still Isn't Stealing
Re: It can be.
Elementary logic here, didn't everyone learn it in the Logic class they took in school? (What? There's no required public education on Logic here in the U.S.? And it's generally not even offered at all until secondary education here, and even then it's optional? Those facts strike me as somehow important, but I can't quite put my finger on why...)
[NOTE: I think wikipedia has been vandalized, so I was unable to link to the articles on "Synecdocheus" and "Modus Synecdoche". Also, suspiciously, I was unable to find mention of them in the article on deductive reasoning via syllogism or in the articles on propositional logic or first-order predicate logic. Quite strange, I hope that the damage will be reverted soon so that everyone can read the articles on this important principle: maybe at least on Techdirt we will no longer have to deal with the specious reasoning inherent in "Copying isn't stealing because no one is deprived of anything."]
On the post: Why Search Engines Can't Just 'Fix' Search Results The Way The MPAA/RIAA Want
Re: Google can do whatever-it-wants if it wants
If you think it's so easy, how about just give us an idea of the algorithm that you think could work? Again, don't forget they have to address infringing works, fair use, similarly titled works, etc. as desribed in my post above.
The DecorMyEyes story is a red herring: are you really saying you think that detecting all (or even most) infringing sites, without incorrectly punishing other non-infringing sites is as simple as de-ranking sites based upon the particular websites that link to them?
Or, for that matter, that *that* is even particularly challenging? Here, some pseudeocode: "if (badsitereportersites.containsmorereportsthan(possiblesearchresults.current, 100)) then possiblesearchresults.current.remove()". Done.
Ok, now you: what's your suggestion for solving the 'detect whether site infringes' problem?
On the post: Why Search Engines Can't Just 'Fix' Search Results The Way The MPAA/RIAA Want
but... but...
It's not like Mr. Google, the expert of searchology, gets the users' requests for what they want, then intelligently determines what the user means, looks at all the relevant pages, decides whether or not the pages actually match the meaning of what the user was searching for, then at some point judges the content and has the option to go "Oh, my! This site is clearly offering something that is illegal under current U.S. (or other) jurisdiction, and I will not be a party to that, oh ho ho!"
Nope, in fact simply making sure the results even match the intended query is practically impossible. Add on checking whether something is the same name but different content, or whether the content is legitimately provided via some other method, or for the thousand other reasons it may *not* be illegitimate, or whether the site is in a jurisdiction where the copyright of the work does not apply, or whether the link contains material under fair use, etc. and you've now just made the imagined search many orders of magnitude more difficult. (i.e. impossible)
Alternatively, if you can simply describe how this search engine works, algorithmically, just do so and make a zillion dollars doing it, because your algorithm surpasses any algorithm heretofore ever designed in the history of algorithms, and it's worth will far far exceed the value of simply being able to keep would-be infringers from infringing copyright.
Seriously, if Google (or anyone else) could write the search engine that some of you desire, then believe me they would do it because it would represent a new age in the development of natural language processing and artificial intelligence, and they would be more than happy to bring about the dawning of this new age. (Not to mention the mountains of cash...)
At best, rough approximations of these types of algorithms could be implemented piecemeal, a bit at a time, and always including too much while excluding too much. Searching for public domain images of the Madonna would result in no matches, and lots of hits for things people didn't want, to use a previously cited example... And this goes on forever, what about searches for creed?
Or, alternatively they could come up with some sort of system where particular pages could be blacklisted, perhaps by actual people who could claim copyright on the material on the pages, and file actions against anyone who puts up pages infringing on that copyright, say, a 'takedown notice'. Oh, wait...
And need I mention, many people are already filing their takedowns with nothing more than a keyword searching bot, and hitting tons and tons of material for which they do not have a right to do so, and for which no real punitive measures are available that do not cost more to those affected than the potential recompense. The system is already completely incentivized towards those who file them, and gives search providers no incentives to fight them. So, basically, the best possible system to achieve whatever those who want copyright easy to enforce on the Net *ALREADY* have the best possible way to do so.
And, okay, I did leave out one other alternative: just get rid of the search engines as we know them altogether: since there may be individuals out there intending to infringe no matter what, and since no system that is currently in existence (or will likely be in the foreseeable future) with the requisite capabilities in AI, then there is no way to prevent their results from cropping up on search engines. So, let's just out with the whole lot of 'em!
No, I got it: all web addresses one wishes to submit to a search index must be provided, in advance, in triplicate, double spaced, with glossy photographs of all the content and a notarized statement to the effect that the page will not be changed without advance notice and re-submission to the engines, to be sent to all copyright holders in the world for advance permission to post that content on the web! Woo! See, I just saved us from the scourge of possible infringement and it only took completely disabling the primary way the web manages to hook users up with the content (infringing or no) that they are searching for!
:rolleyes:
On the post: Mighty Buzzard's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: A New (mis)Understanding...
So, to clear it up for you: the premises given by the OP seem to lead quickly to the conclusion given above: if young people or those who don't give money to politicians have no ability to influence them, then SOPA's defeat clearly was by old rich people.
It's called reductio ad absurdum, and it's a way of showing a premise or set of premises to be invalid: by assuming true the premise(s) and then showing that they lead to a contradictory conclusion.
So, you miss blatant satire and misunderstand elementary logic. Who's the kissless, not smart virgin now, eh? Eh?
:D
On the post: Mighty Buzzard's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: A New (mis)Understanding...
So, to clear it up for you: the premises given by the OP seem to lead quickly to the conclusion given above: if young people or those who don't give money to politicians have no ability to influence them, then SOPA's defeat clearly was by old rich people.
It's called reductio ad absurdum, and it's a way of showing a premise or set of premises to be invalid: by assuming true the premise(s) and then showing that they lead to a contradictory conclusion.
So, you miss blatant satire and misunderstand elementary logic. Who's the kissless, not smart virgin now, eh? Eh?
:D
On the post: Mighty Buzzard's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: A New (mis)Understanding...
We're not all young.
We're not going away.
We're not going to take it anymore.
We're not fooled by your self-righteous proclamations, no matter how loud and indignant you are you make them.
We're ...
No, wait, I think I am overshooting a bit... Let me try once more.
WAKE UP AND SUCK IT YOU MORONIC DOUCHEBAGS!
(Hope that was clearer for y'all.)
:P :D
On the post: Mighty Buzzard's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: A New (mis)Understanding...
And, but a short paragraph later (at least I think that was a paragraph--may I suggest that your ideas may spread more quickly if you work a bit on your presentation?) to then address what appeared to be a response from our "representatives" (as I used to believe they were supposed to be regardless of my vote (or not)... Ha! More like, they represent me as long as I "vote" for them with my dollars!) you clearly point out that regardless of appearances, the recent reversals (apparently due to the reaction of what is a predominately young community) must not be truly in reaction to them, but instead...
umm... to those who vote and give money! So, um, clearly... then... SOPA/PIPA were shelved, not due to the youth... errrm... but I guess, the rich and well-connected and um... oh yeah, the baby boomers!
And here anyone thought they had made a difference, fools all!
On the post: Mighty Buzzard's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: A New (mis)Understanding...
Clearly, I and all those who have ever thought that the Government should be limited in its powers, or those who included the eighth clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, have been clearly shown wanting: to think that anyone could ever think that the point of copyright and patent law was simply a means of "promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts" by "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" or to think such nonsense as that the fact that such a clause was even necessary distinguishes infringement of such protection from 'stealing'... Such fools were we!
I am trying to explain such things now to all my friends, but, I am unfortunately in the uncomfortable position now of not being able to either quote from your argument or even link to it, since deep linking is obviously illegitimate and simply an indirect form of copyright infring... I mean, of stealing your words, so I'll simply state my conclusions to them and let my further silence denote that they should easily have come to these conclusions themselves, without the benefit of additional input from others--unless they pay, of course.
And in addition to the literal "font of wisdom" (that's out of copyright isn't it?) you have just provided us, you've proved your true wit to boot, using a clever play on Mr. Masnick's name! I mean, sure, I used to think name-calling was the sure sign that someone had a second-grade command of reason and therefore had nothing better to do than resort to petty insults, but Man"sick"! Does it get any better? I intend to immediately delete my thirty terabytes of pirated comedy material and simply re-read your message over and over, and I will gladly send you a check if you simply post a reply here with your full name and mailing address.
Yes, kind sir, you saw through my act: seeming as if I had true concerns for the political process or any sort of so-called "collateral damage" from such laws as SOPA/PIPA, when really I was simply trying to justify my large collection of pirated movies, music, and of course, the "warez" website upon which I based my immense profit from the Google ads placed thereupon. But, no longer, as you have cleansed me of my wicked ways! From henceforth, I will get a job, and start creating my own material: giving all rights to same to the glorious beasts which have clearly helped all our creative brethren make a living, earning immense amounts of money or no money at all instead of the clearly unfair system developing at present giving all a chance to make a living at what they enjoy and depriving the gatekeeping corporations and CEOs from making but a fraction (110% is it?) of what they were able to make before.
Yes, sad it is that the youth of America do not engage in politics; they used that age-old excuse that there was simply no candidate that appealed to them and I am glad to see that you have put the lie to that reasoning.
I know that I, for one, will be shouting this irrefutable truth from the rooftops until my dying day:
"WAKE [redacted pending permission from the author] IDIOTS !!!"
[That is, assuming you will give permission for me and/or others to use your fine arguments; if not I am sure we will all work hard to come up with similarly powerful arguments of our own. To be shared, for a price, of course.]
On the post: Mighty Buzzard's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
A New Understanding...
I'm rather hoping that we, instead, make them understand that the voice of "We, The People" is the only one they can afford to listen to, and that the halcyon days of political success via bucket loads of cash slathered on their campaigns in exchange for legislation are over... for GOOD. :)
On the post: You Can Copy Our Articles All You Want... But Please Don't Claim The Copyright Belongs To You
TL;DR summary
Verse 1
Mike: This guy seems a bit shady and my work is public domain so he can't claim copyright.
Trolls: Mike! Ha! Take that you copyright-lover! Hypocrite! [troll troll troll]
refrain
Supporters: Here trolls, have some food! Eat the food! Enjoy the food!
Trolls: nom nom nom nummy nom nummity num
Verse 2
Mike: Um, whatever. Just seems like he wasn't totally truthful. The notice seems nominally to say he has copyright on my work.
Trolls: SEE?!? Copyright-lover copyright-lover! Clearly if a statement of copyright can in any way be interpreted to mean something we want, it MUST be interpreted that way or you're DUMB! Nyah nyah-nyah nyah nyah! We intentionally misunderstand our noses at yuuu!! [troll troll troll]
refrain
Supporters: Here trolls, have some food! Eat the food! Enjoy the food!
Trolls: nom nom nom nummy nom nummity num
Verse 3
Mike: Meh, seems to me he isn't exactly truthful; actually I think he used our work appropriately. [shruuuuug]
Trolls: O... M... F... G...!! See what we mean NOW??!?[troll troll troll]
refrain
Supporters: Here trolls, have some food! Eat the food! Enjoy the food!
Trolls: nom nom nom nummy nom nummity num
finis
Next >>