Mike Masnick's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the look-what-we-have-here... dept
For most of the past two weeks I’ve been extremely busy, travelling around to a bunch of different countries, meeting with policy makers, content creators and industry folks talking about creativity, innovation and (a bit) of copyright policy. It’s been a fascinating experience, and I’ll try to write up some thoughts on the whole thing once the fog in my brain known as jetlag finally subsides. However, as such, I’ve been a little less involved in the direct posting to Techdirt over the past couple weeks, and so I got to be surprised by new stories almost as much as anyone else here (well, okay, sometimes I peeked ahead of time…). Given that, I thought that perhaps I’d write up this week’s “favorites” posts, from more of a spectator standpoint than usual.
- Glyn Moody’s post on what trade agreements are really about once again helped to shine some light on how corporations are basically using the trade agreement process to route around national legislatures to get policies in place that favor them. It’s a huge scam, and I’m amazed that legislatures, in particular, haven’t stood up stronger for their own powers concerning regulating commerce.
- Tim Cushing has been doing a great job over the past few weeks highlighting the overreactions to the Boston Bombings, but none seemed quite as ridiculous as Senator Dan Coats announcement that we need to start watching loners more carefully. I’m thinking that it might make more sense to pay attention to grandstanding politicians.
- Leigh had a post about politicians behaving badly in Canada, using convoluted copyright claims to try to stifle criticism. Once again, we see how copyright can be used for censorship.
- Tim Geigner’s great analysis of how fans and Douglas Adams’ estate have encouraged derivative works rather than freaking out about them is a worthwhile read, as we keep hearing about various estates trying to lock up the works of creators, rather than being a part of continued creation and creativity.
There was a lot more this week, obviously, but those were the stories that really caught my attention. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to keep trying to convince my brain that it’s not 3am when the sun is shining out.
Comments on “Mike Masnick's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week”
Jet Lag
Having travelled fairly often to Europe and Asia before I retired, my “trick” for accommodating jet lag as quickly as possible was a walk in the sun. You should go out for a walk and let the sun reset your clock.
I guess you couldn’t find any flunkies for this week, huh?
Re: Re:
I guess you couldn’t find your brain, huh?
Re: Re:
Well, you showed up didn’t you?
Re: Re:
He should ask you to do a favorites of the week. It would be such great fun to read an irrational rant that has no basis in reality.
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I would like to read one from one of the IP shills like OOTB. It would be interesting to see how it would turn out.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
(I wonder if it would even be coherent. Techdirt editors would have to work overtime).
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, but to do that they’d have to actually read the articles.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good point
Here people have a laugh.
SABAM is suing ISP’s to force them to pay 3.4% of their revenues because they offer full access to pirate content 🙂
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/103890/rightsholders-sue-isps-for-selling-internet-access/
Re: Re:
Their sense of entitlement is truly astounding, as is their stupidity
Re: Re:
And they wonder why it’s only brain-dead politicians that take them seriously…
From the article:
‘Since 2000, revenue generated from copyright levies imposed on physical media have declined by 54 percent, Sabam said. This ?huge loss? has not been compensated by collections from online services like iTunes, YouTube and Spotify, it added.’
So the money they leech away from levies on physical purchases is decreasing(surprise surprise, that’s what happens with the increasing shift to digital media consumption and purchasing), and they aren’t getting as much money as they want from the digital services, so they believe that they are owed whatever it takes to make up the difference.
Honestly, with actions like that, the dictionary entry for sense of entitlement needs to be changed to ‘Sense of entitlement: see ‘collection agencies’.
Re: Re: Re:
Politicians do not take them seriously either. They only deal with them to take their money …
Typical
“Leigh had a post about politicians behaving badly in Canada, using convoluted copyright claims to try to stifle criticism. Once again, we see how copyright can be used for censorship.”
You say we shouldn’t blame bit torrent for piracy, yet you are willing to blame copyright for people being idiots. By your scale, bit torrent should have been trashed long ago because some people use it poorly. Blinders on?
Re: Typical
I’m sorry but are you saying that the illegal copying of certain files is a worse crime than the abuse of a certain law in order to silence speech one doesn’t like?
Re: Re: Typical
The point is only that shutting down copyright because of a few abuses is on par with trying to shut down bit torrent because of piracy. It’s blaming to the tool and not the user.
Techdirt logic.
Re: Re: Re: Typical
When BitTorrent is extended in instalments of 20 years until we reach forever minus a day, you let me know.
Until then you’re bullshitting as usual.
Re: Re: Re: Typical
Sorry, but bittorrent doesn’t censor a person’s expression and freedom and copyright has, over and over and OVER again, been used to do such things.
Re: Re: Re:2 Typical
Bit Torrent helps to take away artists rights, by making their work widely available without cost or constraint, often against their will and desire.
It’s pretty much the exact same thing. Bit Torrent and copyright are both tools, and when misused, cause harm. Trashing copyright for those who misuse it is about the same as trashing bit torrent because it’s used by pirates. You guys would laugh at the latter, but support the former. How silly is that?
Re: Re: Re:3 Typical
Yeah boohoo artist’s rights. Even if copyrights were moral and valid, the fact that copyright law is regularly abused to silence speech is far far worse.
I will say it again. SILENCE SPEECH. As in, restrict internet access, cut it off entirely, delete Youtube videos and channels.
Speech is the foundation of a free democratic society. Anything that silences speech is far worse than something that spreads more speech, whether legal or illegal.
I don’t give a crap if a song or movie is leaked early. That just means, at worst, some potential lost sales. What is far far worse is the silencing of speech. The removal of ownership rights over real (not imaginary) property.
Re: Re: Re:3 Typical
You really are a dumb shite.
Re: Re: Re:3 Typical
“Bit Torrent helps to take away artists rights, by making their work widely available without cost or constraint, often against their will and desire.”
And that’s what the public wants.
The Public > than any individual artist
Also, the artists that take advantage of this are the ones benefitting.
” Bit Torrent and copyright are both tools, and when misused, cause harm.”
Kindly name how BT has been misused. It provides for the progression of culture and the arts even if the artist doesn’t agree.
But copyright? It stifles and harms speech, commentary, and discussion of arts and sciences.
” Trashing copyright for those who misuse it is about the same as trashing bit torrent because it’s used by pirates.”
False dichotomy. Discussing the criticisms of our copyright laws allows for people to promote how they can indeed be better without digressing into a nanny state or making bad decisions on what’s important in society.
I’d rather have more criticism and art than artists that control what society can produce.
Re: Re: Re:3 Typical
Bit Torrent helps to take away artists rights, by making their work widely available without cost or constraint, often against their will and desire.
It’s pretty much the exact same thing. Bit Torrent and copyright are both tools, and when misused, cause harm. Trashing copyright for those who misuse it is about the same as trashing bit torrent because it’s used by pirates. You guys would laugh at the latter, but support the former. How silly is that?
Not silly whatsoever. Nor is it even a close comparison.
Your “artist rights”, as you put it, are important. Just not anywhere near as important as the rights of Free Speech. Not even in the same universe important, let alone in the same ballpark important. Your “right” to monetize your creations falls many miles short of the basic human right to Free Speech.
That’s just the way it is. Sorry.
Re: Re: Re:3 Typical
Bittorrent can be enabling, while copyright is constraining.
Anybody can use bittorrent to distribute a work without incurring bandwidth cots, or having distribution limited by bandwidth. It tends to bring a creators decision back to the only decision they need to make, is this work worth releasing into the wild, or should it be kept private and possibly be reworked. When a work finds fans, they will where possible support the original creator.
Copyright is a mechanism of control, and effectively only a license to sue. Its traditional use has been as a means of a publisher gaining control over works, and paying the creator as little money as they can get away with. Copyright is locking up culture via extreme interpretation of derivative works, asking for licenses for quotes, and orphan works which cannot be used.
Re: Re: Re:3 Typical
As did the player piano, the photocopier, the CD, the cassette tape, the radio, and every other single damn piece of technology.
For someone going by “horse with no name” you seem dead set against anything anonymous. What, did someone put you in a stable, play you music and didn’t pay for the privilege?
Re: Re: Re:3 Typical
Bit Torrent helps to take away artists rights, by making their work widely available without cost or constraint, often against their will and desire.
Dammit! You damn freetards out there! Why the hell am I suddenly so popular? My work was never distributed via a major publisher, so why.. WHY.. is everyone wanting to know about me?!!? I wanted to remain obscure and irrelevant!
Re: Typical
No, we’re blaming:
1. idiots for abusing copyright.
2. copyright for being so easy and open for abuse.
I don’t know if you can see the subtle differences there, or does your job rely on you not seeing those differences?
Why won’t Mike Masnick disclose which companies are paying him to lobby against creator’s protections?
Re: Re:
Seriously? You’re stupid enough to actually ask that question?
Here’s why you’re so stupid.
First, he’s not being paid. Thus it’s impossible for him to name any companies.
Two, even if he were…he wouldn’t just come out and admit it. That would kinda ruin the point of it all.
Re: Re: Re:
Of course he’s being paid. He doesn’t fly to all these other countries for free.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or he could be charging the expenses to Floor64, his company, or paying for them all through his salary (whatever amount it is).
Seriously, provide some evidence.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“His company, Floor 64”, is him.
Who’s paying him to lobby against creator’s rights?
Re: Re:
This reaces the point of ad hom.
You can’t actually prove mike wrong so you attack the messanger instead of trying to debate the points raised.
Further, copyright is not and should not be about “creator protections”, it should be about promoting the progress of the sciences.
It is the creator’s responseablity to ensure his or her own profitablilty, not the goverment’s.
Re: Re:
Have you disclosed the name of the companies paying you to visit this site an fill the comments with verbal diarrhea?
Re: Re: Re:
Sure, here are the companies that pay me to post here:
.
Yup, absolutely zero. No one is paying me to post here.
Now then, who’s paying for all these overseas anti-copyright trips Mike Masnick is making, hmm?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So we’re supposed to just believe you when you say no-one is paying you, but whenever Mike says no-one is paying him…you don’t believe him? Both of you provide no evidence (yes, even Mike, he just says it too), but here’s the thing. We believe Mike more than you because Mike has proven himself trustworthy over the years.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
And Mike has had enough valid arguements and proven points that it really doesn’t matter if he’s a paid shill.
And I’ll grant that same creadabilty to MPAA/RIAA shills on the off chance they do fact based analysis of copyright instead of what would benefit their paymasters most
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Pathetic.
Keep conning yourself.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
How’s that crow taste, average_joe?
Re: Re:
” Why won’t Mike Masnick disclose which companies are paying him to lobby against creator’s protections?”
Why don’t you go first? Comments like yours don’t come from people who don’t have vested interests. Are you an actual creator? Or are you just part of the industry that leeches off creators?
Besides, copyright’s primary purpose is supposed to be to benefit society as a whole, not simply as “creator’s protections”. So if there’s evidence that the harm to society is greater than the benefit (and there demonstrably is), then everyone should be speaking out against it.
Re: Re:
Why won’t you?
Are you coming to Taiwan?
As the title suggests, let me know if you are hitting Taiwan. Would be willing to show you around a bit.