Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Sep 2012 @ 11:01am
Re: Re: The avreage joe (not our not so average joe)
I think we need some sort of "Yellow pages" for copyrighted works to easily tell if a work is copyrighted, which type of copyright and who holds it for contact.
We had just such a system prior to 1976 (in the US).
Wait, I just thought of something.
There was almost no file sharing happening in 1976! No hordes of internet pirates wantonly stealing the precious intellectual property! There was no Pirate Mike back then, either. No Pirate Party! No Pirate Bay! Quick, call up our lobbyists, we can solve piracy by changing the law back to what we had before 1976!
Keep throwing the insults, I couldn't care less. All it shows how weak your arguments are. You do not understand my viewpoints, so do yourself a favor and stop trying to attach incorrect labels to them, all it does is show how myopic you are.
Most people can ignore copyright, yep. I have never claimed otherwise. Doesn't mean they are in favor of it either generally, or the insane version of it we have. In the very few cases where portions of the public has gotten involved in copyright issues, however, there has been overwhelming protest against the agenda you're pushing. This is undisputed fact.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Sep 2012 @ 2:25pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's more of your goofy crowd source government nonsense. That shit doesn't even work in hippie communes, much less a government of 300 million.
We've never seen a modern government that is even remotely close to the radically transparent one I want - how can you say it doesn't work? And even if it ends badly, I'd rather have tried it than the route we're going down now.
A quick review of the laws and policies of this nation indicate that I'm neither extremist nor minority. And my views have little if anything to do with expansion. I'm in favor of enforcing existing protections.
You're operating under the assumption that the current laws are not extremely lopsided. I think a large and diverse number of people would disagree, as we've seen with the SOPA and ACTA protests.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Sep 2012 @ 12:48pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The industry advisor process is well established.
Just because it's always been like that doesn't mean it should always remain like that. Maybe it even worked well decades ago - I don't care. I care what works now, and it doesn't anymore.
I use lobbyist in the general sense, not some inside the beltway bullshit over who is a registered lobbyist or not. If they are trying to influence the negotiators in some sort of official capacity for a company or group, they're a lobbyist. And I don't think you need to be an approved expert in international trade to see clear problems with a treaty - since this treaty is about more than just trade.
And no, I'm not going to stop commenting on the lack of transparency and public input. I want radical transparency on nearly everything the government does. Short of a few extremely senstive areas involving military, espionage, and diplomacy (and no, this doesn't make the cut in this category) matters, everything the government does should be completely transparent with as much speed as is practically possible. There should not be special classes of who is an official advisor and gets a more powerful say at the bargaining table - the government is supposed to work for the people. I'm fine with Earth First getting to see and comment on environmental issues. I'm fine with the KKK or al Queda being able to see any make comments on issues they think are important. In a true democracy the extremist views are going to be marginalized. But that's a problem for you, isn't it? Your extremist views on copyright expansion would get just as marginalized, eh?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Sep 2012 @ 11:57am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for making a clear statement that you think one group of lobbyists should be given preferential treatment because they represent large corporations, while other groups of lobbyists represting civil rights and public interests should be shut out.
While I respect your right to that opinion, I find the opinion disgusting. I think that opinion should be given no weight in a modern democracy, but what would I know? I'm just one of the little people.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Sep 2012 @ 11:20am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would you care to post a copy of the current text of the treaty so I can look for it in the current version, or must I look at the leaked version from... geeze, was it a year and a half ago, or has there been a more recent leak?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Sep 2012 @ 11:07am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
-10 internets for not responding to the point.
Direct question:
Is it ok for all of those industry reps and the public to have access to the current text of the treaty, or should no one but the government negotiators have access to it?
Pick one. Give a direct answer, or AJ gets to attack you for the rest of the week.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Sep 2012 @ 11:02am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Problem is, IP law is but a small portion of this FTA.
How many more trade agreements are going to get killed (like ACTA) over such a tiny portion of the treaty, pushed for by such a tiny dying industry with undue influence? Maybe the industry representatives from industries that make real products (instead of the imaginary property kind) should get them booted off the access list, so the grownups can negotiate trade agreements that affect the jobs of millions of people.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Sep 2012 @ 10:52am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I know I'll never change his mind.
I just enjoy poking holes in his comments and using them as a jumping off point to spout off my own views. Slow moment at work - this is better than staring at access logs and spreadsheets.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Sep 2012 @ 10:30am
Re: Re: Re:
I think the problem you have is where on the timeline that disclosure happens. You want it now, so you can bring political pressure to bear on specific provisions and specific language.
Isn't that EXACTLY what the "industry representatives" are ALREADY doing? They have access to the current text of the treaty, and are exerting political pressure on the USTR to make changes favorable to them.
Either its fine for them to do so - and should be fine for the public and other special interests - or its not okay for the public to know whats going on, and industry reps shouldn't either. Pick one.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Sep 2012 @ 10:19am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is exactly what I'd be doing if I were on your side- using a trade agreement to force changes I wanted in domestic law that would not otherwise be possible.
Wait.
Fact: One of the big suspicions over TPP is that it is a secretive trade agreement to push through unpopular changes to copyright law.
Fact: You're accusing Mike of wanting to use TPP to get changes to domestic law that would not be possible to get passed (they would get killed off by lobbying groups).
Fact: You admitted that you would use the TPP in just such a way.
So basically you've confirmed the suspicions over TPP. Way to go. You've surely eased the suspicions.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Sep 2012 @ 7:34am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright opponents see TPP as a vehicle to roll back existing copyright protections.
What? That is nothing even remotely close to what I said. Also, I don't speak for every "copyright opponent" out there. We don't get memos on talking points. I speak for myself and no one else.
I don't see TPP as something that will roll back protections, I see it as a treaty being negotiated secretly against the public in favor of copyright maximalist corporations. The concern about copyright growing is absolutely true - because the treaty is a secret - we don't know what is in it and have to assume the worst based on our experiences on similar secretive treaties like ACTA. I want TPP killed dead. Deader than ACTA. Deader than SOPA. Once it's dead, and any others that crop up to replace it, maybe, just maybe, we can get our elected representatives to stop paying attention to lobbyists and fix the insanity of copyright law.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Sep 2012 @ 7:10am
Re: Re: Re:
What if I told you that no US copyright law would change? Would that shut you up?
No.
You assume that US copyright law is some perfect model we want other countries to have.
It will make it harder to fix the utterly broken, utterly insane copyright law we have.
I *want* copyright law to change. I want some sanity in it, a law that an average person can understand, and one that reflects reality as it exists today.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 2:30pm
Re:
There is no downward pressure because, unlike how you try to portray it, there is no real alternate music source. People generally want to hear hits and well known material, they don't want to hear nothing but bands they don't know all day.
Yay for circular logic.
1) Major labels own or influence the distribution channel and advertising that most people only hear what the majors want them to hear.
2) Claim people only want to hear what they know about.
3) Claim there are no legitimate alternatives because of #1 and #2.
4) Use #3 to get potential competition shut down before it can threaten #1.
:places marker on his logical fallacy bingo sheet:
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 17 Sep 2012 @ 7:03am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Culture is not just the dribs and drabs of pre-approved consumption of content that the major content industries allow. Culture is the sharing and the combination of ideas and expressions.
How is it in the public interest when any non-approved use of content is fought every step by multi-billion dollar corporations hiring out armies of lawyers and lobbyists? How is it in the public interest when millions of dollars are spent by our governments propping up legacy industries that cannot adapt?
On the post: What Public Domain? Why A Letter Written In 1755 Is Still Covered By US Copyright Law
Re: Re: The avreage joe (not our not so average joe)
We had just such a system prior to 1976 (in the US).
Wait, I just thought of something.
There was almost no file sharing happening in 1976! No hordes of internet pirates wantonly stealing the precious intellectual property! There was no Pirate Mike back then, either. No Pirate Party! No Pirate Bay! Quick, call up our lobbyists, we can solve piracy by changing the law back to what we had before 1976!
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If someone like you is throwing insults at me, I know I'm doing something right.
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most people can ignore copyright, yep. I have never claimed otherwise. Doesn't mean they are in favor of it either generally, or the insane version of it we have. In the very few cases where portions of the public has gotten involved in copyright issues, however, there has been overwhelming protest against the agenda you're pushing. This is undisputed fact.
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We've never seen a modern government that is even remotely close to the radically transparent one I want - how can you say it doesn't work? And even if it ends badly, I'd rather have tried it than the route we're going down now.
A quick review of the laws and policies of this nation indicate that I'm neither extremist nor minority. And my views have little if anything to do with expansion. I'm in favor of enforcing existing protections.
You're operating under the assumption that the current laws are not extremely lopsided. I think a large and diverse number of people would disagree, as we've seen with the SOPA and ACTA protests.
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because it's always been like that doesn't mean it should always remain like that. Maybe it even worked well decades ago - I don't care. I care what works now, and it doesn't anymore.
I use lobbyist in the general sense, not some inside the beltway bullshit over who is a registered lobbyist or not. If they are trying to influence the negotiators in some sort of official capacity for a company or group, they're a lobbyist. And I don't think you need to be an approved expert in international trade to see clear problems with a treaty - since this treaty is about more than just trade.
And no, I'm not going to stop commenting on the lack of transparency and public input. I want radical transparency on nearly everything the government does. Short of a few extremely senstive areas involving military, espionage, and diplomacy (and no, this doesn't make the cut in this category) matters, everything the government does should be completely transparent with as much speed as is practically possible. There should not be special classes of who is an official advisor and gets a more powerful say at the bargaining table - the government is supposed to work for the people. I'm fine with Earth First getting to see and comment on environmental issues. I'm fine with the KKK or al Queda being able to see any make comments on issues they think are important. In a true democracy the extremist views are going to be marginalized. But that's a problem for you, isn't it? Your extremist views on copyright expansion would get just as marginalized, eh?
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While I respect your right to that opinion, I find the opinion disgusting. I think that opinion should be given no weight in a modern democracy, but what would I know? I'm just one of the little people.
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thou dost protest too much.
So, does the AC wish to respond to the direct question? Or I can take a response from you, AJ.
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Top Pirate Party Member Has DMCA Takedown Notices Issued In Her Name
Re:
:slobbers on the couch: Rawr!
/troll
[yes, I know its Glyn's story]
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Direct question:
Is it ok for all of those industry reps and the public to have access to the current text of the treaty, or should no one but the government negotiators have access to it?
Pick one. Give a direct answer, or AJ gets to attack you for the rest of the week.
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many more trade agreements are going to get killed (like ACTA) over such a tiny portion of the treaty, pushed for by such a tiny dying industry with undue influence? Maybe the industry representatives from industries that make real products (instead of the imaginary property kind) should get them booted off the access list, so the grownups can negotiate trade agreements that affect the jobs of millions of people.
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I just enjoy poking holes in his comments and using them as a jumping off point to spout off my own views. Slow moment at work - this is better than staring at access logs and spreadsheets.
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re:
Isn't that EXACTLY what the "industry representatives" are ALREADY doing? They have access to the current text of the treaty, and are exerting political pressure on the USTR to make changes favorable to them.
Either its fine for them to do so - and should be fine for the public and other special interests - or its not okay for the public to know whats going on, and industry reps shouldn't either. Pick one.
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait.
Fact: One of the big suspicions over TPP is that it is a secretive trade agreement to push through unpopular changes to copyright law.
Fact: You're accusing Mike of wanting to use TPP to get changes to domestic law that would not be possible to get passed (they would get killed off by lobbying groups).
Fact: You admitted that you would use the TPP in just such a way.
So basically you've confirmed the suspicions over TPP. Way to go. You've surely eased the suspicions.
On the post: If The RIAA Was Innovative: An Alternate Universe Timeline
2012
FoM share price reaches $700 in the midst of a global recession. http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/aapl
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What? That is nothing even remotely close to what I said. Also, I don't speak for every "copyright opponent" out there. We don't get memos on talking points. I speak for myself and no one else.
I don't see TPP as something that will roll back protections, I see it as a treaty being negotiated secretly against the public in favor of copyright maximalist corporations. The concern about copyright growing is absolutely true - because the treaty is a secret - we don't know what is in it and have to assume the worst based on our experiences on similar secretive treaties like ACTA. I want TPP killed dead. Deader than ACTA. Deader than SOPA. Once it's dead, and any others that crop up to replace it, maybe, just maybe, we can get our elected representatives to stop paying attention to lobbyists and fix the insanity of copyright law.
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re:
No.
You assume that US copyright law is some perfect model we want other countries to have.
It will make it harder to fix the utterly broken, utterly insane copyright law we have.
I *want* copyright law to change. I want some sanity in it, a law that an average person can understand, and one that reflects reality as it exists today.
On the post: The Copyright Act Explicitly Says Disruptive Innovation Should Be Blocked
Re:
Yay for circular logic.
1) Major labels own or influence the distribution channel and advertising that most people only hear what the majors want them to hear.
2) Claim people only want to hear what they know about.
3) Claim there are no legitimate alternatives because of #1 and #2.
4) Use #3 to get potential competition shut down before it can threaten #1.
:places marker on his logical fallacy bingo sheet:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is it in the public interest when any non-approved use of content is fought every step by multi-billion dollar corporations hiring out armies of lawyers and lobbyists? How is it in the public interest when millions of dollars are spent by our governments propping up legacy industries that cannot adapt?
Next >>