"So your argument is that the greedy corporation was right to both keep that song and underpay contractual royalties?"
I think the point was more that the family don't exactly make a sympathetic victim, not that the record companies weren't acting unconscionably. Most people here don't believe copyrights should extend beyond the rightsholder's death, and so there should be no need for a law suit.
"If these people can't make their money off 14 years they will never make it."
More importantly, if they create nothing else in the ensuing 14 years that earns them money then copyright obviously failed in it's stated aim of encouraging creativity.
Re: The "irreparable harm" is income that will NOT be received.
"Income that should go to those who paid to make the content, bt (some of) which others will get by the infringement."
Mangled English aside, what you're describing is not the loss of anything, it's merely not getting as much as you wanted. That's not harm. No business is automatically entitled to income, you have to actually convince people to give it to you.
"Infringement is illegal. Publicly advertising intent is valid evidence."
Can you name for us any other situation where showing mere intent will get you charged with the actual crime itself? I don't think you'll be able to, in which case you seem to be claiming that copyright law is some special little flower that deserves far harsher enforcement than any other crime. Is that really your position?
Remember, "privacy" policies are almost always used to explain how and when companies don't protect your privacy. They're to cover their ass, not yours.
"Now that the fast track has been approved it is available for ANYONE to see the terms..."
Great to hear, but you forgot to provide the link to the document that ANYONE can see.
"Everything that was wrong (which was a lot) with NAFTA actually gets addressed in TPP, which is why I am dumbfounded by people who do not support it because of the NAFTA debacle.."
Actually that's one criticism of TPP that I've barely heard mentioned around here. Most of the criticism on Techdirt has been based on the leaks and the ridiculous secrecy, so your complaint makes little sense.
And how exactly do you know that TPP fixes everything wrong with NAFTA?
So what you're saying is that you have a vested interest in the promotion of stupid, over-broad, excessively long copyright restrictions that are so complicated and devoid of common sense that high-priced 'specialist' lawyers are required for practically all interactions between producers and consumers of content. Basically the exact opposite of what the public needs or wants. Good for you...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "I can't prove the "shill" accusation" -- So, you were lying.
Libel would suggest he's saying anything that could possibly hurt Mike or Techdirt. I doubt anybody of any import is reading these claims and taking them even the slightest bit seriously.
This is one reason why any moral argument made by studios against movie piracy falls flat on it's face. You simply cannot claim the moral high ground on piracy while at the same time committing a level of fraud that would most likely be found illegal if it were properly exposed in a court of law.
"I'll put my name on this as soon as you put the name of your source on your article - the name of the Sony employee who leaked the e-mails."
Ooh, that's clever! Make revealing your vested interest dependent on Mike providing info he couldn't possible know.
"But I also see that you are convinced you've uncovered some "shocking truth" about MPAA deception. There is none."
On that I'm sure we all agree. Nobody is shocked that the MPAA is being deceptive by publicly claiming one thing while telling politicians and trade reps the opposite in secret. At this point we'd be surprised if they weren't doing that. But that doesn't mean it's not newsworthy or worth reminding people of.
Re: Unflagged to show I can foil the childish censors.
It's hilarious how articles critical of the MPAA bring out the low-quality trolls like you. If these are the strongest responses you can come up with, it shows clearly you have no serious defense of their position to offer.
On the post: Huge Win: Appeals Court Says NSA's Bulk Phone Records Collection Not Actually Authorized By PATRIOT Act
Re:
Ignorance is indeed bliss.
On the post: Quebec Town Makes It Illegal To Insult Police Officers And Other Public Officials
Re:
On the post: 'Get Up, Stand Up' For... Whose Rights Now?
Re:
On the post: 'Get Up, Stand Up' For... Whose Rights Now?
Re: Re:
I think the point was more that the family don't exactly make a sympathetic victim, not that the record companies weren't acting unconscionably. Most people here don't believe copyrights should extend beyond the rightsholder's death, and so there should be no need for a law suit.
On the post: 'Get Up, Stand Up' For... Whose Rights Now?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you claiming you've never copied a single piece of media in your life?
On the post: Law Enforcement's Cluelessness On Display In Congressional Hearing On Undermining Encryption
Re: Re: I'm no expert...
There's a very useful middle ground between 'expert' and 'completely ignorant'.
On the post: UK Green Party Speculates On Idea To Shorten Copyright To 14 Years... Leading To Mass Freakout
Re:
More importantly, if they create nothing else in the ensuing 14 years that earns them money then copyright obviously failed in it's stated aim of encouraging creativity.
On the post: Can You Sue For Copyright Infringement Before It's Actually Happened?
Re: The "irreparable harm" is income that will NOT be received.
Mangled English aside, what you're describing is not the loss of anything, it's merely not getting as much as you wanted. That's not harm. No business is automatically entitled to income, you have to actually convince people to give it to you.
"Infringement is illegal. Publicly advertising intent is valid evidence."
Can you name for us any other situation where showing mere intent will get you charged with the actual crime itself? I don't think you'll be able to, in which case you seem to be claiming that copyright law is some special little flower that deserves far harsher enforcement than any other crime. Is that really your position?
On the post: Can You Sue For Copyright Infringement Before It's Actually Happened?
Re:
On the post: MPAA Gets Court To Block Popcorn Time Websites In UK, Despite Judge Admitting The Sites Don't Actually Infringe
Re: "jointly liable" is not a slippery slope. Overt acts with sole purpose to infringe.
Well considering that this is simply not true, probably quite a few more times.
On the post: Motel Decides It Should Just Start Faxing All Guest Info To Local Police Every Night
Re:
On the post: President Obama Demands Critics Tell Him What's Wrong With TPP; Of Course We Can't Do That Because He Won't Show Us The Agreement
Re: We can't see TPP?
Great to hear, but you forgot to provide the link to the document that ANYONE can see.
"Everything that was wrong (which was a lot) with NAFTA actually gets addressed in TPP, which is why I am dumbfounded by people who do not support it because of the NAFTA debacle.."
Actually that's one criticism of TPP that I've barely heard mentioned around here. Most of the criticism on Techdirt has been based on the leaks and the ridiculous secrecy, so your complaint makes little sense.
And how exactly do you know that TPP fixes everything wrong with NAFTA?
On the post: Richard Dreyfuss Takes Disney To Court Over Its Refusal To Allow An Outside Auditor To Examine Its Accounting Methods
Re: Re: Re: Downloading CRAP makes you full of CRAP.
On the post: DVD Makers Say That You Don't Really Own The DVDs You Bought... Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
On the post: Cable's Top Lobbyist Just Can't Understand Why People Like Google Better
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "I can't prove the "shill" accusation" -- So, you were lying.
On the post: Richard Dreyfuss Takes Disney To Court Over Its Refusal To Allow An Outside Auditor To Examine Its Accounting Methods
Re: Downloading
On the post: HBO Shuts Down Bar's Game Of Thrones Viewing Party
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Chris Dodd's Email Reveals What MPAA Really Thinks Of Fair Use: 'Extremely Controversial'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
Ooh, that's clever! Make revealing your vested interest dependent on Mike providing info he couldn't possible know.
"But I also see that you are convinced you've uncovered some "shocking truth" about MPAA deception. There is none."
On that I'm sure we all agree. Nobody is shocked that the MPAA is being deceptive by publicly claiming one thing while telling politicians and trade reps the opposite in secret. At this point we'd be surprised if they weren't doing that. But that doesn't mean it's not newsworthy or worth reminding people of.
On the post: Chris Dodd's Email Reveals What MPAA Really Thinks Of Fair Use: 'Extremely Controversial'
Re: Unflagged to show I can foil the childish censors.
On the post: Chris Dodd's Email Reveals What MPAA Really Thinks Of Fair Use: 'Extremely Controversial'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>