I think I've decided on the "trolling on purpose" explanation for Joe's behavior, rather than "actually thinks he's right"
When Joe was actually making sane arguments (still legalistic, but at least sane), then I think it was a good thing that people give him the benefit of the doubt.
But this discussion has absolutely shown his true colors. And they are not good. At this point, he is just trolling.
And, frankly, it puts all of his previous (even sane) comments in doubt. I have debated him at length before, and found him frustrating for precisely the same reasons as he is being a troll now.
The outright denial of what plain-English phrases actually say is nothing new. For example, he said that the ex parte seizures of domain names are not prior restraint, and relies on Arcara and no other ruling for that opinion.
Now, Arcara says, explicitly, that it does not apply to situations where "an advance determination that the distribution of particular materials is prohibited." Yet he claimed - and still claims - that Arcara applies in cases (such as the DOJ seizures) where there was nothing other than "an advance determination that the distribution" of infringing "materials is prohibited."
This was the very first argument I had with average_joe. And he gave some rational (though completely wrong) reasons for his opinions.
Because he was rational, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Needless to say, it was displaced. Every single ruling that he predicted - without exception - was rejected by the various courts of law.
Still, I gave him the benefit of the doubt (again), and assumed that he was just new to the intricacies of the law. (Which is odd, considering that he was a law student, and I was not.)
I now see that I was wrong about him all along. Since then, he has quoted a lot of cases that directly contradict his opinions, and never once admitted that he was wrong. Instead, he argues semantics about what "is" is, makes logical leaps that nobody in their right mind would make, and insults everyone who disagrees with him (including myself, though I let it slide). All the while situating himself as a "teacher," and me as "student."
Of course, he has never "taught" me anything other than the fact that he is wrong. Not one single argument he made has ever held water in the real world.
And that, I think, is why he is being such an asshole now. It is a textbook case of psychological projection.
He claims that Mike never answered his questions. In fact, Mike has answered every single question that Joe asked. But Joe has not answered a single question that Mike asked in return.
Joe calls Mike "dishonest," when Joe twists Mike's words to claim that Mike said something he didn't. Or just outright lies about what Mike said.
Joe falsely accuses Mike of using "sock puppets." Yet he himself admits to posing as multiple different users on this site, expressly so that people won't be able to know it's the same person posting his opinions.
Joe disparages Mike for not being "moral" enough. Yet Joe thinks that the ICE seizures against Rojadirecta and Dajaz1 are morally justified; but that Aaron Schwartz brought everything upon himself, and deserves everything that happened to him.
Joe calls Mike a "psychopath," but is so self-absorbed that he thinks Techdirt posts stories merely so that stories with his idiotic comments can "fall off the sidebar." He is so self-absorbed and egotistical, that he believes Mike not answering him that day is "running away" (and not, say, taking care of his actual business, or simply deciding you're not worth it.)
It's pretty obvious at this point. Joe is an immoral, obsessive stalker; one who might have been informative long ago, but now needs to be put down like a mangy dog.
What quote are you using as the basis for what you think the guy meant by "too much"?
I know, right?
I mean, one of Average Joe's little propaganda tricks is to selectively use legal terminology, when that terminology has the desired appeal to emotion. (See his description of rights holders as "victims" of infringement, or his insistence that copyright is a "right," but human rights are a "privilege.")
But in this case, even the legal definition doesn't support his claim. Arguing that someone quoted "too much" isn't arguing against fair use, it's arguing against de minimis.
Any first-semester law student knows the difference, and if Mike claimed anything even remotely similar, you know Joe would be frothing at the mouth about it, calling Mike a liar, saying he should do his research, etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Just FYI, I was going to leave you alone for a while, but this thread has made me decide to crank it up a notch. Kudos!
Oh, you're going to start spamming Techdirt stories that have absolutely nothing to do with copyright, or fair use, or the subject at hand? Ask no substantive questions, insult Mike personally, and lie some more? Ruin any kind of intelligent debate with your childish demands for attention?
Like you have so many, many times before?
Mike should never have discussed anything with you, ever.
If I want something enough to put out any effort to obtain it, I am in the market for it. I might prefer to get it for free if it's easily available, but be prepared to buy it otherwise.
In which case, you most likely would not be searching for "Scott Turow free e-books." You're far more likely to prefer to get it for free if it's easily available, but do without it otherwise.
But there are people like you describe. It's just that Turow (and others like him) must find a way to convince the people who search for "free e-books" to pay money, instead of either pirating or doing without (economically there's no difference). Lashing out at public libraries isn't going to do that.
Gee, why don't search engines just maximize their revenue by serving up nothing but ads and leaving out all those non-lucrative search results, then?
If they did, nobody would click on those ads; and if that happened, they'd make exactly the same amount of money as they do when people click on search results: zero.
People may be searching for content to pirate, but the people who actually make money from those searches are not pirate sites. The search engine doesn't get paid when people click on a link to the Pirate Bay. They get paid when people click on an advertisement to buy something on Amazon or iTunes.
If you believe you have posted an answer, then please provide the link to your post.
Your question: "Why would he have said he contacted you because he thought you used 'too much,' if, as you claim, he thinks that ANY use requires permission."
Mike is absolutely right. This is quite literally what the guy said: "But until [an amicable outcome based on a mutually agreed definition of fair use] occurs, [...] I exert my copyright rights and explicitly deny Techdirt permission to use any content owned by [redacted]. If such use does occur in future, [...] I consider such use a breach of copyright."
He didn't deny Techdirt the right to use content that wasn't "too much." He denied Techdirt the right to use any content whatsoever. And he explicitly said that any use is "a breach of copyright" - whether "too much" or not.
So, given the fact that "too much" obviously has nothing to do with fair use, what do you think "too much" means?
I, like everyone else who speaks English, think it means "too much for my liking." He clearly (and falsely) believes it's an infringement of copyright unless he thinks it's fair use. (For those watching at home: whether a copyright holder believes something is "fair use" is completely irrelevant. A use is fair, or it isn't, and the copyright holder's opinion matters not one iota.)
Otherwise, why even ask for "a mutually agreed definition of fair use?" (Much less demand it, as he does here?) The obvious answer is that he believes fair use is a kind of "gentleman's license."
Something you seem to believe, too. After all, you called this email "negotiations [...] over the scope of [Techdirt's] nonexclusive license." Despite the fact that the word "license" doesn't appear anywhere in his email, and the "negotiations" are over the "definition of fair use."
This attitude, by the way, is not uncommon in publishing circles (or so my grunt-level journalist friends tell me). And it shows - as if there were any doubt whatsoever - that Mike is right, and you are wrong.
Which is not a big deal. But the fact that you are so clearly wrong, yet insist you are right... that you claim your opponent hasn't answered questions which he absolutely has... that you deliberately misinterpret plain English, in order to put words in peoples' mouths... that you deliberately misstate and mislead, while accusing your opponent of being dishonest...
The DMCA also requires a repeat infringer policy. If, as you are pretending, there was no way to know what is infringing, why is that in the law?
Of course there is a way to know what is infringing. It's called a "DMCA notice." The "repeat infringer" policy does not require shutting off users until after repeated DMCA notices.
And those notices, by law, must refer to "Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing [...] and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material." In other words, specific material at a specific URL.
And, in fact, the law is explicit that improperly-sent notifications are not enough to lose safe harbors: "a notification from a copyright owner [...] that fails to comply substantially with the provisions of subparagraph (A) shall not be considered [...] in determining whether a service provider has actual knowledge or is aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent."
If even an improper DMCA notice is not enough to raise "red flag" knowledge, then there's no way that "general knowledge" of infringement is unlawful, and certainly isn't anything like "willful blindness."
The cost of music has been a persistent issue for Pandora, which by law pays a fraction of a cent in performance royalties each time a song is played on the service. That has tended to amount to 50 percent to 60 percent of the company’s revenue; it also pays a much smaller portion of its income to music publishers.
As a (co-)songwriter, Ellen Shipley would only get part of the royalties going to music publishers... which are only a small part of the royalties that Pandora pays.
The lion's share goes to the copyright holders - which are the RIAA clients (record labels), who are not-so-coincidentally the people behind musicFIRST.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm fairly sure "copyright maximalists" DO have all sources tapped.
No, brains ain't enough, takes people actually producing goods. You can think yourself rich as you like, but will starve if no laborer feeds you.
You do realize that this goes against the very idea of "intellectual property," right? It means that authors, songwriters, designers, etc. are not "actually producing goods," since they work with their brains alone.
In fact, generally people who espouse the "Labor Theory of Value" are not very artist-friendly at all, as they view payments for art as an example of commodity fetishism.
The "distribution" right would only be implicated in the former, and not the latter
Actually, I misspoke slightly. The "distribution" right would only be implicated in the former, if downloading a digital file constituted a "transfer" of a "material object."
Which is exactly what the ReDigi court said is impossible. Hence the confusion.
"Through the NEXIS Database," Karl. It couldn't be more clear.
It is unclear whether they were referring to downloads when they talked about "selling copies." The contents of other defendants' CD-ROM's, for example, were reproduced from the LEXIS/NEXIS database for a fee.
In fact, the ruling didn't touch on any distinction between downloading and viewing the articles. The language was all about the "display of each article;" how it "appears" to the user; how it is "presented to, and perceptible by, the user of the Databases;" and so forth. Thus, the argument of the Librarian of Congress, regarding the "display" right - which the court did not need to determine or decide.
In other words, the court is vague - obviously; the entire discussion consists of one sentence and a footnote, without any examination of the statutes, or even mentioning any alternate arguments. They don't need to be anything but vague, because nobody even raised the argument, and it would have made absolutely no difference at all to the outcome.
Let's say another court had ruled that selling a digital download was not "distributing" a "material object" under the language of the statute; instead, it was an "authorization" for users to make "material objects" on their own hard drives. (This viewpoint, incidentally, is the only thing I can think of that would be consistent with the ReDigi ruling).
Do you think that ruling would have been "foreclosed" by Tasini? I don't. Nor would it have made the defendants in Tasini any less liable (since all of them made, and/or authorized, tangible copies).
Also, I explained my position on the Arista court earlier. They read a bit too much into Tasini, IMO. But it's not inconsistent, nor is it legally wrong; and they're both courts of equal standing, so the point is really moot. Tasini may not have "foreclosed" the argument, but later courts certainly have.
Which makes the ReDigi ruling all the more confusing, because it appears to directly contradict all the other courts on this matter (as I suggested above). In order to "distribute" a digital file, you need to "transfer" it, and the ReDigi court seems to say that this is completely impossible even in theory.
The Supreme Court explicitly says that it's "clear" that distributing digital files over the internet implicates the distribution right.
Except that they're not talking about "distributing digital files over the internet." They are talking about distributing digital files on CD-ROM, and viewing files that reside on LEXIS/NEXIS "central discs" (their database).
That's why the Librarian of Congress argued that LEXIS/NEXIS was violating the "display" right, which is not covered under 201(c). But: "Satisfied that the Publishers exercised rights 106 initially assigns exclusively to the Author, we need resolve no more on that score." (Footnote 8.)
They did not examine which right was violated, because they didn't need to; they never even looked at the language of the statute itself, because, again, they didn't need to. The question was never raised by the defense, and wouldn't have affected the outcome of the case.
Because that was never the deciding factor. The deciding factor was whether inclusion in a database is "a revision of a collective work." That was the only defense the publishers raised, and the only thing the court needed to decide.
Thanks for admitting that it's not true. If only Mike were 1/10th as willing as you to discuss the issues on the merits.
And, again, whoosh!
I thought it was obvious, but I guess I have to spell it out. The entire comment was a satire of your comments here - in fact, most of it was direct quotes of things you've said about Mike in this thread.
Yes, you've engaged me many times in the comments - just like Mike has engaged you. The fact that you keep posting things after he replied to you - and after you've lied about what he said, and his motives, and consistently attack and berate him - does not mean he hasn't engaged you. And it doesn't mean he's "running away" or a "coward."
Just as the fact that I've posted the "last word" in our discussions doesn't mean you're "running away" or a "coward."
Personally, I believe that if someone does something that causes my bank account balance to go down, and theirs to go up, without my informed consent, they are ripping me off.
File sharing doesn't do this, obviously, because no matter how many times my works are shared, my bank account never goes down.
Addressed the rest above, but wanted to address this:
The EFF are pro-tech and anti-copyright just like Mike.
The EFF are not "pro-tech." They are pro-free speech, pro-privacy rights, and pro-individual rights, especially regarding electronic communications of all forms. If that makes them "anti-copyright," then that reflects badly on copyright, not the EFF.
Fortunately for copyright, the EFF is not "anti-copyright." They are against instances where copyright law intrudes upon free speech, privacy, and individual rights - things that anyone who is "pro-copyright" should also be against.
Mike doesn't link to that other article you're quoting
Go to the above story, and click on the words "does not apply" that are in blue. This is called a "hyperlink," or generally a "link."
If you do you will be taken to a Techdirt story, whose title is: "IP Lawyer Explains Why Uploading Files May Not Be Distribution For Copyright."
In fact, Mike does not link to the story that you are linking to.
and he doesn't admit that no court ever has agreed with that silly reading of the statute. He's intentionally leaving out the inconvenient truths that he doesn't like.
He certainly did in the article which he linked to, above.
But he also did in the story that you linked to:
There's an even bigger problem with the distribution right under copyright law, which copyright lawyer Andrew Bridges has brought up numerous times, but which most copyright lawyers like to ignore. Technically, the distribution right under copyright law does not apply to digital files. Yes, the courts tend to ignore this all the time, so you could argue that they've decided that it doesn't matter. [Emphasis mine]
Mike left nothing out. You did, intentionally, so that you could accuse him of not saying the thing that you left out. Or, in layman's terms, so you could lie.
Is the point you're trying to make that Mike was against that interpretation of the Tasini case both then and now because that's all I'm getting here.
Not just Mike, but also Andrew Bridges, Fred von Lohmann, and (according to von Lohmann) "just about every copyright scholar."
Also, "against" may be a strong word - "not supported by a technical reading of the statute" might be better.
And not the Tasini case:
Also this bit from Tasini:
I think you meant to say "this bit from London-Sire v. Does," since that's the case the quote is from, and not Tasini.
What is interesting is that they rely on the First Sale doctrine to make this ruling - something that this court explicitly rejects.
Off-topic, but also interesting, is the fact that this case shows - yet again - why Arcara does not apply to copyright infringement:
Copyright infringement, per se, is clearly not speech entitled to First Amendment protection. See Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters.,471 U.S. 539, 555-57, 560, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985) (discussing the First Amendment and copyright, and examining whether fair use doctrine applied to alleged act of copyright infringement). But there are some creative aspects of downloading music or making it available to others to copy: the value judgment of what is worthy of being copied; the association of one recording with another by placing them together in the same library; the self-expressive act of identification with a particular recording; the affirmation of joining others listening to the same recording or expressing the same idea. See Rebecca Tushnet, Copy This Essay: How Fair Use Doctrine Harms Free Speech and How Copying Serves It, 114 Yale L.J. 535, 545-47, 562-81 (2004); Jack M. Balkin, Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society, 79 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 1, 45-46 (2004); cf. Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 547, 105 S.Ct. 2218 (noting that compilation of pure fact "entails originality" in selection and ordering of the facts). Thus, while the aspect of a file-sharer's act that is infringing is not entitled to First Amendment protection, other aspects of it are.
On the post: YouTube Won't Put Your Video Back Up, Even If It's Fair Use, If It Contains Content From Universal Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When Joe was actually making sane arguments (still legalistic, but at least sane), then I think it was a good thing that people give him the benefit of the doubt.
But this discussion has absolutely shown his true colors. And they are not good. At this point, he is just trolling.
And, frankly, it puts all of his previous (even sane) comments in doubt. I have debated him at length before, and found him frustrating for precisely the same reasons as he is being a troll now.
The outright denial of what plain-English phrases actually say is nothing new. For example, he said that the ex parte seizures of domain names are not prior restraint, and relies on Arcara and no other ruling for that opinion.
Now, Arcara says, explicitly, that it does not apply to situations where "an advance determination that the distribution of particular materials is prohibited." Yet he claimed - and still claims - that Arcara applies in cases (such as the DOJ seizures) where there was nothing other than "an advance determination that the distribution" of infringing "materials is prohibited."
This was the very first argument I had with average_joe. And he gave some rational (though completely wrong) reasons for his opinions.
Because he was rational, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Needless to say, it was displaced. Every single ruling that he predicted - without exception - was rejected by the various courts of law.
Still, I gave him the benefit of the doubt (again), and assumed that he was just new to the intricacies of the law. (Which is odd, considering that he was a law student, and I was not.)
I now see that I was wrong about him all along. Since then, he has quoted a lot of cases that directly contradict his opinions, and never once admitted that he was wrong. Instead, he argues semantics about what "is" is, makes logical leaps that nobody in their right mind would make, and insults everyone who disagrees with him (including myself, though I let it slide). All the while situating himself as a "teacher," and me as "student."
Of course, he has never "taught" me anything other than the fact that he is wrong. Not one single argument he made has ever held water in the real world.
And that, I think, is why he is being such an asshole now. It is a textbook case of psychological projection.
He claims that Mike never answered his questions. In fact, Mike has answered every single question that Joe asked. But Joe has not answered a single question that Mike asked in return.
Joe calls Mike "dishonest," when Joe twists Mike's words to claim that Mike said something he didn't. Or just outright lies about what Mike said.
Joe falsely accuses Mike of using "sock puppets." Yet he himself admits to posing as multiple different users on this site, expressly so that people won't be able to know it's the same person posting his opinions.
Joe disparages Mike for not being "moral" enough. Yet Joe thinks that the ICE seizures against Rojadirecta and Dajaz1 are morally justified; but that Aaron Schwartz brought everything upon himself, and deserves everything that happened to him.
Joe calls Mike a "psychopath," but is so self-absorbed that he thinks Techdirt posts stories merely so that stories with his idiotic comments can "fall off the sidebar." He is so self-absorbed and egotistical, that he believes Mike not answering him that day is "running away" (and not, say, taking care of his actual business, or simply deciding you're not worth it.)
It's pretty obvious at this point. Joe is an immoral, obsessive stalker; one who might have been informative long ago, but now needs to be put down like a mangy dog.
On the post: YouTube Won't Put Your Video Back Up, Even If It's Fair Use, If It Contains Content From Universal Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know, right?
I mean, one of Average Joe's little propaganda tricks is to selectively use legal terminology, when that terminology has the desired appeal to emotion. (See his description of rights holders as "victims" of infringement, or his insistence that copyright is a "right," but human rights are a "privilege.")
But in this case, even the legal definition doesn't support his claim. Arguing that someone quoted "too much" isn't arguing against fair use, it's arguing against de minimis.
Any first-semester law student knows the difference, and if Mike claimed anything even remotely similar, you know Joe would be frothing at the mouth about it, calling Mike a liar, saying he should do his research, etc. etc. ad nauseam.
On the post: YouTube Won't Put Your Video Back Up, Even If It's Fair Use, If It Contains Content From Universal Music
Re: Re:
Oh, you're going to start spamming Techdirt stories that have absolutely nothing to do with copyright, or fair use, or the subject at hand? Ask no substantive questions, insult Mike personally, and lie some more? Ruin any kind of intelligent debate with your childish demands for attention?
Like you have so many, many times before?
Mike should never have discussed anything with you, ever.
On the post: Authors Guild's Scott Turow: The Supreme Court, Google, Ebooks, Libraries & Amazon Are All Destroying Authors
Re:
In which case, you most likely would not be searching for "Scott Turow free e-books." You're far more likely to prefer to get it for free if it's easily available, but do without it otherwise.
But there are people like you describe. It's just that Turow (and others like him) must find a way to convince the people who search for "free e-books" to pay money, instead of either pirating or doing without (economically there's no difference). Lashing out at public libraries isn't going to do that.
Gee, why don't search engines just maximize their revenue by serving up nothing but ads and leaving out all those non-lucrative search results, then?
If they did, nobody would click on those ads; and if that happened, they'd make exactly the same amount of money as they do when people click on search results: zero.
People may be searching for content to pirate, but the people who actually make money from those searches are not pirate sites. The search engine doesn't get paid when people click on a link to the Pirate Bay. They get paid when people click on an advertisement to buy something on Amazon or iTunes.
On the post: YouTube Won't Put Your Video Back Up, Even If It's Fair Use, If It Contains Content From Universal Music
Re: Re:
Your question: "Why would he have said he contacted you because he thought you used 'too much,' if, as you claim, he thinks that ANY use requires permission."
Mike's response:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130405/01191322589/youtube-wont-put-your-video-back-up -even-if-its-fair-use-if-it-contains-content-universal-music.shtml#c921
Mike is absolutely right. This is quite literally what the guy said: "But until [an amicable outcome based on a mutually agreed definition of fair use] occurs, [...] I exert my copyright rights and explicitly deny Techdirt permission to use any content owned by [redacted]. If such use does occur in future, [...] I consider such use a breach of copyright."
He didn't deny Techdirt the right to use content that wasn't "too much." He denied Techdirt the right to use any content whatsoever. And he explicitly said that any use is "a breach of copyright" - whether "too much" or not.
So, given the fact that "too much" obviously has nothing to do with fair use, what do you think "too much" means?
I, like everyone else who speaks English, think it means "too much for my liking." He clearly (and falsely) believes it's an infringement of copyright unless he thinks it's fair use. (For those watching at home: whether a copyright holder believes something is "fair use" is completely irrelevant. A use is fair, or it isn't, and the copyright holder's opinion matters not one iota.)
Otherwise, why even ask for "a mutually agreed definition of fair use?" (Much less demand it, as he does here?) The obvious answer is that he believes fair use is a kind of "gentleman's license."
Something you seem to believe, too. After all, you called this email "negotiations [...] over the scope of [Techdirt's] nonexclusive license." Despite the fact that the word "license" doesn't appear anywhere in his email, and the "negotiations" are over the "definition of fair use."
This attitude, by the way, is not uncommon in publishing circles (or so my grunt-level journalist friends tell me). And it shows - as if there were any doubt whatsoever - that Mike is right, and you are wrong.
Which is not a big deal. But the fact that you are so clearly wrong, yet insist you are right... that you claim your opponent hasn't answered questions which he absolutely has... that you deliberately misinterpret plain English, in order to put words in peoples' mouths... that you deliberately misstate and mislead, while accusing your opponent of being dishonest...
Well, that is a big deal.
On the post: Veoh Still Not Dead Enough For Universal Music; Asks Court To Rehear Case Yet Again
Re: Re: Re: Mike downplays key point of "red flag" knowledge.
Does the general public in charge of ordering inventory for Sam's Club? No.
Also, infringement (even for profit) is nothing like "selling fenced goods."
On the post: Veoh Still Not Dead Enough For Universal Music; Asks Court To Rehear Case Yet Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course there is a way to know what is infringing. It's called a "DMCA notice." The "repeat infringer" policy does not require shutting off users until after repeated DMCA notices.
And those notices, by law, must refer to "Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing [...] and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material." In other words, specific material at a specific URL.
And, in fact, the law is explicit that improperly-sent notifications are not enough to lose safe harbors: "a notification from a copyright owner [...] that fails to comply substantially with the provisions of subparagraph (A) shall not be considered [...] in determining whether a service provider has actual knowledge or is aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent."
If even an improper DMCA notice is not enough to raise "red flag" knowledge, then there's no way that "general knowledge" of infringement is unlawful, and certainly isn't anything like "willful blindness."
On the post: Recording Industry Lobbyists Accuse Pandora Of Deliberately Not Selling Ads To Plead Poverty To Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the other hand, he also left out this nugget:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/pandora-to-limit-free-listening-citing-roy alty-costs/
As a (co-)songwriter, Ellen Shipley would only get part of the royalties going to music publishers... which are only a small part of the royalties that Pandora pays.
The lion's share goes to the copyright holders - which are the RIAA clients (record labels), who are not-so-coincidentally the people behind musicFIRST.
On the post: Recording Industry Lobbyists Accuse Pandora Of Deliberately Not Selling Ads To Plead Poverty To Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm fairly sure "copyright maximalists" DO have all sources tapped.
You do realize that this goes against the very idea of "intellectual property," right? It means that authors, songwriters, designers, etc. are not "actually producing goods," since they work with their brains alone.
In fact, generally people who espouse the "Labor Theory of Value" are not very artist-friendly at all, as they view payments for art as an example of commodity fetishism.
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I misspoke slightly. The "distribution" right would only be implicated in the former, if downloading a digital file constituted a "transfer" of a "material object."
Which is exactly what the ReDigi court said is impossible. Hence the confusion.
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And when you read that quote, did you download a copy, or just view it online?
The "distribution" right would only be implicated in the former, and not the latter (which would be the "display" right).
The court never made this distinction, because it never had to.
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is unclear whether they were referring to downloads when they talked about "selling copies." The contents of other defendants' CD-ROM's, for example, were reproduced from the LEXIS/NEXIS database for a fee.
In fact, the ruling didn't touch on any distinction between downloading and viewing the articles. The language was all about the "display of each article;" how it "appears" to the user; how it is "presented to, and perceptible by, the user of the Databases;" and so forth. Thus, the argument of the Librarian of Congress, regarding the "display" right - which the court did not need to determine or decide.
In other words, the court is vague - obviously; the entire discussion consists of one sentence and a footnote, without any examination of the statutes, or even mentioning any alternate arguments. They don't need to be anything but vague, because nobody even raised the argument, and it would have made absolutely no difference at all to the outcome.
Let's say another court had ruled that selling a digital download was not "distributing" a "material object" under the language of the statute; instead, it was an "authorization" for users to make "material objects" on their own hard drives. (This viewpoint, incidentally, is the only thing I can think of that would be consistent with the ReDigi ruling).
Do you think that ruling would have been "foreclosed" by Tasini? I don't. Nor would it have made the defendants in Tasini any less liable (since all of them made, and/or authorized, tangible copies).
Also, I explained my position on the Arista court earlier. They read a bit too much into Tasini, IMO. But it's not inconsistent, nor is it legally wrong; and they're both courts of equal standing, so the point is really moot. Tasini may not have "foreclosed" the argument, but later courts certainly have.
Which makes the ReDigi ruling all the more confusing, because it appears to directly contradict all the other courts on this matter (as I suggested above). In order to "distribute" a digital file, you need to "transfer" it, and the ReDigi court seems to say that this is completely impossible even in theory.
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except that they're not talking about "distributing digital files over the internet." They are talking about distributing digital files on CD-ROM, and viewing files that reside on LEXIS/NEXIS "central discs" (their database).
That's why the Librarian of Congress argued that LEXIS/NEXIS was violating the "display" right, which is not covered under 201(c). But: "Satisfied that the Publishers exercised rights 106 initially assigns exclusively to the Author, we need resolve no more on that score." (Footnote 8.)
They did not examine which right was violated, because they didn't need to; they never even looked at the language of the statute itself, because, again, they didn't need to. The question was never raised by the defense, and wouldn't have affected the outcome of the case.
Because that was never the deciding factor. The deciding factor was whether inclusion in a database is "a revision of a collective work." That was the only defense the publishers raised, and the only thing the court needed to decide.
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And, again, whoosh!
I thought it was obvious, but I guess I have to spell it out. The entire comment was a satire of your comments here - in fact, most of it was direct quotes of things you've said about Mike in this thread.
Yes, you've engaged me many times in the comments - just like Mike has engaged you. The fact that you keep posting things after he replied to you - and after you've lied about what he said, and his motives, and consistently attack and berate him - does not mean he hasn't engaged you. And it doesn't mean he's "running away" or a "coward."
Just as the fact that I've posted the "last word" in our discussions doesn't mean you're "running away" or a "coward."
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you can't be bothered to know the difference between dishonesty and sarcasm, then it's been fun chatting with you, and good luck in life.
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I believe that if someone does something that causes my bank account balance to go down, and theirs to go up, without my informed consent, they are ripping me off.
File sharing doesn't do this, obviously, because no matter how many times my works are shared, my bank account never goes down.
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The EFF are pro-tech and anti-copyright just like Mike.
The EFF are not "pro-tech." They are pro-free speech, pro-privacy rights, and pro-individual rights, especially regarding electronic communications of all forms. If that makes them "anti-copyright," then that reflects badly on copyright, not the EFF.
Fortunately for copyright, the EFF is not "anti-copyright." They are against instances where copyright law intrudes upon free speech, privacy, and individual rights - things that anyone who is "pro-copyright" should also be against.
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Re:
Go to the above story, and click on the words "does not apply" that are in blue. This is called a "hyperlink," or generally a "link."
If you do you will be taken to a Techdirt story, whose title is: "IP Lawyer Explains Why Uploading Files May Not Be Distribution For Copyright."
In fact, Mike does not link to the story that you are linking to.
and he doesn't admit that no court ever has agreed with that silly reading of the statute. He's intentionally leaving out the inconvenient truths that he doesn't like.
He certainly did in the article which he linked to, above.
But he also did in the story that you linked to:
Mike left nothing out. You did, intentionally, so that you could accuse him of not saying the thing that you left out. Or, in layman's terms, so you could lie.
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re:
Not just Mike, but also Andrew Bridges, Fred von Lohmann, and (according to von Lohmann) "just about every copyright scholar."
Also, "against" may be a strong word - "not supported by a technical reading of the statute" might be better.
And not the Tasini case:
Also this bit from Tasini:
I think you meant to say "this bit from London-Sire v. Does," since that's the case the quote is from, and not Tasini.
What is interesting is that they rely on the First Sale doctrine to make this ruling - something that this court explicitly rejects.
Off-topic, but also interesting, is the fact that this case shows - yet again - why Arcara does not apply to copyright infringement:
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bingo.
Next >>