So it's only a problem if the government infringes my rights? Anyone else shouldn't need to respect my rights to free speech, because they're not the government? Yet you've claimed that anybody downloading a song is 100% morally wrong, because it violates the copyrights.
FTFA: "As that article notes, publishers can (and do!) already limit how much you highlight -- can't have you highlight too much, now -- so it's not like the concern was that you'd just highlight the whole thing and release that on the world."
If I can get it for free from my public library, what difference is there if I download it? The library will have bought their copy whether I use theirs or download one. In both cases, I'm experiencing the content without paying a dime for it. In both cases, the content creator and their gatekeepers are in the exact same position before and after I'm done.
I expect I'll get the same "authorized vs unauthorized" rubbish as I usually get, but why should that matter when they get the exact same attention and money either way?
See, you're not a troll because you actually try to have a civilized conversation about it. We call that poster a "troll" because he is not willing to try to make his argument without endless personal attacks. If someone states their case, all he will do is insult them and insist that he is right. If he were actually interested in a discussion, we'd be more than happy to deal with him and not call him a troll, but he's just insistent on being the loudest voice in the room.
OMGROFLBBQ! Pirate Mike, why won't you just admit that you're trying to get all legal documents filed in comic form? Obviously when you said 'That doesn't mean I would recommend it' that was just a ploy to get the koolaid drinkers to believe you're not a picturetard comic-lawyer apologist. Because we all know you can't write a blog post about something being interesting without wholeheartedly supporting it.
I think it's telling that the best quote they could find from him was "I had to convince the Senate it wasn't witchcraft". I'd be less worried about a governor who wants to legalize driverless cars than a senate that thought they were powered by witchcraft.
How about "Nobody should throw stones." That's crappy behavior. My policy is: "No stone throwing regardless of housing situation." Don't do it. There is one exception though. If you're trapped in a glass house, and you have a stone, then throw it. What are you, an idiot? So maybe it's "Only people in glass houses should throw stones, provided they are trapped in the house with a stone." It's a little longer, but yeah.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
Wow, where did I ever say that piracy is OK? All I said is that your example was completely bass ackwards.
If I had fireworks, and someone came up to me to buy them, I could not sell them by law. That is a valid reason to answer them in the negative.
However, say I've written an original story. I've already sold copies of the txt file to other people in my state for $10 (yeah, we're assuming it's a DAMN GOOD story). If someone in California wants to buy a copy of the txt file for $10, I'm free to sell it to them. I'm also free to tell them no. But if I do answer them in the negative, all I'm doing is depriving myself of money. No matter whether they do without or go find someone else who I did sell a copy to to tell them the story, I'm out $10 that I could have had with little effort.
Personally, I wouldn't want them to pirate my story. If they don't value it that much, I'd rather they found something they did value enough to pay for. But if they're willing to pay me for it, then they might also be willing to try to get it for free, whether I think that's wrong or not. So why not go ahead and sell it to them?
Isn't that less copyright and DMCA notices, and more classification and threats under the Espionage Act? Pretty sure the US Government can't hold copyrights, as everything they produce goes into the public domain.
No, nobody in your home state can sell fireworks. You've been to towns where they can't sell you a drink. There is an important difference.
If the (MP|RI)AA were forbidden by law to sell to people outside of the US, you would have a point. Instead, you have people coming up to them on the internet, where it is perfectly legal to sell their goods and physical location does not matter for distribution, and being turned away.
He listed a few of the most common such violations, and I've forgotten all but one: in this state, you are legally required to have a designated trash receptacle in the front half of your vehicle.
I'm safe on this one. The front half of my vehicle is my designated trash receptacle.
So if I started a company called "I Am Not A Monster", which company would you be trying to claim I was doing that with? Could I be claiming I'm not an overpriced cable? Or perhaps I'm saying I'm not a slightly disgusting energy drink?
Or maybe, just maybe, I'm saying I'm not a bad person. Gee, it's almost like some words have meaning outside the corporate landscape!
Of course she has special rights; she's a creator! They get protection. All those other peasants are the ones who have to watch what they say and know what they're talking about.
The report button is for spam. When the posts are almost literally copy and pasted 20+ times in the thread regardless of how anyone replies, that is undeniably spam. Not that it's censored anyway, just hidden because enough people agree that the posts are spam or do not add anything to the discussion.
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Allow me to quote someone you may be familiar with, if I may: "Tell me this (and no one here seems willing to answer this simple question): Can I pick and choose which of your rights I want to respect? If I decide to violate one of your rights, would it be wrong?"
On the post: Book Publishers Latest War On Technology: How Dare You Share Your Kindle Highlights! [Updated]
Re:
On the post: Don't Focus On Why People Pirate; Focus On Why They Don't Buy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I expect I'll get the same "authorized vs unauthorized" rubbish as I usually get, but why should that matter when they get the exact same attention and money either way?
On the post: Yet Another Study Says First Person Shooters Are Good For Your Eyesight
Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge In Ebook Price Fixing Case Takes Briefing Filed As A Comic (Somewhat) Seriously
(Man, I feel like I need a shower now.)
On the post: First Word, Last Word And Letting Our Biggest Fans Help Shape The Conversation In Our Comments
Re:
On the post: Hilarious Attack Ad In Florida Suggests That Legalizing Autonomous Vehicles Puts Old People At Risk
On the post: Is Being Rich And Arrogant Against The Law? The RIAA & MPAA Seem To Think So
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
If I had fireworks, and someone came up to me to buy them, I could not sell them by law. That is a valid reason to answer them in the negative.
However, say I've written an original story. I've already sold copies of the txt file to other people in my state for $10 (yeah, we're assuming it's a DAMN GOOD story). If someone in California wants to buy a copy of the txt file for $10, I'm free to sell it to them. I'm also free to tell them no. But if I do answer them in the negative, all I'm doing is depriving myself of money. No matter whether they do without or go find someone else who I did sell a copy to to tell them the story, I'm out $10 that I could have had with little effort.
Personally, I wouldn't want them to pirate my story. If they don't value it that much, I'd rather they found something they did value enough to pay for. But if they're willing to pay me for it, then they might also be willing to try to get it for free, whether I think that's wrong or not. So why not go ahead and sell it to them?
On the post: It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites
Re:
On the post: It's Never Enough: Both RIAA & MPAA Aren't Satisfied With Google Punishing 'Pirate' Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hold on a minute
If the (MP|RI)AA were forbidden by law to sell to people outside of the US, you would have a point. Instead, you have people coming up to them on the internet, where it is perfectly legal to sell their goods and physical location does not matter for distribution, and being turned away.
On the post: From SOPA To Cybersecurity: All About Trying To Control The Internet
Re: Re: Regulating Musical Tastes
On the post: Gibson Guitars CEO Calls Out The Government For 'Regulating Business Through Criminal Law' [Updated]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm safe on this one. The front half of my vehicle is my designated trash receptacle.
On the post: Richard Branson Claims People May Confuse 'I Am Not A Virgin Jeans' With His Virgin Properties
Re:
Or maybe, just maybe, I'm saying I'm not a bad person. Gee, it's almost like some words have meaning outside the corporate landscape!
On the post: Dear Angry Person: People Who Criticize You Likely Aren't Defaming You Or Infringing On Your Copyright
Re:
On the post: And So It's Come To This: Samsung/Google Forced To Degrade Features In Patent Dispute
Re: Re: Re: Usefullness
On the post: Websites Deemed 'Place Of Public Accommodation' Under The ADA; Expects Lots Of Sites To Get Sued
Re: Re: I hate this too
On the post: Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models
Re:
Next >>