Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 4 Oct 2012 @ 7:42am
Largest ever?
"in one of the largest criminal copyright cases in U.S. history – the Department indicted two corporations and seven individuals"
2 companies and 7 people is the largest ever criminal copyright case?
Wow, sure sounds like piracy is such a staggering problem that has destroyed an entire industry. This certainly justifies the millions of government tax dollars being spent on it.
Just imagine when we get more than New Zealand to help! We could go after 3 companies and 9 individuals! That will be a case for the record books.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 6:57am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, you need the government granted monopolies to protect from competition, but don't want to deal with the government regulation since that helps the competition.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 4:18am
Re: Re:
didn't involve the current thicket of drug tests, reviews, small test groups, more reviews, and so on. I am sure that if they had to spend the type of money then that is involved today, they would have patent it just to make back their expenses.
All of those make it harder for the competition to just copy a product. There's a tremendous first mover advantage. Why does there need to be even more protections in the form of monopoly privileges on top of the regulations?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Oct 2012 @ 4:12am
Re:
"Getting rid of monopolies ALWAYS looks good for those who aren't in control of them, and are attempting to grow the market or innovate around the monopolist."
"It changes when you are on the other side, having spent the time and effort to build your business model and sit on it without having to worry about competition. Then suddenly it all makes more sense."
FTFY.
Not sure what point you were trying to make anyway.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Oct 2012 @ 12:29pm
Re: Re: No missed opportunity
They could've presented the massive conspiracy of the copyright cartel to buy politicians and get them to pass bad laws for the sake of their dwindling corporate profits.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Oct 2012 @ 11:04am
Re: subject here
The problem is this isn't a legal system (ie, it's not a criminal action) but rather a "right to refuse business".
If this was only about the rights to refuse to do business with someone, then why the big announcements? Why the big 6 strikes plan? Why the quasi-judicial appeals process? Why the negotiations driven by the White House?
Every service provider already has it buried in their terms of service that they can terminate anyone's access at any time for any reason. They don't need the 6 strikes thing for that.
Further, why try to frame this narrowly like a court of law criminal action, when at best it's a civil matter?
Copyright law is a civil matter, but with criminal penalties - punitive and statutory fines instead of any kind of reasonableness designed to cover the losses caused by infringement. If this was only a civil matter, the fines would be restitution for damages - and those damages would need to be proven. Now we're talking about denying someone access to the internet, which is even more of a criminal penalty - one most frequently used to punish hackers caught breaking criminal law, but without the due process of a trial and standards of evidence.
Under that standard, 6 strikes is a pretty heavy burden.
Not when the automated bots identify infringement performed by network printers. Not when the automated bots accuse people who don't even have internet connections of infringement. Not when millions of questionable or bogus DMCA notices are sent out using the same methods.
You are seriously deluded if you think these notices are even remotely close to being evidence worthy.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Oct 2012 @ 9:32am
Re:
I didn't see the word solely in my copy of the Constitution.
It doesn't need to be there, since there is only one reason given for the "exclusive right" and that is: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"
Using solely to describe a list of one is perfectly accurate.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Sep 2012 @ 1:26pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, it wouldn't be distributed by normal means. Remember, if there is no money in it, why bother? No TV station would want to run something that everyone can get freely without issue. There is no audience to collect and charge for ads as a result.
I'll try and remember this the next time I'm in a bookstore and see a shelf full of the works of Shakespeare. Or the next time I hear a symphony playing the works of Mozart.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 28 Sep 2012 @ 2:01pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers you dial on your phone or the addresses you send an email to.
Bullshit.
That information must necessarily be given to intermediaries who make the connections for you.
Yes, and I'm perfectly happy to share it with those intermediaries - the private companies that need the information in order to make it work.
Sharing it with the government is a whole other thing. If the government needs it for legitimate law enforcement requests, I'm fine with that - thats what warrants are for. But these are warrantless intrusions into our private lives by the government. Even worse, thr ACLU had to take the government to court to get this information, which the government was supposed to make available according to the law.
Maybe in your fascist paradise, you think this is okay, but I do not. (Sorry for the insult, but you spent the week calling me a hippie, so deal with it.)
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Sep 2012 @ 12:01pm
Re:
The means are an integral part of accomplishing the ends.
What happens when there are better means?
If the ends are to distribute books, you don't keep building monastaries and staffing them full of monks to make copies after the printing press comes around.
When the means you use to accomplish the ends no longer makes sense, it's time to scrap that means and find a new one. No matter how many monk protection acts you pass, no matter how often you villify Gutenberg, you can't stop progress. Climb aboard or get run over.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Sep 2012 @ 11:29am
Re: Re: Re:
If a work is truly new, then copyright does not hinder its creation or dissemination.
No work is "truly new" - every work is influenced by something that came before. Every work uses concepts that came before it. Prove me wrong - give me one single example of anything created in the last 2000 years you consider art that is completely original.
I assume you're talking about a handful of books that unauthorized sequels and the like, and you're pretending like the 1% represents the whole.
Yep, exactly those, the Catcher in the Rye sequel among others. Copyright is preventing those works from being created or disseminated - this is not a point of contention. The blog comment was also referring to Dajaz1. We all know what happened there.
It doesn't matter whether those works are 1% or 90% - copyright is preventing or discouraging them from benefitting the public.
This is a problem with the party sending the notice. Blame the party that is actually doing the wrong. All laws can be abused. Blame the abusers.
Aren't you normally the one arguing that laws and punishments are the reasons people don't break laws? They clearly are not working.
And let's talk about cognitive dissosnace for just a second. You say to blame the abusers for copyright law and not the laws. Yet when it comes to the tools that people use to break copyright laws, you insist those tools or services need to be shut down. Which is it, blame the people abusing the laws or tools, or blame the laws or tools? I realize I may slip into using arguments in the same way on abolishing copyright - but I don't think adding penalties for abusing the DMCA would work or bring much sanity to copyright.
If one takedown notice out of millions gets it wrong then the whole system is broken? Not a good argument. Again, blame the party that sends the erroneous takedown notice. And what of the millions and millions of takedown notices that aren't in error? What about the huge underlying problem? Why do you insist that the remedy be 100% perfect while ignoring the problem underneath?
Do we really know that the millions of takedown notices are not erroneous? You know as well as I that the vast majority of them are never challenged - but you then assume they're fine - yet we don't know that.
Let's talk about cognitive dissonance again. Why do you insist that a copyright holder should have 100% perfect control over the work?
You want to talk about the huge underlying problem? How about that copyright is abso-fucking-lutely crazy, bat-shit insane, stark raving mad, truly bonkers to anyone who isn't a copyright lawyer or can pay for one.
Copyright law has always been about prohibiting unauthorized copying, from the printing press to the iPhone 5. Copyright has always been about stopping unauthorized copiers from violating the copyright owners' exclusive rights.
In your first post, you said this: "Copyright's purpose is to encourage the creation and dissemination of new and better works." Which is it?
Copyright is not perpetual. That argument made its way to the Supreme Court and lost.
You don't seem to have any problem with the constant extension of copyrights that keep pushing it out farther.
Forever minus one day is perpetual. Here's some maths for you: infinity = infinity minus one. Don't trust me on that, ask any mathemetician.
The theory is that by giving authors these exclusive rights, they are incentivized to create and to disseminate their works. And when the limited times is up, the public gets the works.
That was the theory - and maybe when it was extremely difficult or expensive to copy things it made sense. It no longer does.
As to limited times, see above. Or ask yourself when Mickey Mouse goes public domain. Or ask what works have entered the public domain (against the copyright holder's wishes) in recent memory.
The tradeoff is that by granting authors these exclusive rights, the authors are incentivized to create the works in the first place. It's about more than just the public getting access to the works. It's also about an author's rights and incentives to create new and better works, which in turn benefits the public. Copyright is about author's first and the public second. It always has been.
There is no point to copyright if the purpose isn't to get the works to the public. "To Promote the Progress" - the rights are the incentive, not the purpose. The purpose of a job isn't the paycheck - the paycheck is the incentive to do the job.
If your alternative universe where copyright does not play a part in incentivizing the creation of new and better works were better for authors, they would be flocking to your alternative business models in droves.
They are. How many more do we have to highlight? How many more sites have to spring up that people use to put content they created out for the world to see with no copyright incentive ever given?
As it is, your alternative views have not replaced copyright. If you want to show the world that your way is better, then demonstrate that on an even playing field.
You argue against a level playing field with nearly every comment you make here.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Sep 2012 @ 8:34am
Re:
Copyright's purpose is to encourage the creation and dissemination of new and better works.
Glad you've finally caught on to the program.
The argument is that current copyright laws do not accomplish this, and that they hinder the creation and dissemination of new works. Every time a new book is killed off, or a blog dedicated to exposing new musical works to the public is shut down is evidence of this. Every bogus DMCA notice is evidence for this. Every time some automated content bot shuts down a broadcast or censors the sounds of birds is evidence that current copyright law no longer functions.
Copyright law was never supposed to be about a handful of massive corporate conglomerations having veto rights over new technology, yet that is what it has become. Copyright was never supposed to be about those corporations having the power to shut out competing distribution channels, yet that is what it has become. Copyright was never supposed to be about people or corporations have perpetual monopoly privileges over peices of culture, yet that is what it has become.
Can you explain how it benefits the public that culture created during anyone's lifetime cannot be used until their grandchildren have grandchildren? Can you explain how it makes even the slightest bit of sense to prevent access to content which can by copied infinitely at little to no cost? Can you explain how locking up that information and culture to be exploited by a tiny few and passed on at outrageous markups is ethical?
I doubt you can, but I'll give you the chance to try to form a coherent argument, AJ.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Sep 2012 @ 8:08am
Re: Re:
How about innovating a unique argumentative tact for me, Scotty.
I'm pretty sure that even if we went and created a brand new, unique and innovative argumentative tact for you to use, you'd still resort to ad hominem attacks and never support your assertions with data.
On the post: Justice Department Calls Megaupload Case A Success; Hands Out Cash To Cops To Do More Bogus Takedowns
Largest ever?
2 companies and 7 people is the largest ever criminal copyright case?
Wow, sure sounds like piracy is such a staggering problem that has destroyed an entire industry. This certainly justifies the millions of government tax dollars being spent on it.
Just imagine when we get more than New Zealand to help! We could go after 3 companies and 9 individuals! That will be a case for the record books.
On the post: Band Gives Away Latest Album After Label Attempts To Shelve It Until 'Sometime Next Year'
Re: Re:
I'm guessing it has something to do with you trying to fit this band into an industry formula for making money off plastic discs.
On the post: Why The Six Strikes Plan Doesn't Mesh With US Law Or Social Norms
Re: Re: Re: Re: subject here
You agree that the notices have no evidentiary value, but then claim that they show the connection has been use unlawfully.
On the post: Why It Could Make Sense To Get Rid Of Patents Entirely, Even If They Work In A Few Cases
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Yes, There Are Many, Many, Many, Many Legal Uses Of BitTorrent
Re:
Ever use use a can of RAID to get rid of cockroaches?
Too bad they don't have a version that only works on trolls.
On the post: Why It Could Make Sense To Get Rid Of Patents Entirely, Even If They Work In A Few Cases
Re: Re:
All of those make it harder for the competition to just copy a product. There's a tremendous first mover advantage. Why does there need to be even more protections in the form of monopoly privileges on top of the regulations?
On the post: Why It Could Make Sense To Get Rid Of Patents Entirely, Even If They Work In A Few Cases
Re:
"It changes when you are on the other side, having spent the time and effort to build your business model and sit on it without having to worry about competition. Then suddenly it all makes more sense."
FTFY.
Not sure what point you were trying to make anyway.
On the post: Crime Inc. Inc., The Business Of Hyping The Piracy Threat
Re: Re: No missed opportunity
On the post: Why The Six Strikes Plan Doesn't Mesh With US Law Or Social Norms
Re: subject here
If this was only about the rights to refuse to do business with someone, then why the big announcements? Why the big 6 strikes plan? Why the quasi-judicial appeals process? Why the negotiations driven by the White House?
Every service provider already has it buried in their terms of service that they can terminate anyone's access at any time for any reason. They don't need the 6 strikes thing for that.
Further, why try to frame this narrowly like a court of law criminal action, when at best it's a civil matter?
Copyright law is a civil matter, but with criminal penalties - punitive and statutory fines instead of any kind of reasonableness designed to cover the losses caused by infringement. If this was only a civil matter, the fines would be restitution for damages - and those damages would need to be proven. Now we're talking about denying someone access to the internet, which is even more of a criminal penalty - one most frequently used to punish hackers caught breaking criminal law, but without the due process of a trial and standards of evidence.
Under that standard, 6 strikes is a pretty heavy burden.
Not when the automated bots identify infringement performed by network printers. Not when the automated bots accuse people who don't even have internet connections of infringement. Not when millions of questionable or bogus DMCA notices are sent out using the same methods.
You are seriously deluded if you think these notices are even remotely close to being evidence worthy.
On the post: Can We Kill The Myth That The Constitution Guarantees Copyrights And Patents?
Re:
It doesn't need to be there, since there is only one reason given for the "exclusive right" and that is: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"
Using solely to describe a list of one is perfectly accurate.
On the post: Can We Kill The Myth That The Constitution Guarantees Copyrights And Patents?
Re: "Can We Kill The Myth That The Constitution Guarantees Copyrights And Patents?"
You'd think they'd be fine selling to the hordes of internet forum goers commenting on copyright issues alone.
/popcorn
On the post: Copyright Trolls Still Arguing That Open WiFi Is 'Negligent'
Re: Re: Re: Anaology Away!
Corporations are people.
Piracy is killing music corporations.
Open WiFi allows access to the Internet.
There's piracy on the Internet.
Therefore, Open WiFi kills people.
/lawyer
On the post: Do Bad Things Happen When Works Enter The Public Domain? The Data Says... No
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll try and remember this the next time I'm in a bookstore and see a shelf full of the works of Shakespeare. Or the next time I hear a symphony playing the works of Mozart.
On the post: New Data Dump Shows Feds Massively Increased Spying On Who You're Talking To
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit.
That information must necessarily be given to intermediaries who make the connections for you.
Yes, and I'm perfectly happy to share it with those intermediaries - the private companies that need the information in order to make it work.
Sharing it with the government is a whole other thing. If the government needs it for legitimate law enforcement requests, I'm fine with that - thats what warrants are for. But these are warrantless intrusions into our private lives by the government. Even worse, thr ACLU had to take the government to court to get this information, which the government was supposed to make available according to the law.
Maybe in your fascist paradise, you think this is okay, but I do not. (Sorry for the insult, but you spent the week calling me a hippie, so deal with it.)
On the post: Former Copyright Boss: New Technology Should Be Presumed Illegal Until Congress Says Otherwise
Re:
What happens when there are better means?
If the ends are to distribute books, you don't keep building monastaries and staffing them full of monks to make copies after the printing press comes around.
When the means you use to accomplish the ends no longer makes sense, it's time to scrap that means and find a new one. No matter how many monk protection acts you pass, no matter how often you villify Gutenberg, you can't stop progress. Climb aboard or get run over.
On the post: Former Copyright Boss: New Technology Should Be Presumed Illegal Until Congress Says Otherwise
Re: I Cant Wait . . .
On the post: Michael Robertson Continues To Tempt Copyright Fate With UberTalk: Recordable Radio Directory Online
Re: Re: Re:
No work is "truly new" - every work is influenced by something that came before. Every work uses concepts that came before it. Prove me wrong - give me one single example of anything created in the last 2000 years you consider art that is completely original.
I assume you're talking about a handful of books that unauthorized sequels and the like, and you're pretending like the 1% represents the whole.
Yep, exactly those, the Catcher in the Rye sequel among others. Copyright is preventing those works from being created or disseminated - this is not a point of contention. The blog comment was also referring to Dajaz1. We all know what happened there.
It doesn't matter whether those works are 1% or 90% - copyright is preventing or discouraging them from benefitting the public.
This is a problem with the party sending the notice. Blame the party that is actually doing the wrong. All laws can be abused. Blame the abusers.
Aren't you normally the one arguing that laws and punishments are the reasons people don't break laws? They clearly are not working.
And let's talk about cognitive dissosnace for just a second. You say to blame the abusers for copyright law and not the laws. Yet when it comes to the tools that people use to break copyright laws, you insist those tools or services need to be shut down. Which is it, blame the people abusing the laws or tools, or blame the laws or tools? I realize I may slip into using arguments in the same way on abolishing copyright - but I don't think adding penalties for abusing the DMCA would work or bring much sanity to copyright.
If one takedown notice out of millions gets it wrong then the whole system is broken? Not a good argument. Again, blame the party that sends the erroneous takedown notice. And what of the millions and millions of takedown notices that aren't in error? What about the huge underlying problem? Why do you insist that the remedy be 100% perfect while ignoring the problem underneath?
Do we really know that the millions of takedown notices are not erroneous? You know as well as I that the vast majority of them are never challenged - but you then assume they're fine - yet we don't know that.
Let's talk about cognitive dissonance again. Why do you insist that a copyright holder should have 100% perfect control over the work?
You want to talk about the huge underlying problem? How about that copyright is abso-fucking-lutely crazy, bat-shit insane, stark raving mad, truly bonkers to anyone who isn't a copyright lawyer or can pay for one.
Copyright law has always been about prohibiting unauthorized copying, from the printing press to the iPhone 5. Copyright has always been about stopping unauthorized copiers from violating the copyright owners' exclusive rights.
In your first post, you said this: "Copyright's purpose is to encourage the creation and dissemination of new and better works." Which is it?
Copyright is not perpetual. That argument made its way to the Supreme Court and lost.
You don't seem to have any problem with the constant extension of copyrights that keep pushing it out farther.
Forever minus one day is perpetual. Here's some maths for you: infinity = infinity minus one. Don't trust me on that, ask any mathemetician.
The theory is that by giving authors these exclusive rights, they are incentivized to create and to disseminate their works. And when the limited times is up, the public gets the works.
That was the theory - and maybe when it was extremely difficult or expensive to copy things it made sense. It no longer does.
As to limited times, see above. Or ask yourself when Mickey Mouse goes public domain. Or ask what works have entered the public domain (against the copyright holder's wishes) in recent memory.
The tradeoff is that by granting authors these exclusive rights, the authors are incentivized to create the works in the first place. It's about more than just the public getting access to the works. It's also about an author's rights and incentives to create new and better works, which in turn benefits the public. Copyright is about author's first and the public second. It always has been.
There is no point to copyright if the purpose isn't to get the works to the public. "To Promote the Progress" - the rights are the incentive, not the purpose. The purpose of a job isn't the paycheck - the paycheck is the incentive to do the job.
If your alternative universe where copyright does not play a part in incentivizing the creation of new and better works were better for authors, they would be flocking to your alternative business models in droves.
They are. How many more do we have to highlight? How many more sites have to spring up that people use to put content they created out for the world to see with no copyright incentive ever given?
As it is, your alternative views have not replaced copyright. If you want to show the world that your way is better, then demonstrate that on an even playing field.
You argue against a level playing field with nearly every comment you make here.
On the post: Michael Robertson Continues To Tempt Copyright Fate With UberTalk: Recordable Radio Directory Online
Re:
Glad you've finally caught on to the program.
The argument is that current copyright laws do not accomplish this, and that they hinder the creation and dissemination of new works. Every time a new book is killed off, or a blog dedicated to exposing new musical works to the public is shut down is evidence of this. Every bogus DMCA notice is evidence for this. Every time some automated content bot shuts down a broadcast or censors the sounds of birds is evidence that current copyright law no longer functions.
Copyright law was never supposed to be about a handful of massive corporate conglomerations having veto rights over new technology, yet that is what it has become. Copyright was never supposed to be about those corporations having the power to shut out competing distribution channels, yet that is what it has become. Copyright was never supposed to be about people or corporations have perpetual monopoly privileges over peices of culture, yet that is what it has become.
Can you explain how it benefits the public that culture created during anyone's lifetime cannot be used until their grandchildren have grandchildren? Can you explain how it makes even the slightest bit of sense to prevent access to content which can by copied infinitely at little to no cost? Can you explain how locking up that information and culture to be exploited by a tiny few and passed on at outrageous markups is ethical?
I doubt you can, but I'll give you the chance to try to form a coherent argument, AJ.
On the post: Michael Robertson Continues To Tempt Copyright Fate With UberTalk: Recordable Radio Directory Online
Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure that even if we went and created a brand new, unique and innovative argumentative tact for you to use, you'd still resort to ad hominem attacks and never support your assertions with data.
On the post: Police Delete Aftermath Footage Of Suspect Shot 41 Times
Re:
Next >>