Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 Dec 2012 @ 8:19am
Ineptitude
For all the comments and criticisms about the antics of "pirates" - be it Kim Dotcom, the former admins for The Pirate Bay, or whatever poor single mother or college kid caught as the poster child for a file sharing case, nothing comes close to the ineptitude of the lawyers on the "side" of the copyright extremists.
You'd think that if copyright infringement and piracy was such a huge and daunting problem as they all say it is, they could bother to hire someone remotely competent and keep them informed - since they are both representing you in court and in public.
Is it that respectable lawyers won't take these cases, knowing how unethical they are?
For those wanna-be lawyers reading, do you really want to sink to the level of these sleazy and incompetent assholes? Is that your idea of a role model for your profession? Or do you want to be yet another lawyer that is the perfect stereotype for all the bad lawyer jokes and sentiment out there?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 30 Nov 2012 @ 9:09am
Re: Re: @Zakida Paul: You can't compete with free.
It's a magic formula you recite, but has no effect, particularly not on people who aren't going to pay in any event.
There are very few people, even pirates, who will not "pay in any event."
I am a pirate. I am not afraid or ashamed to admit it. I actively promote that people to break copyright law.
Yet streaming services like Spotify have made it so that even I don't bother pirating (unless the music isn't available on the service).
Get with the program and face reality.
You are mainly refusing to admit that consuming content one hasn't paid for should be held morally wrong. It is taking someone else's work-product while denying them reward for effort.
Why admit something that is wrong and ethically unjustifiable? There is no moral right to profit. It is the owning and control over ideas and culture which is morally wrong. Denying all people everywhere the free exchange of ideas and culture, which can be infinitely copied and distributed at no to little cost is unethical.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Nov 2012 @ 10:47am
Re: Re: Spin so hard it goes flying off.
There's nothing wrong with grouping patents, copyrights and trademarks under a single heading.
There's quite a bit wrong with that approach, since two of those things are unlike the other - that is, patents and copyrights are similar in many respects, whereas trademarks are very different. Lumping them all together only adds to the general confusion of what those things are designed to accomplish.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Nov 2012 @ 10:25am
No mention of SLAPP
Isn't TD/Floor64 based in California, with a good SLAPP law?
'cause the list of reasons why that lawyer was wrong, stupid, stupidly wrong, and also destined to completely and utterly fail could be longer with that mention.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 28 Nov 2012 @ 8:15am
Re: Re:
That definition breaks down when you get down to the level where the software is stored. A hard drive magnetically flipping a bit from 0 to 1 is a physical change.
I'm going to go for crade's definition - software is a set of instructions that can be transmitted entirely electronically. (Data can also be entirely transmitted electronically - all software is data, but not all data is software, therefore the 'set of instructions' part.)
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 7:13am
Re: Not so sure about this...
WhWhat right to privacy do you have there
The same rights to privacy you have anywhere else - those declared in the Amendments to the Constitution.
Is it really that much more evil just because its automated instead of manual?
I don't see the RFID tags as evil. It makes a lot of sense. But the school's actions are reprehensible. Not allowing her to opt out of being tracked? Shady moves to limit her freedom of expression when she objected to the program? Expelling her, especially when they have no guidelines on tracking? Those cannot be supported.
Do I think she and her family are religious nutjobs? It is a definite possibility. But the only way I know to insure I have the freedom to not believe in any god or gods is to allow religious nutjobs to believe what they want to believe.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 12:21pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can't understand why you all you can do is keep running back to the law or legal definitions. Yes, you need to start somewhere, but why do you think the beginning is a law book? We can start at a much lower level. Laws are based on language, and built from there - and I was always taught not to use the term you're defining in its own definition.
Can we agree that property is "the ownership or control over a thing"?
That seems to be the simplest definition I can get to, the terms "ownership" and "control" are understood, and "thing" can apply to tangibles or not.
Now, based on that definition, things which are non-excludable, non-rivalrous, infinitely copyable do not fit under the definition of property. You cannot control an idea, and outside of artificial legal constructs you cannot own some collection of copyable and transferable data.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 11:26am
Re: Re: Re:
Property, as that term is used in law, has a much broader meaning, and it means a bundle of rights in a thing (and that thing can be tangible or intangible). That's why it's called intellectual property.
Circular logic at its best (or worst).
Let's use the fact that the law recognizes intellectual property as a justification for the laws that govern intellectual property.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 11:22am
Re:
And you claim that the differences between tangible and intangible property are the differences between property and nonproperty.
Mike makes no such claim. Stop making strawmen.
Mike uses terms such as rivalrous, excludable, and scarce.
Intangibles can be all of those things. For example, a person's time or attention is an intangible concept - yet it is rivalrous (a person can only do so much in an given time period), excludable (a person can choose to where they spend their time and what they do with it), and scarce (there are only so many hours in the day).
On the post: Copyright Troll Case Tossed For 'Fraud On The Court' After Abbott & Costello-Worthy Hearing
Ineptitude
You'd think that if copyright infringement and piracy was such a huge and daunting problem as they all say it is, they could bother to hire someone remotely competent and keep them informed - since they are both representing you in court and in public.
Is it that respectable lawyers won't take these cases, knowing how unethical they are?
For those wanna-be lawyers reading, do you really want to sink to the level of these sleazy and incompetent assholes? Is that your idea of a role model for your profession? Or do you want to be yet another lawyer that is the perfect stereotype for all the bad lawyer jokes and sentiment out there?
On the post: UK Recording Industry Doesn't Want Google To Reduce Piracy Until It Reduces Piracy
Re: Re: @Zakida Paul: You can't compete with free.
There are very few people, even pirates, who will not "pay in any event."
I am a pirate. I am not afraid or ashamed to admit it. I actively promote that people to break copyright law.
Yet streaming services like Spotify have made it so that even I don't bother pirating (unless the music isn't available on the service).
Get with the program and face reality.
You are mainly refusing to admit that consuming content one hasn't paid for should be held morally wrong. It is taking someone else's work-product while denying them reward for effort.
Why admit something that is wrong and ethically unjustifiable? There is no moral right to profit. It is the owning and control over ideas and culture which is morally wrong. Denying all people everywhere the free exchange of ideas and culture, which can be infinitely copied and distributed at no to little cost is unethical.
On the post: Chris Dodd: Bogus Facebook 'Copyright' Declaration Proves Everyone Loves Copyright
Re: You're flat LYING here:
Can I be on it? Please?
On the post: Open Letter To Human Synergistics International In Response To Your Accusation That Techdirt Is Infringing
Re: How about this....
Since when do hanggliders have copilots? Let alone enough room for you and your mates?
On the post: Members Of The Republican Study Committee Do Twitter Q&A, Ignore Every Single Question About Fixing Copyright
Re: Re: Spin so hard it goes flying off.
There's quite a bit wrong with that approach, since two of those things are unlike the other - that is, patents and copyrights are similar in many respects, whereas trademarks are very different. Lumping them all together only adds to the general confusion of what those things are designed to accomplish.
On the post: Open Letter To Human Synergistics International In Response To Your Accusation That Techdirt Is Infringing
Re:
On the post: Open Letter To Human Synergistics International In Response To Your Accusation That Techdirt Is Infringing
Re:
On the post: Open Letter To Human Synergistics International In Response To Your Accusation That Techdirt Is Infringing
Re:
On the post: Open Letter To Human Synergistics International In Response To Your Accusation That Techdirt Is Infringing
No mention of SLAPP
'cause the list of reasons why that lawyer was wrong, stupid, stupidly wrong, and also destined to completely and utterly fail could be longer with that mention.
On the post: Bradley Manning Hearing Shows Military Bosses More Concerned About Media Attention Than Manning's Conditions
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(yes, I'm joking)
On the post: Bradley Manning Hearing Shows Military Bosses More Concerned About Media Attention Than Manning's Conditions
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Some Thoughts On Fixing Problems In The Patent System
Re: Re:
I'm going to go for crade's definition - software is a set of instructions that can be transmitted entirely electronically. (Data can also be entirely transmitted electronically - all software is data, but not all data is software, therefore the 'set of instructions' part.)
On the post: Bradley Manning Hearing Shows Military Bosses More Concerned About Media Attention Than Manning's Conditions
Re: Re: Re:
When they are enforced upon a person by an authority which can easily provide adaquate living conditions they are.
On the post: Bradley Manning Hearing Shows Military Bosses More Concerned About Media Attention Than Manning's Conditions
Re: Re: Re:
When they are enforced upon a person by an authority which can easily provide adaquate living conditions they are.
On the post: Court Temporarily Blocks School District From Suspending Student For Refusing To Wear Student ID/Tracking Device
Re: Not so sure about this...
The same rights to privacy you have anywhere else - those declared in the Amendments to the Constitution.
Is it really that much more evil just because its automated instead of manual?
I don't see the RFID tags as evil. It makes a lot of sense. But the school's actions are reprehensible. Not allowing her to opt out of being tracked? Shady moves to limit her freedom of expression when she objected to the program? Expelling her, especially when they have no guidelines on tracking? Those cannot be supported.
Do I think she and her family are religious nutjobs? It is a definite possibility. But the only way I know to insure I have the freedom to not believe in any god or gods is to allow religious nutjobs to believe what they want to believe.
On the post: New Study: Megaupload Shutdown May Have Hurt Box Office For Smaller Movies
Re: Re: Makes sense? It's bogus.
(also, yes I would download them)
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can we agree that property is "the ownership or control over a thing"?
That seems to be the simplest definition I can get to, the terms "ownership" and "control" are understood, and "thing" can apply to tangibles or not.
Now, based on that definition, things which are non-excludable, non-rivalrous, infinitely copyable do not fit under the definition of property. You cannot control an idea, and outside of artificial legal constructs you cannot own some collection of copyable and transferable data.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're using the legal definitions of property to justify intellectual property included within those definitions.
Want to prove your argument is not circular? Please justify your legal definition of property without resorting to the law.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re: Re: Re:
Circular logic at its best (or worst).
Let's use the fact that the law recognizes intellectual property as a justification for the laws that govern intellectual property.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property
Re:
Mike makes no such claim. Stop making strawmen.
Mike uses terms such as rivalrous, excludable, and scarce.
Intangibles can be all of those things. For example, a person's time or attention is an intangible concept - yet it is rivalrous (a person can only do so much in an given time period), excludable (a person can choose to where they spend their time and what they do with it), and scarce (there are only so many hours in the day).
Next >>