If you bypass certain access controls now, you are violating the DMCA. If after this is passed you bypass those same access controls, you may not be violating the DMCA. This weakens the DMCA since it makes certain activities that used to be illegal and makes them legal. This LESSENS the rights that copyright owners currently have.
You miss the point. Under the current law, it is illegal to circumvent certain access controls. This is so even if once circumvented, the person does not commit copyright infringement. Under the change that Mike supports, it won't be illegal to circumvent those same measures even if the person does not commit copyright infringement. Thus, the very same act that is currently illegal under copyright law would become legal under the proposed change. This is clearly a WEAKENING of copyright law; the rights held by copyright owners will be weakened. That Mike is pretending that it's not a weakening is priceless. I'm not saying that it's a good idea or a bad idea. I'm merely pointing out the irrefutable fact that this would weaken copyright law.
Wow, really? Of course it weakens copyright law--that's why you support it. Copyright law currently makes it illegal to circumvent certain technological measures. That is REGARDLESS of whether once circumvented, a person engages in copyright infringement. This would allow people to engage in circumvention, thus weakening the existing law that does not allow such circumvention. The only thing this does is weaken copyright law. And you would not support it otherwise. That you can't admit this is comical.
All it does is stop the absurd situation where you are found to "violate" copyright law despite not infringing on anyone's copyright.
Why is that absurd? Anticircumvention is a different wrong than infringement. Copyright law is not only concerned about infringement.
Thanks. These threads always turn into a referendum on me personally rather than "the faithful" acknowledging that I have a point about Mike, but I appreciate the support. I'm sure Mike would have something interesting to say about the proposal if he actually bothered to read it.
And I'll just add the irony that Mike whines about not having access to such proposals in other situations, but here where he actually has access he doesn't even bother to make use of it. Instead we just get conclusory statements about what the proposals say rather than an actual textual analysis. Pretty funny.
These particular proposals are available publicly, so I don't really get the question. Are you talking about other proposals? If so, then no, I don't have the default position that all drafts should be made public. I don't know much about diplomacy, but it seems self-evident to me that not every international agreement is or should be crowd-sourced in the way that some of you think it should be. I don't think that's practical. But as a general matter, I think transparency is good. I'd need a more specific situation to give you a more specific answer. These particular proposals are quite open to the public, so it's strange that you guys aren't acknowledging the positives of that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
Yet, for some reason, you envision Techdirt readers as an obedient, unthinking cult, hanging on Masnick's every word and regarding him as their "leader".
I think that because it's true. It gets proven daily.
Mike and his guest bloggers just relay reports of outrageous things that the IP industry is up to, and they often express their opinions about it, and we all chime in with ours. It's as simple as that. He doesn't have us under mind control. He's not our "leader". One misstep and we'll turn on him...for that one post, which is how it should be.
You're one of the few regulars who is capable of independent thought. I appreciate that.
Along those lines, let me ask you this. Do you agree with me that Mike has said practically nothing of substance in this post and instead is just making another attempt to discredit copyright holders without actually even looking at their arguments?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
Then the real question is...what is your point in being here?
I'm merely pointing out that Mike hasn't said anything of substance.
He claims that the this group "has written a ridiculous letter with little basis in fact, arguing that this treaty for the blind would be 'casting aside' the 'international copyright infrastructure.'" But then he never actually explains why that's not true. No substance.
He claims that the proposal would "provide extremely limited situations in which copyright restrictions would be limited for the sake of making it easier for vision-impaired people to access works." But he never bothers to back that up textually. No substance.
It's just a bunch of faith-based, conclusory statements. I'm pointing out that he's a total hypocrite when he castigates others for making faith-based assertions because he does the same with alarming frequency. I'm pointing out that the whole point of this article is merely to discredit a group that he disagrees with (despite him not appearing to actually understand the substance of the arguments or counterarguments). It's total bullshit. I'm calling him out for it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
I am desensitized to it, having been attacked viciously over and over again by the folks on TD who can't stand it when their leader is challenged.
Address the merits of my post if you would: Do you agree that Mike has not even begun to back up his assertion that this is a "ridiculous letter with little basis in fact"? Do you agree that Mike hasn't shown us the text of the proposal and explained why this response is bullshit? Do you agree that Mike's purpose in writing this article was not to actually advance the debate in a positive way but was instead solely for the purpose of discrediting these people with his usual "they hate the blind!" trope? I feel like I added to the discussion by pointing out how Mike added nothing. I'm not familiar enough with the proposals to add much of value on the merits, but apparently neither is Mike. That doesn't stop him from writing this crap though. Why aren't you grilling him if you agree with me in part?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
Oh look, personal attacks that add nothing to the conversation. I'm happy to discuss common ground. I'd love to know what the proposal here actually says and why some people are actually against parts of it. But all we get is this faith-based FUD attack and the return of the "they hate the blind!" argument that gets us nowhere.
I'm wondering what the proposal says exactly. I'm wondering why copyright holders are against parts of it. I'm not getting any actual information from this article. Just Mike's conclusory statements as to what the proposal is and that their complaints about it are groundless. It's just faith-based FUD. Let's see the proposal. Let's see the exact text they are taking issue with. Let's discuss it on the merits.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
I'm just pointing out that this is yet a mindless FUD piece that adds nothing to debate and exists only to fan the flames of hatred towards copyright holders. It's not ego. I seriously wonder how Mike was second in his class at Cornell yet seems incapable of actually being a positive force in the debate.
Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
You're claiming you do?
No. Nobody has such perfect information, yet they are able to have an opinion on what copyright should look like. That's why it's such a bullshit excuse from Mike. He clearly has all sorts of deeply-felt opinions about copyright despite not having perfect information. He just pulls out that excuse when anyone challenges him to state a concrete position on copyright policy.
Yeah, asking Mike to discuss the actual text of the proposal and their actual position on what they think is wrong with it is derailing the conversation. Not. This is just another "they hate the blind" article that adds nothing positive to the debate about copyright. Mike's specialty, unfortunately. Mike's incapable of anything else, I'm sad to say.
Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
I know you're flaming and you have nothing to add to the conversation, but if there's something you'd like to debate me on I'd be happy to oblige. I will directly answer your direct questions without weasel words and without running away. Bring it on.
Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
For someone who claims he's yet to take a position on how to reform copyright, his articles ALWAYS argue for less of it!
Yeah, he doesn't have 100% perfect information so he is completely incapable of forming opinions about copyright policy--unless someone proposes to limit it somehow, then he knows that's the right move. Not very convincing on his part. He's obviously working backwards at all times.
Of course, it does no such thing. All it does is provide extremely limited situations in which copyright restrictions would be limited for the sake of making it easier for vision-impaired people to access works.
I know this is just another brainless FUD piece so you can attempt to discredit these pro-copyright people by making it sound like they hate the blind, but your argument that "it does no such thing" would be much more effective if you actually quoted the text of the proposed limitations and exceptions. You could also add something productive to the conversation by telling us your proposed solution to this problem. Or are you only capable of hit pieces like this that add ABSOLUTELY NOTHING POSITIVE to the debate?
The level of freakout from these giant companies over helping the blind is really quite incredible.
Your portrayal of these people as hating the blind is what I find to be "really quite incredible," as in, completely not believable and only reflective of your own deep-seated hatred of others who don't think the same as you. Again, if you cited the text and/or told us your suggestions, that would be a lot more productive. As it is, you just come across as a whiny blogger who is only capable of publishing mindless crap in a desperate attempt to discredit others. Add something positive to the discussion for once. Take a concrete stand yourself rather than just shitting on everyone else's beliefs. Seriously, you come across as writing for disgruntled eighth graders.
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re:
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re:
And it does so by WEAKENING copyright law, which is the ONLY reason why you support it. But, yeah, pretend like it doesn't weaken anything. Hilarious.
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Wow, really? Of course it weakens copyright law--that's why you support it. Copyright law currently makes it illegal to circumvent certain technological measures. That is REGARDLESS of whether once circumvented, a person engages in copyright infringement. This would allow people to engage in circumvention, thus weakening the existing law that does not allow such circumvention. The only thing this does is weaken copyright law. And you would not support it otherwise. That you can't admit this is comical.
All it does is stop the absurd situation where you are found to "violate" copyright law despite not infringing on anyone's copyright.
Why is that absurd? Anticircumvention is a different wrong than infringement. Copyright law is not only concerned about infringement.
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Re: Re:
Thanks. These threads always turn into a referendum on me personally rather than "the faithful" acknowledging that I have a point about Mike, but I appreciate the support. I'm sure Mike would have something interesting to say about the proposal if he actually bothered to read it.
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
I think that because it's true. It gets proven daily.
Mike and his guest bloggers just relay reports of outrageous things that the IP industry is up to, and they often express their opinions about it, and we all chime in with ours. It's as simple as that. He doesn't have us under mind control. He's not our "leader". One misstep and we'll turn on him...for that one post, which is how it should be.
You're one of the few regulars who is capable of independent thought. I appreciate that.
Along those lines, let me ask you this. Do you agree with me that Mike has said practically nothing of substance in this post and instead is just making another attempt to discredit copyright holders without actually even looking at their arguments?
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
I'm merely pointing out that Mike hasn't said anything of substance.
He claims that the this group "has written a ridiculous letter with little basis in fact, arguing that this treaty for the blind would be 'casting aside' the 'international copyright infrastructure.'" But then he never actually explains why that's not true. No substance.
He claims that the proposal would "provide extremely limited situations in which copyright restrictions would be limited for the sake of making it easier for vision-impaired people to access works." But he never bothers to back that up textually. No substance.
It's just a bunch of faith-based, conclusory statements. I'm pointing out that he's a total hypocrite when he castigates others for making faith-based assertions because he does the same with alarming frequency. I'm pointing out that the whole point of this article is merely to discredit a group that he disagrees with (despite him not appearing to actually understand the substance of the arguments or counterarguments). It's total bullshit. I'm calling him out for it.
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
Address the merits of my post if you would: Do you agree that Mike has not even begun to back up his assertion that this is a "ridiculous letter with little basis in fact"? Do you agree that Mike hasn't shown us the text of the proposal and explained why this response is bullshit? Do you agree that Mike's purpose in writing this article was not to actually advance the debate in a positive way but was instead solely for the purpose of discrediting these people with his usual "they hate the blind!" trope? I feel like I added to the discussion by pointing out how Mike added nothing. I'm not familiar enough with the proposals to add much of value on the merits, but apparently neither is Mike. That doesn't stop him from writing this crap though. Why aren't you grilling him if you agree with me in part?
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
No. Nobody has such perfect information, yet they are able to have an opinion on what copyright should look like. That's why it's such a bullshit excuse from Mike. He clearly has all sorts of deeply-felt opinions about copyright despite not having perfect information. He just pulls out that excuse when anyone challenges him to state a concrete position on copyright policy.
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Re: Re:
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
Yeah, he doesn't have 100% perfect information so he is completely incapable of forming opinions about copyright policy--unless someone proposes to limit it somehow, then he knows that's the right move. Not very convincing on his part. He's obviously working backwards at all times.
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
I know this is just another brainless FUD piece so you can attempt to discredit these pro-copyright people by making it sound like they hate the blind, but your argument that "it does no such thing" would be much more effective if you actually quoted the text of the proposed limitations and exceptions. You could also add something productive to the conversation by telling us your proposed solution to this problem. Or are you only capable of hit pieces like this that add ABSOLUTELY NOTHING POSITIVE to the debate?
The level of freakout from these giant companies over helping the blind is really quite incredible.
Your portrayal of these people as hating the blind is what I find to be "really quite incredible," as in, completely not believable and only reflective of your own deep-seated hatred of others who don't think the same as you. Again, if you cited the text and/or told us your suggestions, that would be a lot more productive. As it is, you just come across as a whiny blogger who is only capable of publishing mindless crap in a desperate attempt to discredit others. Add something positive to the discussion for once. Take a concrete stand yourself rather than just shitting on everyone else's beliefs. Seriously, you come across as writing for disgruntled eighth graders.
On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: