E. Zachary Knight (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:13pm
Re: Re: Re:
You always have you right to speak. You just don't have the right to speak it with their content.
See, this is where the idea of unintended consequences slips right on by you. When SOPA blocks a website from the US, it is not just blocking the infringing content from the US but all the content on the site. So my free speech on that website is now blocked from the US.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:10pm
Re: Re: Re:
Sites that aggregate user submissions, sort of them, collect them, and republish them on other pages, in other formats, or through embeds are trying to claim they only make the tools. Yet, that business as only a tool maker doesn't stand up to basic inspection, because they don't sell tools, they don't sell use of the tools, they sell the end result of the tools.
And once again I find myself explaining to you that what Youtube does is make the tools useful. All that stuff is what makes Youtube better than having to create your own website if all you want to do is upload your videos and share them. Youtube provides a way for people to make money off the videos they upload and get a cut of the money so that it can continue to provide the tool for the public.
Your idea of a internet tool that fits your narrowly defined (and flat out wrong) view of safe harbors would be a tool that no one would want to use because it is completely unusable.
Why should YouTube be any different from a magazine or movie?
Because Youtube exercises no, read that NO, editorial control over the content it hosts. Magazines and newspapers have editors that review all submitted content and decide what content to include. Youtube has no such editor. Movies have directors and producers that decide what footage gets included in the final film. Youtube has no such director. Your willful ignorance on this subject is as clear as daylight.
They have a very strong vested interest in every piece of "user" material on their site. It is what makes them they money, not the "tools".
In a way you are right. Youtube would be worthless without all that user generated content. that is why they have a vested interest in making their tools more usable and friendly to the public. Why you hate all those independent creators is beyond me.
If the tool was not usable, as your dream safe harbor qualifying tool would be, it would not attract any users and would not be able to monetize the fruits of that tool.
Really. This is getting old. You have shown time and time again that you do not understand the nature of the internet or the laws, not just codified national laws but also natural laws, that govern it. Please do yourself a favor and keep your willful ignorance to yourself.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:51am
Re:
Oh, let's see... 5 years later, perhaps he has seen the actual damage being done, perhaps he has *gasp* actually expanded his view of the world to understand both sides.
Yeah, a truck load of money will do that for you.
Considering that his opposition to Net Neutrality was due to the influence of the cable and telco oligopoly and his support for SOPA is due to the MAFIAA, I can see why he would have such a differing opinion on regulating the internet. But in reality, his position is whatever his campaign contributors want it to be.
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:49am
Re:
Both Net Neutrality and SOPA are government intrusions on the internet. Why support one but not the other? Both can cause harm to the internet (although SOPA is far more harmful as it actually blocks access to sites and makes the internet far less secure).
The fact is, he wants to regulate the internet if it helps those businesses that fund his campaign. He doesn't actually care about the people that he is supposed to represent.
How many times have we explained to you that the goal of safe harbors is to protect tool makers from the actions of the tool users?
The DMCA safe harbors, while flawed in their own rights, did nothing but codify into law a legal precedence that dates back to at least the Sony Betamax ruling. That ruling found that Sony could not be held liable for the infringing actions of Betamax owners. Why should YouTube or any other user generated content site be held to a different standard?
News is news. If you re tired of reading about it, why not just leave. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read Godaddy stories on Techdirt.
I have moved all my four domains from Godaddy. It wasn't much, but it was worth it to transfer them. I have been wanting to do so even before it decided to support censoring the internet through SOPA.
Their half hearted "retraction" of that support didn't do anything to change my resolve.
You have to pay money to Godaddy in order to have a domain with them. It would be a real bad idea to register a domain just to transfer it away. The idea is to deny them future revenue not to give them money now.
So you really are that ignorant then? They weren't standing up for the free speech rights of "a quote in some movie". they were standing up for the right of this professor to speak his mind freely.
Of course you wouldn't get that because you are an idiot.
Except those numbers weren't created for an IPO or any other SEC filing. Those numbers were created to give weight to their pleas to have the government do their policing for them.
The law does not require them to be truthful in their lobbying efforts. The Law requires them to be truthful in their IPO and SEC filings that show their income.
But just like those on your side, you like to mislead people into supporting your position.
So censorship of whole domains is far less of an issue than someone's distribution rights possibly being infringed in the future? You are such a moron.
You are a moron of epic proportions. Why you continue to assume that mike is wrong shows that.
Mike has given you the basics of economics. A science that has existed for centuries. This science has proven time and time again that when any sale is taxed to the detriment of the seller, then sales will drop. Why you don't get that is beyond me.
Try to keep up and maybe take an economics course or two while you are in school.
Funny. You say that to someone that is posting anonymously but will not say so to those of us that actually contribute to the site, article wise, and know a thing or two about all this.
If there is any abuse of copyright, it comes from those that seek to expand it farther and farther from the Constitutional aspect of a limited right for a limited time. The founders of this country put that clause in place to help spur the growth of a national culture. Now it has been bastardized into a monopoly of the worst sort.
I have no problem with anyone having a limited monopoly on a copyrighted work. I have problems with a perpetual monopoly on those works.
If it takes abolition to get some sanity back into copyright and patents, I think that would be a good thing. At least them we can work from a clean slate. Figure out what works using a experimentation system.
But as average joe has shown, that will be hard for copyright maximalists to accept.
I have never heard Mike claim that artists are not allowed to prevent the unauthorized duplication of their work. Please point me to where he says that.
Your logic is so twisted it hurts. If this only applies to artists who are "already super successful," and if you admit that this "only helps already super successful artists," then you have just admitted that this will help the very artists it applies to.
So you admit that this law will only benefit those artists that don't actually need the help.
Or they could just do both. Sheesh.
Or they could work like every other person in the world and make money on the work they do today not the work they did 20 years ago. The world does not work the way you IP maximalists want it to work. I am doing work today that will benefit those organizations I work for for years to come. I don't expect to get paid in perpetuity for their gain. I expect to get paid for the work I do today. Why should an artist be treated any differently?
Again, you already admitted that this only applies to artists who can already sell their artwork for $10,000 or more, and you already admitted that this will "only help[]" them. So how does it "harm[] new artists by making it more expensive to invest in their art"? If someone's willing to pay $10,000 or more for a piece of artwork, do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that they wouldn't spend a little bit more? Nope.
Let's think about this for a minute. There is an arbitrary ceiling of $10,000. I don't know what the cut is but let's say it is 20%. Now that piece of art that will sell for $10,000 will only net me $8000. Why would I sell it for $10,000 and pay the artist when I could sell it for $9000, make more money and not have to pay a fee? How is that going to help an as yet unsuccessful artist?
You see that places an unfair price ceiling on the work of artists that aren't currently selling works for more than $10,000 at the time of this law passing. This prevents those artists from becoming successful.
What's amazing is how twisted and stupid your logic is. What's amazing is how you HATE that artists have ANY RIGHTS. What's amazing is how you don't think artists should exercise the rights they have.
Mike doesn't hate artists. Mike wants them to succeed. That is why he is arguing against a bill that would make it far harder for artists to succeed. Why you can't see that is beyond me. You would think a law student would have a better grasp of unintended consequences.
And what's truly amazing is how you pretend that your policy preference is really an economic reality.
What is really amazing is how many trolls have no clue how economics work.
Exactly. This is a huge affront to the right of First Sale that it should not be even considered. We have a 100+ legal precedence that once the original creator passes the work on they no longer have any control or right to the further transfers of that work.
On the post: Lamar Smith, Against Regulating The Internet... Until Hollywood Became His Biggest Campaign Funder
Re: Re: Re:
See, this is where the idea of unintended consequences slips right on by you. When SOPA blocks a website from the US, it is not just blocking the infringing content from the US but all the content on the site. So my free speech on that website is now blocked from the US.
Willful ignorance of the issue is not a virtue.
On the post: Don't Confuse All Safe Harbors With Poorly Written Ones
Re: Re: Re:
And once again I find myself explaining to you that what Youtube does is make the tools useful. All that stuff is what makes Youtube better than having to create your own website if all you want to do is upload your videos and share them. Youtube provides a way for people to make money off the videos they upload and get a cut of the money so that it can continue to provide the tool for the public.
Your idea of a internet tool that fits your narrowly defined (and flat out wrong) view of safe harbors would be a tool that no one would want to use because it is completely unusable.
Why should YouTube be any different from a magazine or movie?
Because Youtube exercises no, read that NO, editorial control over the content it hosts. Magazines and newspapers have editors that review all submitted content and decide what content to include. Youtube has no such editor. Movies have directors and producers that decide what footage gets included in the final film. Youtube has no such director. Your willful ignorance on this subject is as clear as daylight.
They have a very strong vested interest in every piece of "user" material on their site. It is what makes them they money, not the "tools".
In a way you are right. Youtube would be worthless without all that user generated content. that is why they have a vested interest in making their tools more usable and friendly to the public. Why you hate all those independent creators is beyond me.
If the tool was not usable, as your dream safe harbor qualifying tool would be, it would not attract any users and would not be able to monetize the fruits of that tool.
Really. This is getting old. You have shown time and time again that you do not understand the nature of the internet or the laws, not just codified national laws but also natural laws, that govern it. Please do yourself a favor and keep your willful ignorance to yourself.
On the post: Lamar Smith, Against Regulating The Internet... Until Hollywood Became His Biggest Campaign Funder
Re:
Yeah, a truck load of money will do that for you.
Considering that his opposition to Net Neutrality was due to the influence of the cable and telco oligopoly and his support for SOPA is due to the MAFIAA, I can see why he would have such a differing opinion on regulating the internet. But in reality, his position is whatever his campaign contributors want it to be.
On the post: Lamar Smith, Against Regulating The Internet... Until Hollywood Became His Biggest Campaign Funder
Re:
The fact is, he wants to regulate the internet if it helps those businesses that fund his campaign. He doesn't actually care about the people that he is supposed to represent.
On the post: Don't Confuse All Safe Harbors With Poorly Written Ones
Re:
The DMCA safe harbors, while flawed in their own rights, did nothing but codify into law a legal precedence that dates back to at least the Sony Betamax ruling. That ruling found that Sony could not be held liable for the infringing actions of Betamax owners. Why should YouTube or any other user generated content site be held to a different standard?
On the post: Is A Naked Danica Patrick Working To Quell GoDaddy Boycott Efforts?
Re:
On the post: Is A Naked Danica Patrick Working To Quell GoDaddy Boycott Efforts?
Their half hearted "retraction" of that support didn't do anything to change my resolve.
On the post: Is A Naked Danica Patrick Working To Quell GoDaddy Boycott Efforts?
Re:
On the post: Is A Naked Danica Patrick Working To Quell GoDaddy Boycott Efforts?
Re:
On the post: How Firefly Fans Made One University's Campus Safe For Free Speech
Re: Re: Re:
Of course you wouldn't get that because you are an idiot.
On the post: Cee Lo Green: Making Millions Even If His Albums Don't Sell
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The law does not require them to be truthful in their lobbying efforts. The Law requires them to be truthful in their IPO and SEC filings that show their income.
But just like those on your side, you like to mislead people into supporting your position.
On the post: Cee Lo Green: Making Millions Even If His Albums Don't Sell
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have any objective research into the issue?
On the post: Indian ISP Blocks A Bunch Of Websites To Try To Prevent File Sharing Of A Single Movie
Re:
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are a moron of epic proportions. Why you continue to assume that mike is wrong shows that.
Mike has given you the basics of economics. A science that has existed for centuries. This science has proven time and time again that when any sale is taxed to the detriment of the seller, then sales will drop. Why you don't get that is beyond me.
Try to keep up and maybe take an economics course or two while you are in school.
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If there is any abuse of copyright, it comes from those that seek to expand it farther and farther from the Constitutional aspect of a limited right for a limited time. The founders of this country put that clause in place to help spur the growth of a national culture. Now it has been bastardized into a monopoly of the worst sort.
I have no problem with anyone having a limited monopoly on a copyrighted work. I have problems with a perpetual monopoly on those works.
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But as average joe has shown, that will be hard for copyright maximalists to accept.
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re: Re:
Why sell a piece of art for $10,000 and only make $9300 when I could sell it for $9500, make more money and not have to pay the artists.
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re:
So you admit that this law will only benefit those artists that don't actually need the help.
Or they could just do both. Sheesh.
Or they could work like every other person in the world and make money on the work they do today not the work they did 20 years ago. The world does not work the way you IP maximalists want it to work. I am doing work today that will benefit those organizations I work for for years to come. I don't expect to get paid in perpetuity for their gain. I expect to get paid for the work I do today. Why should an artist be treated any differently?
Again, you already admitted that this only applies to artists who can already sell their artwork for $10,000 or more, and you already admitted that this will "only help[]" them. So how does it "harm[] new artists by making it more expensive to invest in their art"? If someone's willing to pay $10,000 or more for a piece of artwork, do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that they wouldn't spend a little bit more? Nope.
Let's think about this for a minute. There is an arbitrary ceiling of $10,000. I don't know what the cut is but let's say it is 20%. Now that piece of art that will sell for $10,000 will only net me $8000. Why would I sell it for $10,000 and pay the artist when I could sell it for $9000, make more money and not have to pay a fee? How is that going to help an as yet unsuccessful artist?
You see that places an unfair price ceiling on the work of artists that aren't currently selling works for more than $10,000 at the time of this law passing. This prevents those artists from becoming successful.
What's amazing is how twisted and stupid your logic is. What's amazing is how you HATE that artists have ANY RIGHTS. What's amazing is how you don't think artists should exercise the rights they have.
Mike doesn't hate artists. Mike wants them to succeed. That is why he is arguing against a bill that would make it far harder for artists to succeed. Why you can't see that is beyond me. You would think a law student would have a better grasp of unintended consequences.
And what's truly amazing is how you pretend that your policy preference is really an economic reality.
What is really amazing is how many trolls have no clue how economics work.
On the post: Lawmakers Propose Resale Right For US Artwork To Harm Young Artist & Help Already Successful Ones
Re: Everything is "art"
Next >>