Comments by Modplan http://www.techdirt.com/ Easily digestible tech news.... Re: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130312/13325322300/recording-bradley-mannings-statement-court-leaked.shtml#c812 Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:20:57 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130312/13325322300/recording-bradley-mannings-statement-court-leaked.shtml#c812
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=9782#.UUFPp1cs4dU]]> Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/17173222005/derek-khannas-favorite-techdirt-posts-week.shtml#c428 Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:21:17 PST http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/17173222005/derek-khannas-favorite-techdirt-posts-week.shtml#c428 It's not an issue of how difficult it is to access the suppressed speech.
By definition, censorship is about how difficult it is to access or to make certain kinds of speech. The act of censoring something is about making it more difficult to express or to see the expression of certain things.

When a domain name is seized, the seizure is not for the purpose of suppressing speech because of the ideas being expressed.


So you're saying every use of a DMCA notice, for example, is clearly not censorship and is justified because it is not for the purposes of suppressing certain ideas?

All you're doing is making the argument that because we used x legal/technological tool that is about stopping copyright infringement to block access to something, then it can never be unconstitutional.]]> Re: Re: Re: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/17173222005/derek-khannas-favorite-techdirt-posts-week.shtml#c400 Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:15:26 PST http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/17173222005/derek-khannas-favorite-techdirt-posts-week.shtml#c400 Censorship in the First Amendment context means suppressing speech because of the ideas being expressed.
It can also mean the way in which they are expressed, one of those involving uses that can be classed as copyright infringement. That is after all why fair use exists, as copyright can be used to forbid speech because it is expressed a certain way, even if the use of the copyrighted work could be said to do no harm, or the harm in the speech being censored is more than then benefit. So your distinction is a false one.
In that regard, the censorship on TD is far worse than SOPA. With SOPA, no speech is suppressed because of the ideas expressed therein, but on TD, speech is suppressed by "reporting" it by those who disagree with the ideas being expressed.

You've convinced me, making you click on something to view a comment that is still easily visible is far worse than attempting to completely remove any access to it, as well as removing any source of funding to the person that said it.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130108/07354721604/china-tries-to-bolster-claim-to-disputed-pacific-islands-upgrading-mobile-coverage-there.shtml#c25 Tue, 12 Feb 2013 04:59:12 PST http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130108/07354721604/china-tries-to-bolster-claim-to-disputed-pacific-islands-upgrading-mobile-coverage-there.shtml#c25 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121204/18034921228/when-creators-both-internet-web-come-out-against-itu-shouldnt-you-too.shtml#c303 Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:24:44 PST http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121204/18034921228/when-creators-both-internet-web-come-out-against-itu-shouldnt-you-too.shtml#c303
http://www.technollama.co.uk/is-the-un-trying-to-take-over-the-internet-part-ii

Berners-Lee seems to end up playing precisely into this with the quoted part:
"I think it's important that these existing structures continue to be used without any attempt to bypass them," he said.
]]> Re: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121201/00113821192/first-amendment-concerns-about-internet-radio-bill-not-just-overblown-completely-backwards.shtml#c180 Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:53:07 PST http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121201/00113821192/first-amendment-concerns-about-internet-radio-bill-not-just-overblown-completely-backwards.shtml#c180 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120915/13334520392/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt.shtml#c3455 Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:37:53 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120915/13334520392/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt.shtml#c3455 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120915/13334520392/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt.shtml#c3415 Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:14:23 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120915/13334520392/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt.shtml#c3415
This is because it is immoral to exploit other people for profit.

I take issue with this definition. The reason is that I feel it fails to distinguish between the output of the labour and the individual. Under your definition of exploitation, selling a copy of a book or song you had written to friend is exploitation as I am making money off of your work without your permission.

Perhaps exploitation was a poor word choice. The point is, when you talk of commercial gain as immoral, it fails to distinguish between the character of that use. I doubt you'd truly agree that commercial gain in all circumstances is wrong, but what exactly makes a particular commercial use a form of exploitation in comparison to the above example? Exploitation implies you being taken for granted. Labels exploit artists by relying on naivety and positive public image of being a signed musician for example. If I had printed copies of your song on CD's, provided full attribution to you, linked to your website and made no claim to copyright, would you maintain that this was exploitation? The only difference between the first example and the last is the scale of the operation. I may have received your song from a friend for free who didn't want it any more, sold it on and made a profit - yet this is protected by first sale, and I'd imagine you wouldn't argue this in itself was wrong. Exploitation implies a difference in the nature of what I was doing, but here the only difference is the scale.

Is Nina Paley being exploited by theatres that show her film? Now you 'll say that she gave permission, so no, but remove the permission question. If nothing else but permission makes it exploitation, then we are back at square one - it is immoral for me to sell a single copy of your song to a friend without your permission. To me at least, your use of exploitation implied a sort of trading on name or reputation, or a form of fraud, and conflated this with any selling of works.

Your example comparing Megaupload and the Pirate Bay doesn't make much sense to me either. Both are indiscriminate. The Pirate Bay makes money from advertising without regard to the content. Megaupload paid users without regard to the content. Both are indiscriminate services.

You could argue that an individual who benefited from that service and did so knowing what they uploaded was illegal to do so was being exploitative, but it's hard to extend that to Megaupload without running into a problem with Pirate Bay. Neither Pirate Bay nor Megaupload know the contents of everything uploaded without using something akin to contentID, and we know that isn't 100% trustworthy, nor can they ever hope to provide an environment of perfect enforcement. The only difference is the arrangement of the business model. Both benefited from having large amounts of copyrighted work available for download, both make money from having more users. Megaupload just paid people to upload (which also gave a way for artists to make money by making their work available on Megaupload).]]> Re: Re: Re: WRONG-- property itself is a government granted monopoly http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120904/01443220262/legacy-entertainment-industrys-business-model-charge-ridiculous-markup-copy-file-command.shtml#c1618 Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:55:45 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120904/01443220262/legacy-entertainment-industrys-business-model-charge-ridiculous-markup-copy-file-command.shtml#c1618
And no Bob, the ability cite, quote, remix or parody are not benefited by IP maximalism. In fact, fair use is the exact opposite of that, y'know, being exceptions to a copyright holders control an' all.]]> Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120829/12370820209/oops-after-seizing-censoring-rojadirecta-18-months-feds-give-up-drop-case.shtml#c819 Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:36:27 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120829/12370820209/oops-after-seizing-censoring-rojadirecta-18-months-feds-give-up-drop-case.shtml#c819 Prior restraints are content-based restrictions; copyright laws are content-neutral. You just don't have the same First Amendment concerns. With obscenity, there is a possibility that the work at issue will turn out to not be obscene, i.e., will turn out to be constitutionally-protected speech. There's no similar concern with copyright.
This alone as the premise of your argument makes no sense. You are basically stating fair use doesn't exist (even as you attempt to acknowledge it later). That with a claim of copyright infringement, there is never the possibility of a fair use ruling and so it turns out to be protected speech. That is after all the entire basis of fair use - that there are certain kinds of infringement that are actually protected speech, exempted from the copyright holders normal control over how a work may be used. This ability for certain kinds of infringement to be considered fair use is somehow not akin to finding certain obscene materials to be protected speech?

Also regarding Arcara, see the previous lengthy debates. Arcara only worked because the case was not about copyright at all, or even about the content of what was being sold at the store and as the court argued, meant they didn't have to consider first amendment protections, issues like fair use, etc. Arcara only works if the case isn't about copyright or content at all. And again, as regularly pointed out in those debates, Arcara still recognised situations where similar means could be found to be prior restraint if the target of the remedy placed undue burden on protected speech.
Yet we have not traditionally subjected every criminal and civil sanction imposed through legal process to "least restrictive means" scrutiny simply because each particular remedy will have some effect on the First Amendment activities of those subject to sanction. Rather, we have subjected such restrictions to scrutiny only where it was conduct with a significant expressive element that drew the legal remedy in the first place, as in O'Brien, 3 or where a statute based on a [478 U.S. 697, 707] nonexpressive activity has the inevitable effect of singling out those engaged in expressive activity, as in Minneapolis Star. This case involves neither situation, and we conclude the First Amendment is not implicated by the enforcement of a public health regulation of general application against the physical premises in which respondents happen to sell books.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=478&invol=697

I really don't get how you can keep claiming that Arcara states it's OK to seize anything relating to copyrighted works, or that copyright is somehow immune to First Amendment consideration.

We recognize that the D. C. Circuit spoke too broadly when it declared copyrights "categorically immune from challenges under the First Amendment."

Eldred v Ashcroft

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZO.html

The entire basis of your post also ignores the fact that the aim of the government seizure was to limit the distribution of certain materials. These materials were claimed to be copyright infringing. To state that this is akin to Arcara is to completely misread it, which is something you're fond of doing apparently.

Saying that seizing the domain name is simply seizing the instrument is the same as saying seizing the printers you use to produce your newspaper is simply seizing the instrument. What we care about are to what ends are they seizing the instrument. Are they seizing it because of a health and safety issue as in Arcara, or because they wanted to stop the dissemination of certain materials they presume to be illegal?

In which case we come back to your attempt at dissecting the obscenity analogy.
But, as Techdirt likes to point out, determination of fair use is simple and objective. Not like obscenity.

For someone who claims to read Techdirt avidly, you really like claiming exactly the obvious of what they state.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120828/01200720176/inevitable-crowdfunding-backlash-when-people-realize-projects-fail-change.shtml#c262 Wed, 29 Aug 2012 06:55:36 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120828/01200720176/inevitable-crowdfunding-backlash-when-people-realize-projects-fail-change.shtml#c262
They've built a decentralised social network. It works. Not every individual aspect of that goal has been met yet, but the project has been going for 2 years already.

The founders moving on hasn't shut down the project, nor has it meant the money they got 2 years ago has been put elsewhere. They've also stated previously that some of Makr.io may go back into Diaspora.]]> Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The nature of copyright http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120822/06255820122/apparently-purpose-copyright-keeping-our-ancestors-promise-to-noah-webster.shtml#c918 Sat, 25 Aug 2012 08:42:35 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120822/06255820122/apparently-purpose-copyright-keeping-our-ancestors-promise-to-noah-webster.shtml#c918
I'm not sure how copyright guarantees the creation of works "regardless of what the free market has to say", seeing as it only allows for you to stop others copying and selling the work, allowing you to both maintain higher prices and at least attempt to capture more money from those who want to use it or produce it. At some level it is still subject to the free market in that there has to be someone willing to pay that price, it is merely distorted so that only the copyright holder is allowed to copy and sell work even as it is widely available.

It is also fundamentally a right granted to promote the creation and dissemination of works, though not the only one and in some (perhaps many) cases not even the most significant. It also does not ensure artists get paid fairly - a goal that doesn't make a lot of sense. Does someone who gets paid $1,000,000 for a single song fair compared to someone who gets paid a comparative pittance despite consistently recording and performing their works? Here you see that regardless of copyright or not, the market always has something to say, "fairness" be damned.
We should therefore try to find a happy medium between outright piracy and strict adherence to the m
]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/05592319743/eu-to-open-up-secret-clinical-trial-data-tpp-looking-even-more-retrogressive.shtml#c150 Thu, 19 Jul 2012 04:59:30 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/05592319743/eu-to-open-up-secret-clinical-trial-data-tpp-looking-even-more-retrogressive.shtml#c150
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110221/02392413184/eu-follows-us-steps-signs-free-trade-agreement-with-korea-thats-all-about-ip-protectionism.shtml

It stated that such data cannot be used, with no distinction between public or private data, so I wander how that'll be affected. Only reason I remember is because I wrote about it /selfpromotion.]]> Re: Re: Re: The Mighty Buzzard http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120625/12333619468/eu-commissioner-reveals-he-will-simply-ignore-any-rejection-acta-european-parliament-next-week.shtml#c841 Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:08:01 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120625/12333619468/eu-commissioner-reveals-he-will-simply-ignore-any-rejection-acta-european-parliament-next-week.shtml#c841
How that was non-factual at all I don't know, nor did it even have to heave to heavily rely on inferring anything - what was stated was perfectly clear.]]> Re: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120530/02494519121/apple-ceo-when-others-violate-our-patents-theyre-copying-our-hard-work-when-we-violate-patents-system-is-broken.shtml#c451 Wed, 30 May 2012 11:14:10 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120530/02494519121/apple-ceo-when-others-violate-our-patents-theyre-copying-our-hard-work-when-we-violate-patents-system-is-broken.shtml#c451
XNU, derived from Mach and FreeBSd (OS kernel powering the prettiness you see)

CUPS for printing

Webkit (forked from KHTML) for web page rendering (powers Safari)

X11/server for compatibility with graphical applications that depend on the X server.

Amongst others. No doubt they've contributed, but a bit cheeky to say they don't want to "become the worlds developers" to say the least. I'd also wander whether any of the projects they use would actually invalidate some of the patents they hold due to prior art.]]> Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120504/20292518793/dan-bull-amanda-palmer-el-p-big-week-artists-voices-techdirt.shtml#c659 Sun, 6 May 2012 13:43:44 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120504/20292518793/dan-bull-amanda-palmer-el-p-big-week-artists-voices-techdirt.shtml#c659
I'm guessing Lady Gaga isn't exactly poor either. So why is handing over money to her for shiny plastic disks and MP3's any less reasonable than handing over money to Amanda Palmer for...MP3's, plastic disks, vinyl records and art books? Looking at the Kickstarter tiers, the options for Amanda Palmer are actually more reasonable. $1 for the album, extra songs and backer only content? Then how are the labels getting away with 99c a song?

The only way your analogy would make sense is if the rich dude was also giving new sports cars to those who backed him, at a more reasonable price than most other dealers would sell them at. I'm really not sure how that'd be a bad thing.]]> Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120504/20292518793/dan-bull-amanda-palmer-el-p-big-week-artists-voices-techdirt.shtml#c620 Sun, 6 May 2012 13:25:19 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120504/20292518793/dan-bull-amanda-palmer-el-p-big-week-artists-voices-techdirt.shtml#c620 It's one thing when you're making money touring, album sales, merch, etc. and quite another when you're asking for money.

Which completely misses the point of Kickstarter. By definition of being a backer, you get albums and merch for paying. Even the lowest tier gives you the (presumably MP3 or FLAC when it's out) album and other content only for those who backed. All above tiers come with additional content and merchandise.

Your entire ranting against her then is based on ignorance that can be cleared up simply by bothering to read the Kickstarter page to find out what the money is actually going towards.]]> Re: Re: Re: Not sure how I feel http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120504/20292518793/dan-bull-amanda-palmer-el-p-big-week-artists-voices-techdirt.shtml#c565 Sun, 6 May 2012 13:05:21 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120504/20292518793/dan-bull-amanda-palmer-el-p-big-week-artists-voices-techdirt.shtml#c565
How else do you make ends meet in the music business? Do the labels run on unicorns and fairy dust?]]> Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:eyeroll: http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120416/12255318510/its-time-to-re-establish-that-if-patent-blocks-progress-its-unconstitutional.shtml#c1075 Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:50:05 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120416/12255318510/its-time-to-re-establish-that-if-patent-blocks-progress-its-unconstitutional.shtml#c1075
http://www.amazon.com/The-800-Million-Pill-behind/dp/0520239458?tag=duckduckgo-d-20

http://gooznews.com/?p=2520
Press Release: Pharmaceutical companies continue to claim that high research and development (R&D) costs make it necessary for them to charge high prices and retain long ownership of patents to recoup costs. But a new study (subscription required) co-authored by health economists Rebecca Warburton and Donald W. Light demonstrates that high R&D estimates have been constructed by industry-supported economists to support the companies
]]> Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:eyeroll: http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120416/12255318510/its-time-to-re-establish-that-if-patent-blocks-progress-its-unconstitutional.shtml#c449 Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:16:29 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120416/12255318510/its-time-to-re-establish-that-if-patent-blocks-progress-its-unconstitutional.shtml#c449 It would be incredibly silly to blow off the patent system because there are exceptional cases where it isn't the best solution.
And once again no one said we should. Does it usually take you 3 times to read an article before it sinks in?]]>