Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the bring-on-the-funny dept

I'm running around SXSW this weekend, so let's just get right to it. On the insightful side there were simply no standouts this week. A bunch of comments all were pretty closely ranked, so we'll go with the top two and then an editor's choice (which was ranked 4th). The comment that came in third in insightful dominated the funny category, so we'll revisit it in the second half of this post. First up, the winner this week is crade for his comment concerning why a music tax is a bad idea:
Also, it's a bad idea because it's trying to force people to pay money not only that they don't want to pay, but specifically *because* they are unwilling to pay on their own. It's like the opposite of free enterprise, forcing consumers to support those they least want to (because they are having trouble making money... um duh) instead of those that are actually working on satisfying customers.
Following close behind it was the following comment from Bradley on the post about the RIAA being pissed at Rep. Lofgren, in response to claims about how much "piracy" has cost the economy, noting that people who make that claim seem to ignore that the money doesn't disappear:
"Online theft has cost our industry, the broader entertainment community, and our economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs."

Yeah, and obviously those dollars and jobs didn't go anywhere else. I mean, no new business models have appeared - Pandora, Spotify, and thousands of other new businesses don't offer any jobs.

I might believe it if he were to say "the direct business of selling music" was effected. But the broader entertainment industry is doing fine, thankyouverymuch. I'm fairly certain the economy (outside of some lobbyists pocket fund) isn't affected by the RIAA earning less money.

"Can you explain that to all the people who worked in record stores, or in video stores, and are now unemployed because widespread piracy decimated the music industry's retail trade?"

This carries the assumption that those people are still unemployed. That they didn't get jobs elsewhere. That they didn't shift to the new direction of the music and/or entertainment industry.

If the RIAA doesn't want to adapt, they can form their own church and do what the Amish do - pretend the future doesn't bring change and ignore the rest of the world as much as they can. If not, they need to adjust to reality and move on with it, already.
As for the editor's choice, it goes to the always insightful Justin Levine in discussing the importance of the public domain (as it relates to the Golan case the Supreme Court just agreed to hear). One of our usual critics insisted that removing works from the public domain doesn't really diminish anyone's rights. Justin took issue with that:
Some of the works at issue include:

H.G. Wells' Things to Come
Fritz Lang's Metropolis
The musical compilations of Igor Fydorovich Stravinsky

The harm to free speech rights in taking even a small amount of works out of the public domain is far more significant than you seem to imply. You seem to ignore the domino effect that will occur with regards to derivative works that would otherwise be given separate copyright protections.

For instance, let's say I create a remake of Fritz Lang's film Metropolis while Lang's film was in the public domain. I spend the sums to hire new actors, set decorators, camera crew etc. On top of that, I create both a new novelization and stage play based on my film (which again, is all based on the original Fritz Lang Metropolis).

Since Metropolis is in the public domain, I don't need to ask anyone's permission or pay off any estate to create my new works based on the original work.

After creating these 3 new works (a remake of the film, a novelization and a stage play), Mr. X licenses the rights from me in order to create a line of T-shirts based on my new works (which are given separate copyright protection, since they contain their own original and creative elements on top of the public domain film).

After spending my time, effort (and perhaps money) to create these new works, the original Fritz Lang film is suddenly yanked out of the public domain and given copyright protection again. The Fritz Lang estate then issues a cease and desist letter to both me and Mr. X, claiming (quite correctly) that all of these new works now violate the copyright of the original Fritz Lang work.

What should the response be? The best case scenario is that I and Mr. X now must pay large (perhaps crippling) fees to the Lang estate in order to distribute our newly created speech. The worst case scenario is that the Lang estate doesn't care how much we pay them, they want these new works permanently enjoined and destroyed.

Either way, the ramifications towards free speech rights are staggering.

Since copyright law no longer requires people to register works in order to get copyright protection, there is no way to know how many derivative works have already been created in the popular culture that were based on public domain works that were yanked back into copyright. The end result is a domino effect that ends up blocking new creative works that were made under the promise of a stable public domain.

So this all affects far more than your misguided claim that "the moving from public domain to copyright for a small number of works [won't] significantly diminish anyone's rights..."
And, moving on to the "funny" (which was also the third highest ranked on insightful, we have a "first." It's a comment from last week's "funniest/most insightful" post, where the Capitalist Lion Tamer decided to put together a tick tock description of a day in the life of a Techdirt troll:
7:30 am - Wake up begrudgingly from a fitful night of sleep. Quickly write down dream impressions: trapped in prison made of words/mocking laughter/MM in a Kool-Aid man costume/last words heard before waking up: "Oh, yeah! Nothing competes with free, eh AC?"/more laughter.

8:15 am - Take a few moments to allow blood to properly "angry up." (Heat to 212 for 5-7 minutes. Allow to cool briefly. Maintain holding temp of 140-165 for next 8-12 hours.)

8:50 - Brew pot of cruelty-free coffee, paid for with an honest day's wages and served with a tablespoon or four of self-righteousness. Call up X in Phoenix to see if he's up for rabid commenting at 8:30. X says it's already past 8:30, citing lack of Daylight Savings Time.

8:30 (or 9:30) - Curse under breath while making a belated start in the TD comment threads. Wonder briefly why government continues to let Arizona and Indiana run roughshod over outdated but highly ingrained legislation. If we let every state choose its own time, where does it end? Anarchy, that's where. And the bad kind of anarchy that knocks down outdated laws and grandfathered-in preferential treatment.

11:30 am - Holy crap! Time flies when you're making circular statements! (You are in a maze of twisty falsehoods, all alike.) You've nearly missed the opening states at the Paris IP Convention Thingy! (AKA, "Let's Keep Doing the Stuff That's Not Working, Only Harder!" Public not invited.)

You click the link to stream the video feed only to be told that this isn't available in your country. Run a quick irony check. Still clean! Oh well. Time to get a bit hackerish and fake out the Parisian servers. After drawing the shades, locking the door and turning of the webcam, you get to work using tips gleaned from various "piratey" sites. Note to self: turn sites into ICE later. Stupid useful pirates won't know what hit 'em.

1:00 pm - After an hour or so of being preached to by the choir leaders, you settle back into a brief, but calm nap, secure in the knowledge that the more things change, the more bitter and powerful industries will fight dirty to keep things the same. Pink Floyd is pretty good napping music. "Meet the new boss, etc." Irony detector still clean. ZZzzz.

2:30 pm - Wake up from a nap feeling refreshed and ready to take the battle to all the thieves in the world, especially the ones that stole all that music from your website, forcing you to relearn all your instruments and start from scratch. Lousy fast-moving, reasonably bright freetards!

3:30 pm - After an hour of intense analysis and witty ripostes, you take a break to clean the angry spittle off the monitor. As the haze is cleared away, you notice you've used every instance of your/you're incorrectly! GRRRAARHH! [Another pause to re-clean.]. It doesn't matter. The sheer devastating intelligence of your hundreds of comments will show through, shutting up those stupid kool-aid drinkers once and for all.

3:45-5:30 pm - Continue to type yourself into the corner as you fire off rebuttal after rebuttal at those stupid kool-aid drinkers who apparently aren't going to be shutting they're mouths anytime soon.

6:15 pm - Break for dinner and a quick game of Minesweeper. Hit F5 about 500 times to see what the freetards are saying now. Christ! You look back to notice you even screwed up their/they're in your internal dialog. Briefly consider suicide. Realize that, for what is ostensibly a selfish act, it would make entirely too many other people very happy.

7:45 pm - Check website stats and bemoan lack of hits. Blame it on piracy and infringement rather than on the fact that you spent all day angrily tilting at windmills rather than, you know, attempting to reach out to your fans.

8:30 pm - Do some quick googling to make sure your music isn't out in the wild, hitchhiking with strangers before ending up a lifeless corpse somewhere in the uncatalogued servers of a foreign storage locker.

9:00 pm - Success! Some freetard has posted your song on Youtube! You quickly fire off a DMCA takedown notice. That'll show the little bastard what's the what. "Found this while surfing the web," indeed. "Nicely textural piece of ambient house." Whatever. "Click thru on the link below for more info." Bite me. Having safely resecured your legacy, you pause for a moment to calculate your losses from the 1,500+ views. No wonder you're barely making ends meet!

You post a victorious note at your website along with a viciously worded warning in the general direction of future helpful infringers, illustrating this debacle with a chart showing a clear correlation between Youtube views and additional hits on your site. [Note to self: irony detector may needed recalibration.] You also add a bold-lettered, all caps warning to the top of your page stating your zero-tolerance policy on theft, using the always popular "stealing a car" metaphor. You also attach some public domain clipart [yep, definitely broken] of a car to drive home the point, pausing for a moment to enjoy your inadvertent pun.

10:00 pm - Having righted all the wrongs and secured your IP for yet another day, you fall to sleep peacefully on a huge pile of money. Your sleep is the sleep of angels. Avenging angels, perhaps, armed with elliptical rhetoric and entitlement rather than a flaming sword and a stout shield, but angels nonetheless. As you fade from consciousness, you are alarmed to find yourself greeted by a familiar nemesis. "Oh, yeah!!!"
I've said before that I'd prefer the comments focus on the substantive issues being discussed... but, I have to admit, that bit of literature made me laugh. Coming in second was Nina Paley's retort to an anonymous critic of her work with the Librarians Against DRM, after the commenter tried to spin a bizarre conspiracy theory about Nina's role in helping the group create a logo:
AC, you flatter me! You make me feel powerful...mysterious...dangerous. Your fantasies are kind of hot.
Third place in the funny comments was actually a three way tie, and I liked them all, so we'll give you some extra funny this week, presented in no particular order. First up, was an anonymous poster's "open letter" to Summit Entertainment after their decision to threaten Bath & Bodyworks over its Twilight Woods product.
Dear Summit Entertainment:

You do not own the word "twilight" in every instance it is ever used. We understand that you are protective of your exploitative, sexist, often disturbing series of books/films (which happen to feature one of the most unromantic "romances" in the history of creative expression). However, that paranoid protectionism does not give you the right to claim complete ownership of a word that has existed well before anyone who ever worked for your company was ever born. Please cease your idiocy, or we may be forced to regard you as being one of the least intelligent media companies of the 21st Century.

Sincerely,
Every intelligent, free-thinking person on the planet (in other words, everyone who isn't a Twilight fan)
Next up, another anonymous commenter, responding to the story of the guy who was arrested for a Facebook comment in Zimbabwe. The commenter noted the oddity of the charges against the guy. The government noted that the guy was charged with "advocating or attempting to take-over government by unconstitutional means," leading the commenter to realize the implication here:
Oh, so it was just a procedure he failed to follow...? Yeesh.
And... finally, we've got ChurchHatesTucker's response to NY Times executive editor Bill Keller's bizarre claim that in Somalia (where real piracy exists), they would undoubtedly refer to news aggregation as "piracy." CHT pointed out:
Turnabout is fair play. I'd be amused if Somalis started aggregating shipping.
That's all for this week... have at it.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 12:08pm

    What's a TechDirt troll? Is that pretty much anyone who shares a dissenting position?

    The close-mindedness of this site and its readership never ceases to amaze.

    If you feel the need to mock anyone whose opinion differs from your own, maybe you should re-evaluate just how confident you feel about your own position.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 12:21pm

    Re:

    The close-mindedness of this site and its readership never ceases to amaze.

    Yes, yes, those poor, misunderstood trolls. Why won't anyone take them seriously? "Freetard" is just a term of endearment. :(

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 12:27pm

    Re:

    We mock the opinion. If the opinion is repeated often enough by the exact same person, then the person gets mocked.

    We're quite comfortable in our position, thank you very much. We've just spent so much time defending it against the baseless accusations that the "trolls" make that we've made a game out of all of it.

    Or did you really expect "freetard" and "koolaid" to warrant legitimate discussion?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Re:

    Yes, but then I'm crazy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 12:58pm

    Re:

    "If you feel the need to mock anyone whose opinion differs from your own, maybe you should re-evaluate just how confident you feel about your own position."

    Not just anyone. We'd be specific but you're posting anonymously.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Jesse (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 1:30pm

    Re:

    Wahhhh it's the Wahhhmbulance. If this site is too close-minded for you then why do you insist on commenting? Obviously you get some value out of it, or you would move on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Jesse (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 1:35pm

    "After creating these 3 new works (a remake of the film, a novelization and a stage play), Mr. X licenses the rights from me in order to create a line of T-shirts based on my new works (which are given separate copyright protection, since they contain their own original and creative elements on top of the public domain film)."

    I think that long as we as a society are going to cling to the notion of owning ideas and of controlling downstream ideas, then the public domain "license" should be viral like the GPL. That is, if you base your work in any way off of a public domain work, the derivative must automatically fall into the public domain. None of this one-way benefit from the public domain, only to lock down derivatives.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 1:48pm

    Re:

    But, but, piracy!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 1:56pm

    Re:

    What's a TechDirt troll? Is that pretty much anyone who shares a dissenting position?

    Not at all. Plenty of folks post dissenting viewpoints, and we welcome them and are quite open to discussing them, and do so.

    The issue reaches a different level when people who come here to (a) misrepresent what is said (b) are corrected and (c) continue to misrepresent what is said. Either that, or the people who regularly make factual errors, despite being shown to be factually erroneous. At that point, it appears that some in the community dub them to be trolls.

    If we were "closed minded" we wouldn't be confident enough to debate with folks. We would either fully moderate the comments or delete comments we disagree with. We do neither. We assume that if someone continues to post things that are factually untrue or blatantly misrepresentative of what was being said, that they will be called out for it and asked to actually defend their position.

    However, we've seen, quite clearly, that if people are unable to do that, then they may be labeled as trolls. It's the marketplace of ideas. Either you can defend your position or you can't. Those who can't and continue to insist their position is true are still welcome, but are unlikely to be taken seriously.

    If you feel the need to mock anyone whose opinion differs from your own, maybe you should re-evaluate just how confident you feel about your own position

    While this happens sometimes, I actually find it to be quite rare, other than in the instances above.

    Happy to discuss things with anyone who disagrees, but frustrating when people make patently false statements and then stick by them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 2:11pm

    Re: Re:

    Of course terms like "IP Maximalist" and "Apologist" get everything started off in the right direction. I think AC's point stands, "close-mindedness of this site and its readership never ceases to amaze".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 2:20pm

    Blithely ignoring any and all posts that you cannot easily refute is not debate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 2:25pm

    Re:

    At least those who share a dissenting opinion are allowed to share their opinion on Techdirt. The same can't be said for the mainstream media, who gets to keep dissenting views (critical of patents and copy'rights') out because of their government imposed monopoly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Planespotter (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 2:35pm

    Re:

    Well don't let the door hit you on the way out...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 2:38pm

    Re:

    That is, if you base your work in any way off of a public domain work, the derivative must automatically fall into the public domain. None of this one-way benefit from the public domain, only to lock down derivatives.

    That's an interesting idea. If a derivative work can be blocked by a copyright holder, why can't the same be done on behalf of the public?

    You'd still need a group to sue over derivative works, so it'd even keep the lawyers busy. Everyone wins!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 3:08pm

    Re: Re:

    Your position is that piracy doesn't cost anything, which is laughable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 3:13pm

    Re: Re:

    frustrating when people make patently false statements and then stick by them.

    Funny, that's what you seem to do whenever discussing piracy.

    It's consistently pointed out to you, and yet you continue to do it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 3:20pm

    Re:

    What's a TechDirt troll? Is that pretty much anyone who shares a dissenting position?

    No - it is anyone who does not (usually because they cannot) support their opinion with either logic or evidence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 3:40pm

    Re:

    "Blithely ignoring any and all posts that you cannot easily refute is not debate."

    Could you please be more specific?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 3:44pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, didn't you hear? Because of piracy the world's economy has been decimated.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 3:45pm

    Re: Re:

    Nope! But we'll continue to point it out while not pointing at anything.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 3:58pm

    Re: Re:

    "who gets to keep dissenting views (critical of patents and copy'rights') out because of their government imposed monopoly."

    I'm not sure I follow, do you mean because of monopolies on broadcasting?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 4:00pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Everything that is 'pointed out' is then (usually) thoroughly debunked, and yet you ignore that part of it because you just /have/ to be right, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 4:08pm

    Re:

    "What's a TechDirt troll? Is that pretty much anyone who shares a dissenting position?"

    Let me help you understand by paraphrasing Paul Newman.

    He said "If you're playing a poker game and you look around the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you."

    In answer to your gyestion, What is a TechDirt troll?

    If you are reading Techdirt and can't tell who the troll is, it's you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    freak (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 4:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Part of the problem with a constant debate through comment streams means that people ignore the new comments on older posts.

    It's possible that people don't have time to be online all the time, and the next time they're online, the thread is moreorless dead, and the repliers have stopped replying.


    Point being, somewhere out there amoung the trolls is a very frustrated AC with a valid point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 4:57pm

    Do you have a way to list all the most insightful comments of the week threads along with maybe another way to list all the selected posts of the week. Perhaps file them under something unique.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 5:02pm

    Re:

    huh... funny cause i cant really think of any posts that are more than just obvious tripe that just get ignored en masse regardless of what position they are taking...(well other than mine that is)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Liz, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 5:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I thought because of the increase in Piracy, the global temperature was cooling down.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 5:03pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You're right. Piracy is costing the economy a lot.

    To find the pirates, you just have to follow the treasure.

    Oh... Looks like the top 1% has over 70% of the treasure.

    I wonder who the true pirates are...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Jesse (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 5:04pm

    Re: Re:

    Bingo!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    Jesse (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 5:05pm

    Re: Re:

    "You'd still need a group to sue over derivative works, so it'd even keep the lawyers busy. Everyone wins!"

    Yay!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    Jesse (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 5:09pm

    Re: Re:

    Actually I'm not sure that you would need a group to sue over derivative works though. Since state-enforced monopolies naturally require the state to enforce them, works derived from public domain works would simply receive no monopoly protection. That is, their creators could *try* to protect their works, but they would have no one to complain to when others ignored such attempts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 5:11pm

    Re: Re:

    It is a term of endearment. Let's break it down:

    Free: Conjures up imagery of the Statue of Liberty and kittens running through fields.

    Tard - Slow (as in tardy, tardiness)

    Freetard - People who like it when kittens slowly run through fields towards the statue of liberty.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 5:23pm

    Re: Re:

    He's clearly talking about darryl.

    Which is true. We can't understand a word that guy says, so it's not like we can refute him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 5:25pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    See, this is why you're a TechDirt Troll. You make things up on the spot, and then pretend like it's all fact.

    No, I don't believe piracy doesn't cost "anything". However, I believe that piracy will never destroy the economy, and while I believe it may put a damper on some specific means of creative profit, the sacrifices made to protect those specific avenues of profit are not worth it in the slightest.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 6:24pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Well, someone would have to assert that a work was derivative in the first place. Copyright is assumed right now. There's no approval process. (And as the USPTO shows, an approval process doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 7:07pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yes, because of govt imposed monopolies on broadcasting and because of govt imposed monopolies on existing cableco infrastructure use (or the building of new cableco infrastructure).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    athe, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 7:44pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, everyone realises that piracy costs at least the price of the hard drive that all that raporisted (is that a word?) content is stored on...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 7:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Nah, the trolls are the ones above that replied with nonsensical responses. They can't defend their indefensible position.

    But to be fair, it's all they have left, really.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Jesse (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 8:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    True enough. Good point.

    Perhaps the incentives could be adequately balanced such that if you sued someone infringement and your work was found to be itself derivative of a work in the public domain there would be substantial repercussions for filing a wrongful lawsuit.

    Of course, while I'm dreaming, I might as well completely re-write IP laws. Or hell, maybe even do away with the concept of "Imaginary Property" altogether. And, you know, end starvation and poverty and injustice, and rainbows and lollipops for all. Sigh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 10:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    no, no, decimated is one tenth of it destroyed.

    i believe it was decamated... (that is, ten of it was destroyed). or was it eight? whatever, there were attempts to claim losses greater than the sum total of all money in existance, anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 10:30pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Your position is that piracy doesn't cost anything, which is laughable.


    See? Now that's exactly the kind of comment we're talking about. I have said that piracy *BY ITSELF* is not the issue. Since smart content creators who learn to put in place good business models that embrace what file sharers want can often do better, it's not an issue by itself.

    But you seem to ignore all nuance, and then falsely state that I say piracy is not an issue. I have said that if -- as you have admitted yourself -- choose not to adapt to the changing market, then, yes, absolutely the changing market will make you fail.

    That's life.

    If I was still trying to sell rotary telephones, I'd fail too. But isn't it my fault if I'm sticking with an outdated business model?

    Of course, all of this has been explained to you. Multiple times. And yet you falsely claim that I simply say "piracy doesn't cost anything."

    It's that sort of statement, even after we've explained what is actually meant MANY TIMES to you *DIRECTLY* that makes people think you're a troll.

    Get it yet?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 10:37pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Funny, that's what you seem to do whenever discussing piracy.


    I'm afraid that I haven't seen any evidence presented to the contrary of what I've said.

    What I have seen is you falsely pretend what my position is (i.e., see my comment above) and then make an assertion about this non-position, without providing any evidence to back it up other than "everyone knows..." or "it's not debatable."

    So... I fail to see how that's shown me to be making false statements. If you have *actual evidence* of false statements I have made, I'm happy to look at them and discuss them. I look forward to them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 11:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Uhm...

    How do you mean? On their websites, in front of Congress? I'm not exactly following all of your logic...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Mar 13th, 2011 @ 11:22pm

    Re: Re:

    Who represents the public?

    I think that's a HUGE problem with copyright. The public is a faceless organization that gets weaker because no one can speak for it.

    It's a fickle mistress.

    It's an automaton. It's made up of so many voices, as if to speak for all and yet nothing comes. Parts have been silenced.

    Others speak even strongly on the injustices. And yet, as always, it continues. The will of the people, with no champion put forth...

    *sigh*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2011 @ 11:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    BUT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 1:22am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'd say the public is not an organisation, but a group. Kind of like Anonymous, actually, but bigger.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 1:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This is just more of the standard avoidance and unspecific hot air we've come to expect from you, Masnick.

    What's the new business model for those that want to succeed?

    You have no fu*king clue, because if you did, we'd have seen numerous artists become well known with it.

    Oh, and who are you responding to, Mr I-only-occasionally-look-at-IP-addys? LOL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 1:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What's the new business model for those that want to succeed?


    It's not "the" new business model. That's the whole point we've been raising, which you apparently refuse to understand. It's a variety of new business models, and yes, those who are embracing them are doing quite well. We've highlighted many.

    But you're looking for a magic bullet. That's not out there. Sorry.

    Oh, and who are you responding to, Mr I-only-occasionally-look-at-IP-addys? LOL


    Your tone makes it obvious who you are. I haven't checked the IPs on this at all, and even when you shift and have different snowflakes, it's pretty obvious that you're the same anon from the way you speak, and the ridiculous attacks you make on me.

    By the way, how did your plan to "let everyone at SXSW know about my real views on copyright" go? We had a pretty full room, and the audience seemed quite friendly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 1:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're such a ridiculous liar.

    There are are a ton of anonymous posters here that call you out for your horsesh*t; the only way you would know I have "different snowflakes" but am the same person is by looking at my IP.

    And from what I can tell, there was such a pathetic interest in your nonsense, (less than 30 people I was told) that my emails certainly might have had some of their intended effect.

    You're a piracy apologist and a bullsh*tter, Masnick. I'm far from the only one that knows it, and hardly the only person that comes here to continually point it out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    biig al, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 2:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Once again we see the scintillating and forceful arguments of the IP maximalists showing with hard facts where they have not only the moral but the actual high ground - or, as is more usual, just playing the man....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 2:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "There are are a ton of anonymous posters here that call you out for your horsesh*t"

    You're claiming that Mike can't tell the difference between anonymous posters without looking at IPs, but insist that there are a ton of anonymous posters here; How can you tell?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 2:50am

    Re: Re:

    Exactly. It's like bringing a butter knife to a gunfight. And then bitching that someone stole your gun.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 3:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm not falsely presenting your position in the least. You constantly post diatribes against any enforcement whatsoever against piracy. You constantly misrepresent the Arcara case, even when lawyers have explained it to you in the simplest terms possible, because you know it spells bad news for pirate sites. You create FUD, lie in your headlines, misrepresent legal decisions, selectively quote stories, etc.

    You're nothing but a cowardly piracy apologist. And you're so ashamed of it that you can't come clean despite demonstrating your true beliefs every day here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 3:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So, Amanda Palmer's wildly successful tour of Oceania, with near full sellouts of places such as the luminary Sydney Opera House isn't a success?

    I'd hate to see your definition.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 3:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, just stupid enforcement with little basis in legal reality.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 3:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Um, the whole purpose of a headline is to shout something at you, even if it's not 100% accurate. The Uk's Daily Mail is fantastically good at this.

    And also,a re you in the piracy closet? Because the level of hate from you feeds my happiness bar and makes me suspicious..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 4:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You are obviously the one who has a personal grudge against the blog owner, and who constantly attacks him and the community because quite clearly you don't agree with their ideas. Nice way to vent your frustration, loser.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    Berenerd (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 5:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    THINK OF THE KITTENS RUNNING TO THE CHILDREN ON THE TOP OF THE STATUE OF LIBERTY WAVING AMERICAN FLAGS WHILE DOWNLOADING HURT LOCKER!!!!

    YOU PEOPLE HAVE NO SOUL!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 6:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm not falsely presenting your position in the least. You constantly post diatribes against any enforcement whatsoever against piracy. You constantly misrepresent the Arcara case, even when lawyers have explained it to you in the simplest terms possible, because you know it spells bad news for pirate sites. You create FUD, lie in your headlines, misrepresent legal decisions, selectively quote stories, etc.

    You're nothing but a cowardly piracy apologist. And you're so ashamed of it that you can't come clean despite demonstrating your true beliefs every day here.


    This, a million times over. Mike is a manipulator and bullshit artist. He can't defend his legal arguments. Instead, he points to mysterious lawyers who agree with him, although he can't point us to their written analysis. And then he puts Karl out there as his legal point man. Karl, who repeatedly does nothing but show that he is absolutely confused about even the most fundamental workings of the law.

    This site is a joke when it comes to legal analysis. This is pointed out to Mike time and again, yet he just ignores the dissent no matter how well backed-up it may be.

    Mike is a joke for exactly these reasons.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 6:22am

    Indiana has been observing DST for about 5-6 years now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 6:28am

    Why Mike do you continue to entertain these fools (AC trolls) no matter how much logic you throw at them they'll always come back with "Well i know you're wrong and also a d-bag."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 6:44am

    Re:

    The real question is why does Mike continue to misrepresent things even after it's been explained and proved to him how wrong he is. The answer is simple: Because Mike is a manipulative bullshit artist who only cares about furthering his agenda. He cares not about the truth. That much is 100% certain. The fact that some of you lapdogs lap up his bullshit is really freaking hilarious.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 7:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Useless laws weaken the necessary laws." - Charles de Montesquieu

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 7:15am

    Re: Re:

    You're adorable!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 7:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There are are a ton of anonymous posters here that call you out for your horsesh*t; the only way you would know I have "different snowflakes" but am the same person is by looking at my IP.

    Um. No. Pay attention: the same IP address on the same story gets the same snowflake. If you were (as you do at times) changing IPs in the middle of a conversation, your snowflake changes in the course of that conversation. That's information shared with anyone, including me. In such cases even if I *had* looked at your IP, it would be meaningless, because you'd be appearing from many different IPs anyway.

    The point I was making is that it's easy to tell when it's *you* because of your word choice and sentence construction -- and your overuse of insults which goes way beyond most of the other anons.

    You claiming that the only way I would know you were the same person is by looking at the IPs, but your own reasoning makes no sense. If I were to see that you had different IPs, how could I possibly tell you were the same person *other* than by noticing the same writing style?

    And from what I can tell, there was such a pathetic interest in your nonsense, (less than 30 people I was told) that my emails certainly might have had some of their intended effect.


    Here's a tip: when totally making up bullshit, at least *try* to keep it believable. If you think there were 30 people in that room, you're either making it up entirely, or you have friends who are blind. If there were 30 people in the room, how come more than 30 were tweeting about it live? If there were 30 people in the room, how come people in the back were complaining they couldn't see? Yeah, please. This is why people point out that you appear troll-like. You simply make up stuff in a weak attempt to make me look bad. And, in this case, what you made up doesn't even pass the basic laugh test.

    You're a piracy apologist and a bullsh*tter, Masnick. I'm far from the only one that knows it, and hardly the only person that comes here to continually point it out

    Earlier I asked you to actually prove me wrong. You still refuse to do so. I wonder why.

    And, it's true that there are a few other anon critics who regularly complain, but each has different styles. It's pretty easy to tell them apart.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 7:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And yet the anon's have the gall to tell us that we're all "closed minded" . . .

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 7:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This is pretty funny. Your first sentence says you're not falsely presenting my position. And then you go on to falsely present my position.

    This is why people make fun of you, buddy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 7:22am

    Re:

    Why Mike do you continue to entertain these fools

    Because he's more intellectually honest than his detractors, and his efforts to continually engage them in debate puts a lie to their claims that we only allow concurring opinions here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 7:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Instead, he points to mysterious lawyers who agree with him, although he can't point us to their written analysis.

    Unlike you, most lawyers (and, let's face it, you're not a lawyer, are you?) are busy actually doing things -- and the lawyers I spoke to are ones who are now jumping on to make these particular claims in court. Keep watching.

    Karl, who repeatedly does nothing but show that he is absolutely confused about even the most fundamental workings of the law.

    Which you refuse to correct, other than to say "you're not a lawyer, shut up!!!!!!!! LOL!!!" Your scintillating debunking of Karl's heavily cited posts continues to amuse anyone who reads it.

    Mike is a joke for exactly these reasons.


    If you keep repeating it, you can pretend it's true. Of course, the only person you're convincing is yourself. Which is kind of amusing to watch.

    Has it occurred to you that perhaps some folks other than yourself actually understand things? Has it occurred to you that perhaps your rush to "love what my gov't does" you are too quick to support things that go against what is allowed?

    You might want to check your assumptions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 7:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I debunked Karl's nonsense all weekend long, and you know it. Karl is COMPLETELY CONFUSED about copyright law, and so are you.

    Of course, you're just going to ignore that and pretend a mysterious group of lawyers all think you're right. LOL!

    You are a joke, Mike, when it comes to legal analysis.

    Point me to one court in the past century that has said a prior adversary hearing is needed before a seizure can take place in a criminal copyright case. Point me to just one.

    You can't. Why? Because you're wrong.

    You're a joke, Mike, and I'll keep calling you out for it all over and over again.

    You don't care about the truth. You only care about your agenda. That makes you a manipulative piece of shit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 7:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And people make fun of you because you let idiots like Karl who has been proved over and over again to have NO IDEA what he's talking about do your legal analysis for you. You should be ashamed to stand behind his analysis. LOL! How can you ever expect the legal analysis on your site to be taken seriously by anyone if Karl is your point man? LMFAO!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 7:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Analyze this: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/nation-of-unrepentant-pirates-costs-900m-20110305-1 bix5.html?comments=130#comments

    ALMOST 5 million Australians illegally downloaded films, television shows, music and other content online last year, a new study shows.

    Australia has a population of 22.5 million people. Some older and younger obviously can't be counted because they're too old and young to illegally download copyrighted files. So we'll say that roughly 15 million Australians are online.

    That's 1/3rd of Australia engaging in piratical behavior.

    If 33% (roughly) of a nation's populace is breaking the law then maybe something is wrong with the law?

    Or better yet, let's kick off 5 million people to try and save 8000 jobs.

    Good luck with your copyright laws in the future. You know what might help? Smarter business models and less LOL! Karl!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 8:20am

    Re: Re:

    What about folks that come here, *misunderstand* what you said because you were not clear and then they get called trolls for asking a question? When you are not clear and someone misunderstands you that is not trolling. What you claim to be misrepresentation is nothing more than you being ambiguous. And once you've decided that someone is a troll then the conversation is over. Nice way to treat people that misunderstand your ambiguous statements.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 8:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't care about that. I care that the copyright laws as they actually exist are not erroneously presented. Mike and Karl misrepresent the existing law as a matter of course.

    For example, Karl is now claiming that all copyright laws are content-based restrictions of speech, and as such, they are subject to strict scrutiny. The opposite is true, and I can back that up with case upon case and law journal article upon law journal article that says differently. Karl has no idea what he's talking about, and it's simple to prove him wrong (and I have). Does he admit it when the truth is pointed out? No.

    Mike questions whether inducing/aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement is really a crime. Of course it is and I can (and have) backed that up with case upon case that says differently. Mike has no idea what he's talking about either. Does he admit it when the truth is pointed out? No.

    Neither one of them cares about getting it right. They just want to spread FUD.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 8:41am

    Re: Re:

    You think Mike is intellectually honest? LMFAO!

    I'll debate Mike on his legal opinions any place, any time. He's the one that always backs off of the debate--because he's got nothing. He simply can't debate me on legal issues because he has no idea what he's talking about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 8:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Its pretty clear Masnick and Karl got together and agreed to consciously misrepresent and lie about the law.

    They've ignored corrections too many times at this point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 8:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If you think there were 30 people in that room, you're either making it up entirely, or you have friends who are blind. If there were 30 people in the room, how come more than 30 were tweeting about it live? If there were 30 people in the room, how come people in the back were complaining they couldn't see?

    That's not what I was told. So why don't you post the video?

    And I don't have to try and make you look bad, Masnick. The blatant lies and misrepresentations you post almost every day about piracy take care of that just fine.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 8:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If they simply admitted what the law actually is, and then argued that it should be different, I'd totally respect that. But that's not what they do. Instead, they misrepresent the law and then weasel about when called out on it.

    It's pathetic. Karl's at least trying, and I don't think him to be evil. Mike, on the other hand, is a manipulative liar who does it on purpose, IMO. His lack of corrections when shown to be flat-out wrong is shameful. It's also proof positive of his manipulative agenda.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 9:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm sure they all flocked around Mike like he was the Messiah. LOL!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 9:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Troll guy, you're so fucked up in the head it's appalling. Really, your hatred towards Mike is so messed up it's got to be pathological. Some screw is loose somewhere, and for everybody's sake you better go see your shrink.

    I'm tired having you around bitching all the time, while failing to make even one point that stands to scrutiny. That you dismissed Karl's entire diatribe with a single-line comment was so rude it was horrifying -- and that was just the tip of the iceberg. Don't even dare wonder why you are labeled a troll. An offensively outrageous one. If I were in Mike's position, I'd be worried about my physical safety, because like I just said you seem... unhinged.

    For the record, here's a lawyer who took the time to write a very detailed article about why ICE d'un goofed. To make things more hilarious, that lawyer actually linked to TechDirt to say Mike was correct in his assessment, thus proving your entire argument is complete bullshit.

    The only one here with an agenda is YOU. You are here stalking the owner of this blog, because he puts forward opinions you don't like.

    Mike should get a restraining order against you!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 9:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Mike, on the other hand, is a manipulative liar who does it on purpose"

    How can he be manipulating with lies if he has no idea what he is talking about?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 9:56am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Neither do most lawyers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Do tell, why is Mike being such a "manipulative liar"? What's he got to gain exactly? Hey, maybe he's just doing it to piss you off!

    And don't delude yourself: if Mike wasn't blogging about these ideas, others would. Many of the ideas Mike has come up with are common sense -- so common in fact that I had come up with similar stuff before even finding Techdirt!

    Yet, I'm not a 'pirate'. That doesn't mean I don't totally see why current IP monopolies are at odds with free expression and free trade...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're just a little troll who tries to interject little snarky comments. LOL!

    He does both, genius. They're not mutually exclusive.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 11:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "You're just a little troll who tries to interject little snarky comments. LOL!"

    You're right. I was trying for snarky and failed miserably with thoughtfully.

    "They're not mutually exclusive."

    I wasn't suggesting that they are. I was suggesting that it would be helpful for you to explain how he could be manipulating with lies while being completely uninformed. It seems like a neat trick.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 11:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Do tell, why is Mike being such a "manipulative liar"? What's he got to gain exactly? Hey, maybe he's just doing it to piss you off!

    Yeah. I have to admit I really don't get the people who accuse me of "having an agenda." Sure. I have an agenda: my agenda is to support smart, creative innovation and to stand up for free speech and individual rights. Horror!

    The folks who insist that I'm a "piracy apologist" are the ones I can't figure out. What *possible* advantage is there in being a "piracy apologist"? It makes no sense. How could that possibly benefit me?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 11:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "By the way, I spent the weekend debunking Karl"

    Were you the one who, instead of providing proof, claimed that you had proof and said that you'd provide it if Karl would agree to stop posting? Because that seems more like grasping at opportunities to insult Karl for not being a lawyer than debunking.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 11:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You didn't debunk Karl. All you did was argue with him until you ran out of steam and said "LOL!" or something to that effect.

    Crazy people don't know they're crazy. You clearly have a grudge against Mike (yes, you DO!), and I'm amazed at the lengths you'll go to show it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    identicon
    Birdman, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 11:52am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You'll debate him? You hide behind a cloak of anon waving your arms squawking like a pissed off magpie and you'll debate him? Grow a sack and come out of the shadows - you have zero credibility as long as you stay anon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 12:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Nope. I pointed him a law journal article, and I quoted from the article the part that proved my point. The article is very well researched, and points to many cases and journal articles that all agree on this point. I also quoted Supreme Court language that proved the point. Karl just doesn't comprehend it, unfortunately.

    And you're just a trouble-maker. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 12:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If you had any idea of the subject matter at hand, you would realize that he was thoroughly debunked. That boy is 100% confused about copyright law. He has an amazing ability to misunderstand everything copyright law related that he reads. It's truly remarkable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 12:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How do you know you aren't the one who's confused, just like you don't know you're crazy?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 12:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Nope. I pointed him a law journal article"

    Weird, because if you mean the "locating copyright" article then both of you had the same snowflake.

    "And you're just a trouble-maker. :)"

    Is that a step up or down from "little troll"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 1:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Even better: if copyright laws are so confusing then it's pretty obvious, I mean clearly, they need to be reformed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    identicon
    athe, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 2:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If the middleman didn't get his 90% cut, then it's not a success, obviously...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 3:33pm

    Re: Re:

    It it easy to look around the table and see who has been drinking the koolaid. Drinks are free in Vegas and koolaid is free at techdirt, perfect way to keep the suckers at the table.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    identicon
    hothmonster, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 3:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Lol way to agree with your own post. oh look there are two of them no wait I'm not freetarded and can tell its you.

    I agree with hothmonster
    Yes I also say hothmonster
    Are you guys talking about hothmonster? He is so right.

    Trust me we dont need to see your ip address to know its you. I can find your posts in any article you've been in, I then watch them between tasks at work for my daily lulz

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 4:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're in this for the money.

    Your business model is based around a blog that supports piracy and attracts like-minded people.

    You also fantasize about being in the music biz as a marketer whose business model revolves around piracy succeeding and trying to sell other things instead.

    duh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 4:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    THERE ARE EASIER WAYS TO MAKE MONEY!!!!!

    You wouldn't think he'd have figured that out by now?!?!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 4:45pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Wow. Nearly 24 hours later and you finally have the perfect zinger. Points off for "kool aid," though. It's become somewhat overused. Try to get some sleep tonight. We'll play again tomorrow.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 5:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    But the music industry has been destroyed and that's why the Masnick wants to work in the music industry, because there's no money in it because he's in it for the money. Typical Masnick. Just typical. LOL!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 5:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Does one need to have an advantage to be an apologist? By strict definition that is exactly what you are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 5:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Nearly 24 hours later and..."

    Yes, some of us have lives and real jobs that do not allow us to spend all of our time on techdirt. Get a life.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 6:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    1. Copyright laws aren't confusing in the least. Masnick knows this, so his only option is to lie and spread FUD.

    2. Copyright is never going away. Ever. The law will only be strengthened, not weakened. Masnick knows this, so his only option is to lie and spread FUD.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 8:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    m. No. Pay attention: the same IP address on the same story gets the same snowflake. If you were (as you do at times) changing IPs in the middle of a conversation, your snowflake changes in the course of that conversation. That's information shared with anyone, including me. In such cases even if I *had* looked at your IP, it would be meaningless, because you'd be appearing from many different IPs anyway.

    What is absolutely laughable here is that Mike has convinced himself that a single person is "out to get him". Talk about paranoid delusions.

    Mike, wake up. There are plenty of people who don't agree with you. Many of them have posted here over the last few years. In most cases, you run them out of town on a rail, calling them out, suggesting they are posting from X or Y or Z company, suggesting they are industry shills, etc. Your regular posters have joined in the party so much, that you no longer have to even do it yourself much anymore.

    There are multiple different anonymous coward posters, and I suspect each one of us gets a really big laugh when you post things like this, claiming that one guy is running around changing IP addresses just to stir crap. It is perhaps the most clear denial of reality yet: not everyone agrees with you, and some people can actually see where you shade the truth and carefully select spin to try to make a story seem to be what you want it to be.

    My last count here is that there are at least 20 different people posting regularly as anonymous coward, 2 that support you, about a dozen who don't, and a few who wander back and forth. Being a dedicated anon, I do try to keep track.

    So have a nice night. Just remember, there are more than one of us.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 8:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    More so the lawyers that Mike "consults with" to get some of the opinions he posts up here. They have a spare hat so they have something to talk out of.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 8:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    WE NEED BIGGER STICKS!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 8:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You sound like a broken recording industry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2011 @ 8:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Personally, I'm a fan of the "lawyers" who post anonymously. I mean, how many "lawyers" do you know that don't want to brag about where they work?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    One day AJ, I hope that you'll learn from this and be a better person. Sadly, that isn't today.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Good luck on that.

    I guess you can beat piracy with the law too. That's worked for the past 40 years.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wow, what a hypocrite. Instead of answering the citations of anyone, he goes for the exact same BS that caused him to start posting anonymously in the first place...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Mar 14th, 2011 @ 10:58pm

    Re: Re:

    Wow, commonsense goes a long way in this world.

    It has the same AC complaining because he has no other point but to say "But I'm better because you're not me."

    Way to go mystery guy. Bravo.

    *Thumbs up*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 12:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're in this for the money.

    Your business model is based around a blog that supports piracy and attracts like-minded people.


    Dude, if I were in this "for the money," I'd be writing about celebrities or gadgets. Those sites get way more traffic and *way* more money.

    You also fantasize about being in the music biz as a marketer whose business model revolves around piracy succeeding and trying to sell other things instead.

    Nice amateur psychology guess, but wrong. I have no interest in being "in" the music business. I've helped a few artists here and there, but I'm just trying to help out. I spend enough time around folks like you already. I'm happy to help those who want help, but I have no interest in getting any further involved.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 12:54am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'll debate Mike on his legal opinions any place, any time

    Yeah. Sure. Who do I ask to show up? Anonymous?

    He simply can't debate me on legal issues because he has no idea what he's talking about.

    Hilarious. This past weekend, here at SXSW, Bill Patry -- well known for writing *the* book on copyright law, Patry on Copyright -- and I sat down for a chat in front of a large audience, all about copyright law. Bill, who I speak to regularly and is a regular reader here, thinks I know copyright law. Go look at how often he's quoted in all that case law you love.

    Yet some anonymous commenter insists I know nothing about it. Gee, that hurts. Who do I trust? One of the biggest and most respected names in copyright law, or the anonymous internet commenter who thinks that "LMFAO" is a legitimate thing to say in a discussion?

    Tough one. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 1:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What is absolutely laughable here is that Mike has convinced himself that a single person is "out to get him". Talk about paranoid delusions.

    Keep up, buttercup. I have no such delusions. I recognize there are a small group of people who come here to criticize me every day. You are one of them. You are not the same person who I was talking to above. What I said -- and you appear to have completely misunderstood -- is that it's easy to tell who each of you is, since you each have a style that is easily identifiable.

    In most cases, you run them out of town on a rail, calling them out, suggesting they are posting from X or Y or Z company

    I have never done so.

    There are multiple different anonymous coward posters, and I suspect each one of us gets a really big laugh when you post things like this, claiming that one guy is running around changing IP addresses just to stir crap.

    Again. That's not what I said. I said that there are multiple such people, as you agree. It's just easy to pick you all out, which is that one guy -- the one I was responding to, who is not you -- is easy to pick out when he does change IPs, which is often.

    My last count here is that there are at least 20 different people posting regularly as anonymous coward, 2 that support you, about a dozen who don't, and a few who wander back and forth. Being a dedicated anon, I do try to keep track.

    Heh. Your math is off. :) I'll add that to the list of things you are wrong about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118.  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 1:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Points off for "real jobs" and "get a life." Way overused.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2011 @ 1:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Oh look... superiority complex at work. Talk down much Mike?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2011 @ 1:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Heh. Your math is off. :) I'll add that to the list of things you are wrong about

    Which means once again, you are using private data to draw conclusions that others do not have access to.

    Congrats Mike for waving your attitude all over the place. Too bad in this case you don't appear to be right.

    Oh yeah, how is that privacy policy coming along? You know, the one required in Cali since 2004?

    http://news.cnet.com/California-privacy-law-kicks-in/2100-1028_3-5258824.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 2:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Says the obsidian pot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2011 @ 11:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Right, Patry thinks you're a copyright law expert. I'm sure he's only being polite, and he's probably thinking you have a decent grasp of it for a layman.

    If Patry ever cites to your legal analysis of ANY copyright issue, I will be utterly amazed. He won't, and you know it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 11:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Right, Patry thinks you're a copyright law expert. I'm sure he's only being polite, and he's probably thinking you have a decent grasp of it for a layman.

    If Patry ever cites to your legal analysis of ANY copyright issue, I will be utterly amazed. He won't, and you know it.


    Ah, your desire to totally misrepresent what was said really shows how incredibly intellectually dishonest you are. Pathological.

    1: AC says I have "no idea what [I'm] talking about" on copyright issues.

    2. I point out that one of the most distinguished voices in copyright law disagrees, and clearly believes I have some knowledge on the issue, since he regularly discusses stuff with me.

    3. AC misrepresents what was said, pretending (falsely) that he originally claimed I was a "copyright law expert." He ignores what he actually said, which was that I have no idea what I'm talking about.

    But now even you claim I may have a "decent grasp" totally contradicting your previous statement. Pathological.

    Anyway, not that it matters, but Patry has cited me in his books, and has used my arguments in his books as well. He has also asked me to review the manuscripts and provide thoughts. It could be "just being polite," but if that were the case he probably wouldn't have done either of those things.

    Perhaps, AC, you can admit that there are lawyers who agree with me. Another lawyer, who you yourself have said you respect, Eric Goldman, regularly sends me stories, and regularly discusses these issues as well, and has told me he agrees with me on most of what I say. On the few times he's believed I've made an error in the law, he usually emails me to let me know and I make a correction.

    Paul Levy, another lawyer, who regularly sends me stories, and who I also regularly discuss these issues with, and who also has no problem emailing me if he thinks I've made an error, but that rarely happens.

    These are pretty respected lawyers. So, seriously, give up this ridiculous line of argument that I have "no clue" about the law and have no idea what I'm talking about. You and I clearly disagree on our interpretations of the law, but saying I have no clue is clearly erroneous and just makes you look silly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124.  
    icon
    MikeLinPA (profile), Mar 15th, 2011 @ 1:12pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Your position is that piracy doesn't cost anything, which is laughable."

    Piracy doesn't cost near what the assorted industries say it does, which is laughable.

    It may be costing a tiny fraction of what the industries in question are claiming. Most down-loaders have no intention of buying the works in question, even if they couldn't get it for free on the internet. IE... Just because someone downloaded a crappy rip of a movie, does not guarantee that they would have gone to see it, or purchased the DVD, if they couldn't download it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2011 @ 8:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2011 @ 9:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So, seriously, give up this ridiculous line of argument that I have "no clue" about the law and have no idea what I'm talking about. You and I clearly disagree on our interpretations of the law, but saying I have no clue is clearly erroneous and just makes you look silly.

    I'll give it up if you start busting out legal analysis--you're an IP law blog that's light on the actual law. I don't care if you come down on the other side of a legal issue. It's the perceived lack of understanding of what the underlying law is that's bothersome. If you've got the goods, then lets see more of that. Just a suggestion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  127.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 16th, 2011 @ 1:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'll give it up if you start busting out legal analysis--you're an IP law blog that's light on the actual law

    Who said we're a "law" blog?

    I don't care if you come down on the other side of a legal issue. It's the perceived lack of understanding of what the underlying law is that's bothersome

    Again, that's not what you originally claimed, and I already explained and even named many of the (much, much, much more experienced and respected) lawyers who I speak to about this and who regularly tell me that they believe my analysis is dead on (and on the rare occasion they disagree, have no problem letting me know). I mean, I explained that in my last comment, which you replied to... still pretending that my analysis has no legal basis.

    If you've got the goods, then lets see more of that. Just a suggestion

    And a suggestion in return: give up the childish antics. The "LOLs" and "FUD" and the foot stomping.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  128.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 16th, 2011 @ 5:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Who said we're a "law" blog?

    Eric Goldman, and the ABA: http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100/2010/iplaw Perhaps you should correct them if that's not the case.

    Again, that's not what you originally claimed, and I already explained and even named many of the (much, much, much more experienced and respected) lawyers who I speak to about this and who regularly tell me that they believe my analysis is dead on (and on the rare occasion they disagree, have no problem letting me know). I mean, I explained that in my last comment, which you replied to... still pretending that my analysis has no legal basis.

    What I see are articles like you posted yesterday about Lofgren's Ars interview. You claim she explains the "how and why" the seizures are illegal. Her First Amendment "analysis" was that it's prior restraint, and we don't do that. That's not legal analysis. Not by a mile. And it didn't explain how or why the seizures are illegal. She didn't explain it at all. You routinely post things like that claiming it's legal analysis when it's anything but.

    And a suggestion in return: give up the childish antics. The "LOLs" and "FUD" and the foot stomping.

    The stuff on you site, including the comments, make me laugh, so I post LOL. It's also a bunch of FUD, so I label it so. You're confusing the symptom with the disease.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  129.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 16th, 2011 @ 10:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What I said -- and you appear to have completely misunderstood -- is that it's easy to tell who each of you is, since you each have a style that is easily identifiable.
    It's just easy to pick you all out, which is that one guy -- the one I was responding to, who is not you -- is easy to pick out when he does change IPs, which is often.


    oh look, there's Masnick lying about how he doesn't look at IP addresses again.

    Because he does.

    Want to know how I know?

    Because the posts he thinks are all from me...

    Aren't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  130.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 16th, 2011 @ 10:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Want to know how I know?

    Because the posts he thinks are all from me...

    Aren't


    Um. Wouldn't that be proof that I *don't* look at IPs?

    But, seriously, your asinine style is unmistakable. Unlike some of the others, you appear to have no redeeming value here. You're a failed musician who blames everyone else for your own inability to adapt. I've offered to help you chart out a strategy, but you refuse, because you'd rather blame me, and insist that I'm the one who rips off musicians when I've never downloaded an unauthorized file in my life and I keep showing artists how they can make more money -- and those who follow through seem to do quite well with it.

    So, I still can't understand your hatred, other than blind stupidity. Who in their right mind attacks the person offering to help you when you're failing? Who in their right mind spits at the guy showing you a better way? It's insane.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  131.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 16th, 2011 @ 11:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What kind of sociopath that rails on every attempt to enforce laws against piracy would say he's trying to help musicians?

    Mike Masnick.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  132.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 17th, 2011 @ 12:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What kind of sociopath that rails on every attempt to enforce laws against piracy would say he's trying to help musicians?

    Someone who understands economics, and understands that "enforcing" those laws *WON'T HELP FAILING MUSICIANS* is helping musicians.

    Is it really that hard for you to comprehend that these attempts won't help you at all? You're a failed musician with no apparent logic skills. You think that anyone is actually going to want to buy the shit you put out after they start throwing your fans in jail?

    Meanwhile, we spend so much time, helping musicians make more money for free, and you DARE to say I'm not trying to help musicians.

    I'm amazed.

    Your desire to blame me for your own cluelessness is incredible.

    It's simple. Even you should be able to follow this:

    * Enforcing bad laws won't help you make any more money.
    * Smart business models will help you make more money.

    I advocate the second one. The one that would actually help you. And you still accuse me of trying to rip musicians off?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  133.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 17th, 2011 @ 12:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Then why do you spend every day getting mad about piracy being prosecuted?

    Why not just leave it alone and focus on telling people every day what this mysterious new successful business model is?

    You need to remember something: the choice to make piracy apologism the focus of your blog was your boneheaded decision, not mine.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  134.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 17th, 2011 @ 12:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Then why do you spend every day getting mad about piracy being prosecuted?


    I get mad when the laws are abused to attack people without due process. I get mad when the laws are abused in ways to stifle free speech. I get mad when the laws are used to stifle innovation.

    You should be mad too.

    Why not just leave it alone and focus on telling people every day what this mysterious new successful business model is?

    Because some of us think that innovation, due process and free speech are important.

    You need to remember something: the choice to make piracy apologism the focus of your blog was your boneheaded decision, not mine

    And, once again, you in your ultimate cluelessness, insist on flat out lying and saying I'm an apologist. I've never seen anyone NOT GET IT as incredibly as you do.

    And, if you think it's a boneheaded move to defend basic rights, then you're more screwed up than I thought.

    I still can't figure out why you hate me so much. I write about things I find interesting and I try to help people. You still can't explain why you constantly lie about me. I can't figure it out. You hate me because of what... exactly? You think I might be right? If you're so sure I'm full of shit, then what's your complaint?

    The truth is you know I'm right. You know that what I'm talking about works and you know, deep down in your beating heart, that enforcement is a fool's game that won't get anyone of the kids you want to throw in jail to buy your crappy music again.

    You know that the business model you wanted to use is done.

    You know that you have to change.

    And you're too lazy to do so.

    So you blame those who do understand and who are helping you.

    We have a name for people like you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  135.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 17th, 2011 @ 1:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    First of all, I don't hate anyone, but playing the victim in order to elicit sympathy is definitely an old warhorse in the manipulation handbook, so I would expect nothing less.

    The fact that you say you're not a piracy apologist is, quite frankly, nonsense. I'm far from the only one that notices that. Perhaps it's comforting to think I'm the only one cranking hard on you here, but I assure that isn't even remotely close to being true.

    Blocking sites from openly and flagrantly trafficking in illegal files is indeed going to result in more sales. It already has elsewhere, and it will happen here also. People are too addicted to content to lose their fix. So don't bother trying to debate me on it, I'll just laugh at you.

    And, if you think it's a boneheaded move to defend basic rights, then you're more screwed up than I thought.

    The fact that you don't realize that it is me that is doing exactly that, what you claim to be doing, says everything that needs to be said.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  136.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 17th, 2011 @ 2:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    First of all, I don't hate anyone, but playing the victim in order to elicit sympathy is definitely an old warhorse in the manipulation handbook, so I would expect nothing less.

    Only one playing victim is you. You keep blaming everyone else (and especially me) for your own failures to adapt. I'm not playing a victim at all. I'm not the failure.

    Blocking sites from openly and flagrantly trafficking in illegal files is indeed going to result in more sales. It already has elsewhere, and it will happen here also. People are too addicted to content to lose their fix. So don't bother trying to debate me on it, I'll just laugh at you.

    Where?

    The fact that you don't realize that it is me that is doing exactly that, what you claim to be doing, says everything that needs to be said.

    Wait, what? You have defended stripping people of their free speech rights, due process rights and many others just because someone links to a potentially infringing file. And you say you defend basic rights?

    You're delusional.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This