And this is why Mike doesn't debate you. You lie and insult him.
By the way, I've just checked my comment record. Of the last five posts where you and I have interacted, I've made the last comment in all five of those posts.
Guess what, you ran away and did not respond to all of my arguments or the cases I cited that proved you wrong. As soon as you realized you were beat, you ran. Just like you do every time.
Obviously, you are too cowardly to debate me on the merits. As soon as you know you're losing or being made to look dumb, you run. This isn't hard. There is no doubt whatsoever. Obviously, you're just a big baby who can't defend what you write and who can't discuss your personal beliefs.
The public doesn't generally want to rip off creators.
No. And nobody here does, either.
Nor, for that matter, do people who pirate. That's obvious, because pirates buy more than non-pirates.
If anything, people pirate because a) they're not given any way to buy legally, and/or b) because they know that paying for copies won't actually put money in the pockets of creators - and choose, instead, to spend their money on things that will.
No, it wasn't, because anyone who lives in the Boston area knows that people who live in Jamaica Plain are not "curb stomping" anyone.
To be sure, JP has its share of crime (especially on the border of Dorchester). But "curb stomping" implies a racially-motivated white power crime (a la "American History X"), and the folks who do this are not JP locals.
They are arguably Southies, but that's kind of a stereotype. Honestly, the people who do hate crimes here either come from Dorchester or Roxbury (if black-on-white) or a suburb of Allston (if white-on-black), the latter mostly because they're Boston College frat yokels.
This is indeed bad news for anyone involved in the Boston music scene.
For those who don't live here, the reason house shows have exploded is because Boston's official government doesn't recognize the fact that a local music scene serves any beneficial purpose to the city. Compare this with Providence. Even though "house shows" have been (and are) shut down, and venues closed, the Providence government has at least acknowledged that Providence DIY shows are an important part of the city's cultural landscape. (Just not enough, apparently, to protect from developers.)
Boston, to my shame, does not even go this far.
I have known, and do know, a lot of people who are the movers and shakers in the "DIY house venue" scene. It's where I've performed the majority of my sets.
This story probably will surprise no one. However, it represents a new low in law enforcement. Generally, law enforcement let house shows slide unless there was a complaint by someone (e.g. a neighbor) who objected to it. The fact that they're proactively shutting down shows that nobody complains about is just another indication of Boston's eventual music downfall.
There are cases that do, but Tasini is not one of them.
One of those cases, by the way, was the one you quoted further down - Arista v. Usenet. They, too, focused on Tasini.
I don't believe the Arista court correctly interpreted Tasini, but they didn't conflict with that ruling, either. They took a (somewhat) ambiguous statement, and ignored the ambiguity when they interpreted it. It's not wrong, but it - rather than Tasini - is the case I would quote.
Mike thinks that the Copyright Act doesn't apply to digital files.
Mike said no such thing, so you're making a straw man argument. Or, in layman's terms, lying.
Pirate Mike
And this is why Mike doesn't debate you. You lie and insult him.
To be fair, you do this to everyone who disagrees with you. In the very comments you linked to, you referred to the EFF as "your piratical allies." Anyone who actually believes that about the EFF is an idiot who isn't worth debating.
You pulled out that same, tired argument from Bridges, and I pointed out how it was wrong. He you are pulling it out again.
By the way - you did read that actual article that Mike linked to, right?
In case you didn't, I'll refresh your memory:
The reasoning requires a very literal reading of the law. [...] Note the emphasis on material objects. As such, you can read the law, as written, to conclude that passing around the song itself, which is not a material object, is not actually an infringement of the distribution right under the current law.
Now, before people get too excited about this, in a later panel this question was raised again, to the EFF's Fred von Lohmann. He agreed that this appeared to be a literal reading of copyright law -- and that just about every copyright scholar he's spoken to agrees -- but that every time he's argued it in court, the court has disagreed or ignored it.
So, why even quote Tasini? Mike (and von Lohmann) have already acknowledged that courts have "disagreed or ignored it." It doesn't prove Mike wrong, because Mike never said that the interpretation was favored by the courts - only by a "very literal reading of the law."
And, since the court here is taking an equally literal reading, it's apropos to point out their inconsistency.
One of the links supplied above is me quoting Tasini in that other thread:
Right, and the Court talks explicitly about "LEXIS/NEXIS' central discs and UMI's CD-ROMs." It doesn't explicitly reference digital files, and it's not clear whether "distribution" would apply to only the files, as distinct from the "central discs" or "CD-ROMs."
Nor does it need to. Unlike the London-Sire case, the defendants did not even touch on the subject in their defense, nor would it have made any difference whatsoever in the outcome of the case.
Of course, that does not mean that the Court ruled that digital files are not subject to "distribution" laws. If the court had examined this particular question explicitly, then they probably would have ruled in the same way the Massachusetts court did.
But "probably would have ruled" is very different than "did actually rule." Tasini may have heavily implied the outcome of the issue, but they did not "forclose" on any other outcome. There are cases that do, but Tasini is not one of them.
As the court here explains, people are not selling that particular material object.
Under this Court's interpretation, no digital distributor is can possibly sell any particular material object. Not iTunes, Microsoft, Steam, or anyone else. The "material object" that a customer (supposedly) owns, is not the same "material object" on the servers of Apple, Microsoft, or Valve. In fact, selling any kind of "material object" is legally impossible using digital distribution.
So, either these vendors are not distributing a "material object," in which case they're not "distributing" anything under copyright law; or they are, in which case you should be able to resell that "material object" in the same way that the vendors did. You can't have it both ways.
Of course, neither outcome seems exactly right. I expect a higher court will either clarify the issue, or (more likely) punt it to Congress, and decide the case some other way.
Remember when we talked about this, and I pointed out that that argument is foreclosed by Tasini?
Except that it is not foreclosed by Tasini. I have just re-read it, and it is about whether inclusion in a database is the equivalent under copyright of a "revision" of the work.
Indeed, in that very thread, you quote a different case and not Tasini. It is from a Massachusetts District Court ruling (London-Sire Records v. Does), which has no force outside of Massachusetts.
Now, I happen to agree with that ruling - that (non-transitory) digital files are "material objects" in which a work is "fixed." But it is not Tasini that makes it.
Furthermore, it should also go against this ruling. If you are an owner of a "material object" in which a work is "fixed," then that object is a "copy" under the Copyright Act, and first sale should apply.
I agree with Mike that this is a pretty horrible ruling, with immense and far-reaching implications.
I'll give you two examples.
First: I buy games on Steam (pretty much exclusively). Steam allows me to sell copies of the games I downloaded, including non-Valve games, to other Steam users. If I do, then Steam deletes the game from my system, and I no longer have the files.
Under this ruling, this is unlawful. Steam is guilty of direct infringement of both the copying and distribution rights.
Another example. Because I had to for coursework, I bought a copy of Microsoft Office 2010. I had do pay quite a lot of money for it. Now, like most people are doing nowadays (and like Microsoft themselves encourage), I bought the software not as a set of disks, but as a digital download.
Suppose, in the future, I decide to upgrade to Office 360. (I know, it's a stretch, but bear with me.) Can I resell my older version of Office to someone, after upgrading?
According to this ruling, no, I can't.
Note that these are both unlawful, regardless of whether I am considered an owner or a licensee. In essence, it makes the distinction completely irrelevant.
This makes the entire line of reasoning in Vernor v. Autodesk moot, which is one reason I think the ruling probably won't last as it stands.
as for youtube, congrats to alex but beware the new boss...
You should stop citing David Lowery. He lies.
For example, he lies in that very article. The first block quote is from someone who is locked into a contract with Machinima.
But Machinima is not YouTube. They have videos on YouTube, and that's how they make most of their money - but that's it. The contracts people sign are not with YouTube, nor with any Google company.
Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
But common law is actually superior to EVERY statute: common law authorizes the US Constitution.
This is factually false. Common law certainly cannot override the Constitution. Were that the case, then the "common law" could get rid of such things as the First Amendment or the right to due process, and that is ridiculous.
State laws can grant the people additional protection against the (state) government, like when states have laws that protect free speech more than the First Amendment does. They can also handle things that are not handled by federal law (like contract law). But they cannot "override" federal law.
Nor was it the basis for the Constitution. I mean, obviously - because at the time, the common law was all British law.
And I think this ruling is well within common law that a site owner has responsibility at some point to remove posts. There'd be NO question if the posts were racist or threatening violence (as appears here).
Except such things have already been tried in court. And the courts have gone in exactly the opposite direction.
One of the first tests of Section 230 was Zeran v. AOL, where the court held that AOL was not responsible for defamation and death threats left on AOL's message boards (and the death threats got the FBI involved).
Case law has made a ton of other rulings - all of which grant immunity to service providers - about defamation, fraud, prostitution, and even child pornography.
Yeah, no appeals to emotion there! Thank goodness that only happens when opponents to copyright maximalism are "drumming up signatures for online petitions."
So you're arguing that greedy pirates aren't violating other people's rights?
The correct phrase would be "infringe on other people's statutory rights."
But the word "infringe" does not have the violent, rape-like emotional gut-punch of the word "violate."
And by not specifying "statutory rights," you put them on par with fundamental human rights. Like you did in this very comment.
So, yep: nothing but an appeal to emotions.
You probably can't see that, though, because your entire thinking on this subject is driven by emotions (angry, "hang 'em high" emotions), and not by anything approaching reason. I've debated you enough times to know this is true.
Talk to me about the death of copyright when the pirates stop needing the copyrighted stuff so badly that they're willing to violate other people's rights to get it.
Oh, right, I forgot about that other appeal to emotion: "violating other people's rights."
Keep 'em coming! I'm sure there are more that I forgot.
Just look at all those pirated movies on your hard drives. Each one the product of copyright.
Just because they're protected by copyright, does not mean they're a "product of copyright."
It does not mean that they would not have been produced without copyright, that copyright necessarily incentivizes their production, or that overall production would not have been higher without copyright (or with more limited copyright protections).
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
By the way, I've just checked my comment record. Of the last five posts where you and I have interacted, I've made the last comment in all five of those posts.
Guess what, you ran away and did not respond to all of my arguments or the cases I cited that proved you wrong. As soon as you realized you were beat, you ran. Just like you do every time.
Obviously, you are too cowardly to debate me on the merits. As soon as you know you're losing or being made to look dumb, you run. This isn't hard. There is no doubt whatsoever. Obviously, you're just a big baby who can't defend what you write and who can't discuss your personal beliefs.
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. And nobody here does, either.
Nor, for that matter, do people who pirate. That's obvious, because pirates buy more than non-pirates.
If anything, people pirate because a) they're not given any way to buy legally, and/or b) because they know that paying for copies won't actually put money in the pockets of creators - and choose, instead, to spend their money on things that will.
On the post: Boston Police Are Catfishing Locals To Bust Punk Rock Shows
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, Allston is itself a suburb, so I should have said "a suburb in the neighborhood of Allston."
On the post: Boston Police Are Catfishing Locals To Bust Punk Rock Shows
Re: Re:
No, it wasn't, because anyone who lives in the Boston area knows that people who live in Jamaica Plain are not "curb stomping" anyone.
To be sure, JP has its share of crime (especially on the border of Dorchester). But "curb stomping" implies a racially-motivated white power crime (a la "American History X"), and the folks who do this are not JP locals.
They are arguably Southies, but that's kind of a stereotype. Honestly, the people who do hate crimes here either come from Dorchester or Roxbury (if black-on-white) or a suburb of Allston (if white-on-black), the latter mostly because they're Boston College frat yokels.
But maybe that's just my experience.
On the post: Boston Police Are Catfishing Locals To Bust Punk Rock Shows
Unfortunate
For those who don't live here, the reason house shows have exploded is because Boston's official government doesn't recognize the fact that a local music scene serves any beneficial purpose to the city. Compare this with Providence. Even though "house shows" have been (and are) shut down, and venues closed, the Providence government has at least acknowledged that Providence DIY shows are an important part of the city's cultural landscape. (Just not enough, apparently, to protect from developers.)
Boston, to my shame, does not even go this far.
I have known, and do know, a lot of people who are the movers and shakers in the "DIY house venue" scene. It's where I've performed the majority of my sets.
This story probably will surprise no one. However, it represents a new low in law enforcement. Generally, law enforcement let house shows slide unless there was a complaint by someone (e.g. a neighbor) who objected to it. The fact that they're proactively shutting down shows that nobody complains about is just another indication of Boston's eventual music downfall.
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
One of those cases, by the way, was the one you quoted further down - Arista v. Usenet. They, too, focused on Tasini.
I don't believe the Arista court correctly interpreted Tasini, but they didn't conflict with that ruling, either. They took a (somewhat) ambiguous statement, and ignored the ambiguity when they interpreted it. It's not wrong, but it - rather than Tasini - is the case I would quote.
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Re:
Not the source. Mike linked to this article:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080508/1119441065.shtml
Mike thinks that the Copyright Act doesn't apply to digital files.
Mike said no such thing, so you're making a straw man argument. Or, in layman's terms, lying.
Pirate Mike
And this is why Mike doesn't debate you. You lie and insult him.
To be fair, you do this to everyone who disagrees with you. In the very comments you linked to, you referred to the EFF as "your piratical allies." Anyone who actually believes that about the EFF is an idiot who isn't worth debating.
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re:
By the way - you did read that actual article that Mike linked to, right?
In case you didn't, I'll refresh your memory:
So, why even quote Tasini? Mike (and von Lohmann) have already acknowledged that courts have "disagreed or ignored it." It doesn't prove Mike wrong, because Mike never said that the interpretation was favored by the courts - only by a "very literal reading of the law."
And, since the court here is taking an equally literal reading, it's apropos to point out their inconsistency.
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Re:
Right, and the Court talks explicitly about "LEXIS/NEXIS' central discs and UMI's CD-ROMs." It doesn't explicitly reference digital files, and it's not clear whether "distribution" would apply to only the files, as distinct from the "central discs" or "CD-ROMs."
Nor does it need to. Unlike the London-Sire case, the defendants did not even touch on the subject in their defense, nor would it have made any difference whatsoever in the outcome of the case.
Of course, that does not mean that the Court ruled that digital files are not subject to "distribution" laws. If the court had examined this particular question explicitly, then they probably would have ruled in the same way the Massachusetts court did.
But "probably would have ruled" is very different than "did actually rule." Tasini may have heavily implied the outcome of the issue, but they did not "forclose" on any other outcome. There are cases that do, but Tasini is not one of them.
As the court here explains, people are not selling that particular material object.
Under this Court's interpretation, no digital distributor is can possibly sell any particular material object. Not iTunes, Microsoft, Steam, or anyone else. The "material object" that a customer (supposedly) owns, is not the same "material object" on the servers of Apple, Microsoft, or Valve. In fact, selling any kind of "material object" is legally impossible using digital distribution.
So, either these vendors are not distributing a "material object," in which case they're not "distributing" anything under copyright law; or they are, in which case you should be able to resell that "material object" in the same way that the vendors did. You can't have it both ways.
Of course, neither outcome seems exactly right. I expect a higher court will either clarify the issue, or (more likely) punt it to Congress, and decide the case some other way.
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re:
Except that it is not foreclosed by Tasini. I have just re-read it, and it is about whether inclusion in a database is the equivalent under copyright of a "revision" of the work.
Indeed, in that very thread, you quote a different case and not Tasini. It is from a Massachusetts District Court ruling (London-Sire Records v. Does), which has no force outside of Massachusetts.
Now, I happen to agree with that ruling - that (non-transitory) digital files are "material objects" in which a work is "fixed." But it is not Tasini that makes it.
Furthermore, it should also go against this ruling. If you are an owner of a "material object" in which a work is "fixed," then that object is a "copy" under the Copyright Act, and first sale should apply.
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Very bad ruling
I agree with Mike that this is a pretty horrible ruling, with immense and far-reaching implications.
I'll give you two examples.
First: I buy games on Steam (pretty much exclusively). Steam allows me to sell copies of the games I downloaded, including non-Valve games, to other Steam users. If I do, then Steam deletes the game from my system, and I no longer have the files.
Under this ruling, this is unlawful. Steam is guilty of direct infringement of both the copying and distribution rights.
Another example. Because I had to for coursework, I bought a copy of Microsoft Office 2010. I had do pay quite a lot of money for it. Now, like most people are doing nowadays (and like Microsoft themselves encourage), I bought the software not as a set of disks, but as a digital download.
Suppose, in the future, I decide to upgrade to Office 360. (I know, it's a stretch, but bear with me.) Can I resell my older version of Office to someone, after upgrading?
According to this ruling, no, I can't.
Note that these are both unlawful, regardless of whether I am considered an owner or a licensee. In essence, it makes the distinction completely irrelevant.
This makes the entire line of reasoning in Vernor v. Autodesk moot, which is one reason I think the ruling probably won't last as it stands.
On the post: 'Internet Lawyer' Charles Carreon Has A New Best Friend And He's An SEO Expert Who Hates Anonymous Critics
"Internet lawyer"
On the post: Musician Alex Day Explains How He Beat Justin Timberlake In The Charts Basically Just Via YouTube
Re: would be interesting if true...
You should stop citing David Lowery. He lies.
For example, he lies in that very article. The first block quote is from someone who is locked into a contract with Machinima.
But Machinima is not YouTube. They have videos on YouTube, and that's how they make most of their money - but that's it. The contracts people sign are not with YouTube, nor with any Google company.
On the post: Georgia State Court Issues Censorship Order Blocking Free Speech On Anti-Copyright Troll Message Board
Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
This is factually false. Common law certainly cannot override the Constitution. Were that the case, then the "common law" could get rid of such things as the First Amendment or the right to due process, and that is ridiculous.
State laws can grant the people additional protection against the (state) government, like when states have laws that protect free speech more than the First Amendment does. They can also handle things that are not handled by federal law (like contract law). But they cannot "override" federal law.
Nor was it the basis for the Constitution. I mean, obviously - because at the time, the common law was all British law.
And I think this ruling is well within common law that a site owner has responsibility at some point to remove posts. There'd be NO question if the posts were racist or threatening violence (as appears here).
Except such things have already been tried in court. And the courts have gone in exactly the opposite direction.
One of the first tests of Section 230 was Zeran v. AOL, where the court held that AOL was not responsible for defamation and death threats left on AOL's message boards (and the death threats got the FBI involved).
Case law has made a ton of other rulings - all of which grant immunity to service providers - about defamation, fraud, prostitution, and even child pornography.
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, it would've been with your mom, but I couldn't get her to take off the Army boots.
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention public libraries.
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, no appeals to emotion there! Thank goodness that only happens when opponents to copyright maximalism are "drumming up signatures for online petitions."
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The correct phrase would be "infringe on other people's statutory rights."
But the word "infringe" does not have the violent, rape-like emotional gut-punch of the word "violate."
And by not specifying "statutory rights," you put them on par with fundamental human rights. Like you did in this very comment.
So, yep: nothing but an appeal to emotions.
You probably can't see that, though, because your entire thinking on this subject is driven by emotions (angry, "hang 'em high" emotions), and not by anything approaching reason. I've debated you enough times to know this is true.
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, right, I forgot about that other appeal to emotion: "violating other people's rights."
Keep 'em coming! I'm sure there are more that I forgot.
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because they're protected by copyright, does not mean they're a "product of copyright."
It does not mean that they would not have been produced without copyright, that copyright necessarily incentivizes their production, or that overall production would not have been higher without copyright (or with more limited copyright protections).
Here's a talk that may shed light on the matter for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0
Next >>