Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Jan 2015 @ 1:30pm
Re:
There's that saying about ignoring anything said before "however" or "but" that applies.
Either you're for free speech, or you're not. The answer to speech that is wrong is not a lawsuit, it is more speech.
Fox News can say whatever the heck it wants to. And everyone else is free to say how wrong Fox News is about whatever idiotic thing they just said - as is happening already in this case.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Jan 2015 @ 9:36am
Re: Re: I CAN'T WIN.
Gotta disagree here. Parents have a huge effect on who their children become. The issue is that most of the direct conscious decisions parents make only have a small effect. Yes, much of the behavior kids learn is from their environment and community - but remember that the people those kids are around the most during their development are their parents.
It's not that your kid turned out ok *because* you took him to a museum or helped him with his homework - but that *you're the type of person* that would want to take your kid to a museum and help him with his homework that matters more, because its the type that impacts all the things you do.
Do you have a perfectly objective system for copyright that you think would work better?
No copyright for anything, for anyone, would be a perfectly objective system. Anything that anyone creates would be fair game without any restrictions for everyone else to use/change/profit from however they could manage.
A completely even playing field in terms of the law. What's not to love about that?
but how many pirates really think they're morally justified in benefitting from a work they didn't pay for?
I'll raise my hand to that.
I think every single person on this planet should have unrestricted access to the sum total of human knowledge, ideas, and culture. That is the ultimate goal.
I think intentional restriction of that goal of sharing is the immoral act.
Now, I live in the real world, so I understand that there will be some barriers based on economic scarcities (real scarcities, not made up ones), so I'm not saying that Hollywood *has to* buy every kid in underdeveloped countries an iPod and build their internet infrastructure so they can listen to American pop music. However once that infrastructure exists, why *shouldn't* those kids have access to all of those ideas when the real marginal costs to provide it is vanishingly close to zero?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Jan 2015 @ 10:23am
Re: Re:
Without copyright there would be no need for any of those.
No copyright? Libraries could lend any books they want. Heck, libraries could go and copy every book they had, and hand those copies out free of charge if they wanted to.
No copyright? Fair use wouldn't be needed, because there would be no concept of copyright infringement.
No copyright? The whole concept of first sale would be silly, since once you had the work, you could do whatever you wanted, including making copies and distributing them yourself.
What you're saying is that because band-aids are good, we all need to have bleeding wounds.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Jan 2015 @ 10:13am
Re: Re: Re:
No, you're really not. You're still resorting to your utterly boring attacks on Mike for the delusions in your head that tell you he hasn't shared his opinions on copyright in the nearly daily posts on the subject for more than a decade.
That is not rational.
If you want to be taken seriously, ever again, you will never once in the future ever ask Mike what his opinions are, or try to bait him into a corner for expressing them in the articles he writes. As soon as you do, you are either back to intentionally trolling, or being completely delusional.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Jan 2015 @ 10:01am
Re:
I still think Google is playing the long game and giving them enough rope to hang themselves (much like what they did with the newspapers in Europe).
In a few months, or whenever the next thing with copyright big enough to get mass media coverage happens, Google will be able to say "we did everything you wanted, there has been no drop in piracy, so it's not our fault, your business model is just broken."
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Jan 2015 @ 9:28am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no scientific way to determine the "optimal" length
Sure there is. So long as you adequately define what the goal of copyright is, it's dead simple to determine some tests that can be performed, or data that can be examined to determine the optimal length of the copyright term.
If the goal is to incentivize new works being created, then examine the number of works being created versus the length of copyright (and for all these examples, as in all well performed scientific studies, control for external factors). If the goal is to allow for greater access to the works that have been created, then we can examine what works are in print or otherwise available, as discussed here: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141229/10521029540/how-copyright-makes-culture-disappear.shtml
My understanding of ex post facto is that it applies to criminal law: If something is legal when you do it, it can't be made illegal if the law is changed later.
While I'm not a lawyer, I don't see any reasons that the principle does not apply to civil law.
I guess the same holds true for civil law, but I've not seen it in that context.
Then let me put it into context for you. The "deal" the creator of a work agreed to when given an exclusive right to their idea or expression was that after a limited period of x years, it would then be legal for the public (everyone) to then use that creation in any possible way, regardless of the creators permission or wishes.
If I were to share one of the works in the article, wouldn't I, as a member of the public, be upholding that original deal?
Eldrad/Golan - since I'm not a lawyer, I don't really care about nitpicky details of whether an argument was made. I care about overall principles and whether or not the law in question is good for the public.
As to Congress, if you think Congress speaks for the public, then you're more deluded than you accuse me of being for having anti-copyright views.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Jan 2015 @ 6:48am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's easy for me to state my opinion.
What is your opinion on retroactive copyright length extension? I've read all your posts on this page and you've never stated specifically your opinion on retroactive extension. Please do so.
I'd also like to know your specific opinion on ex post facto law, or as Wikipedia puts it, law "that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law."
Why do retroactive copyright length extensions not violate this principle? Isn't Congress barred from passing such laws? When all of the works mentioned in this article were created, and granted copyright, weren't the terms of the deal with the public for the granting of that temporary copyright that the works would pass into the public domain this year?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 12 Dec 2014 @ 8:28am
Re: Moderation [was Re: ]
Sadly, those gifted individuals are in short supply.
There are many with the right skills, but community manager/moderator type positions are very bottom of the rung in terms of compensation (if not straight volunteer work).
On the post: Cops Arrest Public Defender For Attempting To Do Her Job
If these officers are not fired for gross violations of both the lawyer and her client's civil rights, we live in a police state.
Ms. Tillotson, please sue the fuck out of these thugs and the department they work for.
On the post: The Many Ways In Which A Google-Powered Mobile Network Could Be A Game Changer
Re:
Google isn't perfect, but they're so far ahead of the other carriers that it isn't even a contest.
On the post: Major New Google Fiber Expansion Shines Massive Spotlight On Lack Of Broadband Competition
Can't wait.
Fuck you, TimeWarnerCable. Never again.
On the post: Paris, France To Sue Fox News For Being Fox News
Re:
Either you're for free speech, or you're not. The answer to speech that is wrong is not a lawsuit, it is more speech.
Fox News can say whatever the heck it wants to. And everyone else is free to say how wrong Fox News is about whatever idiotic thing they just said - as is happening already in this case.
On the post: New York City Backs Off School Cell Phone Ban, Though Some Officials Still See Cellular Tech As The Worst Sort Of Foul Devilry
Re: Re: I CAN'T WIN.
It's not that your kid turned out ok *because* you took him to a museum or helped him with his homework - but that *you're the type of person* that would want to take your kid to a museum and help him with his homework that matters more, because its the type that impacts all the things you do.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No copyright for anything, for anyone, would be a perfectly objective system. Anything that anyone creates would be fair game without any restrictions for everyone else to use/change/profit from however they could manage.
A completely even playing field in terms of the law. What's not to love about that?
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll raise my hand to that.
I think every single person on this planet should have unrestricted access to the sum total of human knowledge, ideas, and culture. That is the ultimate goal.
I think intentional restriction of that goal of sharing is the immoral act.
Now, I live in the real world, so I understand that there will be some barriers based on economic scarcities (real scarcities, not made up ones), so I'm not saying that Hollywood *has to* buy every kid in underdeveloped countries an iPod and build their internet infrastructure so they can listen to American pop music. However once that infrastructure exists, why *shouldn't* those kids have access to all of those ideas when the real marginal costs to provide it is vanishingly close to zero?
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re:
No copyright? Libraries could lend any books they want. Heck, libraries could go and copy every book they had, and hand those copies out free of charge if they wanted to.
No copyright? Fair use wouldn't be needed, because there would be no concept of copyright infringement.
No copyright? The whole concept of first sale would be silly, since once you had the work, you could do whatever you wanted, including making copies and distributing them yourself.
What you're saying is that because band-aids are good, we all need to have bleeding wounds.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re:
That is not rational.
If you want to be taken seriously, ever again, you will never once in the future ever ask Mike what his opinions are, or try to bait him into a corner for expressing them in the articles he writes. As soon as you do, you are either back to intentionally trolling, or being completely delusional.
On the post: Search For Free Downloads Of 'The Interview' Shows How Pointless The MPAA's Anti-Google Strategy Really Is
Re:
In a few months, or whenever the next thing with copyright big enough to get mass media coverage happens, Google will be able to say "we did everything you wanted, there has been no drop in piracy, so it's not our fault, your business model is just broken."
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure there is. So long as you adequately define what the goal of copyright is, it's dead simple to determine some tests that can be performed, or data that can be examined to determine the optimal length of the copyright term.
If the goal is to incentivize new works being created, then examine the number of works being created versus the length of copyright (and for all these examples, as in all well performed scientific studies, control for external factors). If the goal is to allow for greater access to the works that have been created, then we can examine what works are in print or otherwise available, as discussed here: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141229/10521029540/how-copyright-makes-culture-disappear.shtml
My understanding of ex post facto is that it applies to criminal law: If something is legal when you do it, it can't be made illegal if the law is changed later.
While I'm not a lawyer, I don't see any reasons that the principle does not apply to civil law.
I guess the same holds true for civil law, but I've not seen it in that context.
Then let me put it into context for you. The "deal" the creator of a work agreed to when given an exclusive right to their idea or expression was that after a limited period of x years, it would then be legal for the public (everyone) to then use that creation in any possible way, regardless of the creators permission or wishes.
If I were to share one of the works in the article, wouldn't I, as a member of the public, be upholding that original deal?
Eldrad/Golan - since I'm not a lawyer, I don't really care about nitpicky details of whether an argument was made. I care about overall principles and whether or not the law in question is good for the public.
As to Congress, if you think Congress speaks for the public, then you're more deluded than you accuse me of being for having anti-copyright views.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What is your opinion on retroactive copyright length extension? I've read all your posts on this page and you've never stated specifically your opinion on retroactive extension. Please do so.
I'd also like to know your specific opinion on ex post facto law, or as Wikipedia puts it, law "that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law."
Why do retroactive copyright length extensions not violate this principle? Isn't Congress barred from passing such laws? When all of the works mentioned in this article were created, and granted copyright, weren't the terms of the deal with the public for the granting of that temporary copyright that the works would pass into the public domain this year?
On the post: Techdirt 2014: The Numbers.
Re:
The only reason I have Firefox on my work system is because we have another department that has an internal site that needs Firefox.
On the post: St. Louis Post Dispatch Declares That Banning Editorial Comments Will 'Elevate The Ferguson Conversation'
Re: Moderation [was Re: ]
There are many with the right skills, but community manager/moderator type positions are very bottom of the rung in terms of compensation (if not straight volunteer work).
On the post: WSJ Writer: All The Failings Of Print Journalism Are The Fault Of The Internet
Re:
Stop blaming current society's ills on past society.
On the post: WSJ Writer: All The Failings Of Print Journalism Are The Fault Of The Internet
Re:
On the post: Google Pulls Out The Nuclear Option: Shuts Down Google News In Spain Over Ridiculous Copyright Law
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: What Comes After The Pirate Bay Is A Lot More Important Than Whether It's Up Or Down
Re:
The dozens of private trackers out there that hardly need to worry about takedown notices, because they're private?
How about everything that's behind Tor?
Actually... TPB staying down might be the biggest thing to increase the uptake of Tor I can think of.
On the post: Keurig's Controversial Java 'DRM' Defeated By A Single Piece Of Scotch Tape
Re:
I see what you did there.
On the post: Keurig's Controversial Java 'DRM' Defeated By A Single Piece Of Scotch Tape
Well, we can now put Scotch tape right next to the Sharpies as products outlawed under the DMCA.
Next >>