Re: Board note: fanboys now get in FIVE hours early!
Board note: fanboys now get in FIVE hours early!
Laughing my ass off at you, Blue. Too funny.
This one is so simple I think even you can understand it. Stop whining, register an account and buy one of the packages that includes the Crystal Ball feature and Ta-Da! you can spout your inane, useless crap before an article goes live too. I'm pretty sure Mike will take anyone's money, whether it's from a fan, a critic or anyone else for that matter.
You keep repeating this lie about common law copyright when it is demonstrably false. Stop it
He won't stop. Blue has been bestowed with this wonderful gift of willful ignorance when it comes to anyone countering him with facts. If he simply ignores any counter-arguments to his statements, then it's like they never existed and he continues on his merry way. Kind of like the not-so-bright cat who thinks if it doesn't look at you, you can't see it.
It keeps his life simple, I guess, but it undermines everything he posts here. I've gotten to the point where I simply toss everything he says right into the bullshit pile.
Karl rebutted his "common law copyright" theory here:
No, not correct. Remove the legal hurdles and the lawyers and progress would still continue. It only "takes actual lawyers to do the work" that isn't really necessary in the first place.
And an additional note: Leaving the advancement of human culture to the whim of lawyers is a really, really stupid idea in my opinion.
"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." It's that simple. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
I'd argue that 17 USC § 1201 (f) gives me the right to circumvent the technological measures for the purpose of creating interoperability between Netflix and my "independently created" Linux operating system as long as my acquiring the content from Netflix was licensed and legal to begin with.
Re: "the technology is coming one way or the other"?
Ah, Monday. Back to the inane yapping of ankle-biters, the skimming of prior comments to see whether my valuable screen name has been mis-appropriated again! -- And to answer a question the fanboys have, the name is valuable for the effect on you! -- Last week it produced a fine bunch of irrational yapping...
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.
I noticed that you forgot to mention that Apple did end up licensing the design of that clock face from SBB (for $21M US). Apparently, even on the receiving end, they didn't find the claim ridiculous.
Settling doesn't necessarily mean they didn't think the claim was ridiculous at all. It indicates to me that they felt the claim to be an annoyance and threw chump change at it to make it go away.
Fiduciary responsibility applies regardless of whether a contract exists.
Ok. I get what you are getting at here. You are talking about what is called the "business judgment rule" here in the US and is based on case law.
But those rulings really don't have all that much teeth in reality. Basically, US courts have pretty much tried to stay out of these issues and will dismiss the cases fairly readily if the CEO has some marginally rational reason for his actions. The case needs to be blatantly egregious for it go much further than that.
So your statement of "It's the law, the CEO CANNOT do anything that the shareholders don't want." still doesn't ring all that true in the real world.
Sorry. My bad. Should have kept reading this thread before responding. My entire comment was already covered above.
Oh crap. Did I just violate someone's IP rights by inadvertently coming up with the same analogy independently? Oh, well. Sue away. Like they say: you can't get blood from a turnip.
How is this guy any different then the guy selling counterfeit NFL jerseys out of the back of his car or at a flea market?
That's an incorrect analogy. It'd be more like the guy at the flea market busted for sewing up the rips in your NFL jersey with thread that wasn't bought from the NFL. Capice?
And I don't believe the shops were trying to pass off the parts as official "Apple" parts at all. At least, that's what I got from Mike saying this:
If Apple feels some of the shops are misleading customers, then it can sue for trademark infringement and deal with it that way.
It's the law, the CEO CANNOT do anything that the shareholders don't want.
I think you are incorrect here. The article you pointed to talks about the "legal obligations" of a CEO. Those would be enforced with legally binding contracts, not something codified into law. And the terms of the contracts could and would differ from company to company.
So no, I don't believe that there is a "law" that says this. But, I could be wrong.
He does do a degree of journalism to back up his opinion(which any opinion writer worth reading does) but that's not the same thing as being a journalist.
Right. And that in and of itself makes me give more weight to what I read at Techdirt over MSM.
MSM gives me selected "facts" (usually only from one side of an issue) and expects me to believe it's the whole truth.
With Techdirt I get an opinion, backed up with facts to explain how the opinion was reached without trying to hide the fact that there is always another side to every issue.
Personally, I prefer to be treated as someone who can make up their own mind, instead of a mindless dolt that needs to be told how to think by MSM.
On the post: Former DHS Head On Google Glass: Intrusive Surveillance Is Bad -- If It's A Corporation Doing It
Re:
Supposed to be response to out_of_the_blue, May 13th, 2013 @ 11:22am
On the post: Former DHS Head On Google Glass: Intrusive Surveillance Is Bad -- If It's A Corporation Doing It
Care to back up that assertion with some citations?
AFAIK there has never been a reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces.
On the post: Pretending That Instructions To Print A Gun Aren't Out There Won't Change The Reality That They Are
Re: Board note: fanboys now get in FIVE hours early!
Laughing my ass off at you, Blue. Too funny.
This one is so simple I think even you can understand it. Stop whining, register an account and buy one of the packages that includes the Crystal Ball feature and Ta-Da! you can spout your inane, useless crap before an article goes live too. I'm pretty sure Mike will take anyone's money, whether it's from a fan, a critic or anyone else for that matter.
On the post: Prenda Lawyer Says Judge Wright's Order Is Inapplicable In Georgia Because California Recognizes Gay Marriage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Death Throws
PS: Kudos on hitting the 5k comment mark, dude.
On the post: There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter
Re: Re: The FIVE PERCENT that Kickstarter skims is reason!
At least that is my takeaway from his inane ramblings.
On the post: Silliest Argument Ever: Just Because A YouTube Paywall Launches It Means More Money Is Made
Re: Video problems
It's on the "Stuff We Really Don't Want You To See" channel. The subscription price is only a mere $10,000/month.
On the post: Blogger Issues DMCA Notice To Take Down Posts Infringing His 'How To Infringe' Post
Re: Re: You just admitted the basis of copyright:
He won't stop. Blue has been bestowed with this wonderful gift of willful ignorance when it comes to anyone countering him with facts. If he simply ignores any counter-arguments to his statements, then it's like they never existed and he continues on his merry way. Kind of like the not-so-bright cat who thinks if it doesn't look at you, you can't see it.
It keeps his life simple, I guess, but it undermines everything he posts here. I've gotten to the point where I simply toss everything he says right into the bullshit pile.
Karl rebutted his "common law copyright" theory here:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130412/16073622693/julie-samuels-favorite-techdirt-post s-week.shtml#c618
And still he keeps tossing that theory out like it's the gospel truth, Crazy.
On the post: When Startups Need More Lawyers Than Employees, The Patent System Isn't Working
Re: Mostly it proves
No, not correct. Remove the legal hurdles and the lawyers and progress would still continue. It only "takes actual lawyers to do the work" that isn't really necessary in the first place.
And an additional note: Leaving the advancement of human culture to the whim of lawyers is a really, really stupid idea in my opinion.
On the post: The Fight Over DRM In HTML5 Should Represent The Last Stand For DRM
Re: Re: Re: Re: A Bit Upset With Netflix Here
I'd argue that 17 USC § 1201 (f) gives me the right to circumvent the technological measures for the purpose of creating interoperability between Netflix and my "independently created" Linux operating system as long as my acquiring the content from Netflix was licensed and legal to begin with.
On the post: Angry Patent Lawyer Still Angry, Claims PatentlyO's Dennis Crouch Is Both A 'Dickhead' And Violated CFAA
Re:
I don't always web design, but when I do, I prefer it to be sucky.
On the post: Moral Panic Over Google Glass: White House Petition Asks To Ban Them To Prevent 'Indecent' Public Surveillance
Re: "the technology is coming one way or the other"?
I have only three words for you Blue:
Narcissistic personality disorder
On the post: Mike Masnick's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Typical
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.
On the post: Copyright Claims Lead To Removal Of Popular Pebble Watch Faces
Re:
Settling doesn't necessarily mean they didn't think the claim was ridiculous at all. It indicates to me that they felt the claim to be an annoyance and threw chump change at it to make it go away.
On the post: Jaron Lanier And Gobbledygook Economics
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: price vs value
Ok. I get what you are getting at here. You are talking about what is called the "business judgment rule" here in the US and is based on case law.
But those rulings really don't have all that much teeth in reality. Basically, US courts have pretty much tried to stay out of these issues and will dismiss the cases fairly readily if the CEO has some marginally rational reason for his actions. The case needs to be blatantly egregious for it go much further than that.
So your statement of "It's the law, the CEO CANNOT do anything that the shareholders don't want." still doesn't ring all that true in the real world.
On the post: TV Syndication Company Attempts To Take Down Public Domain Content By Abusing Trademark Law
Typo Alert
That sentence doesn't make much sense. I think you meant ...take back [content that] no longer belongs to it.
On the post: ICE Starts Raiding Mobile Phone Repair Shops To Stop Repairs With Aftermarket Parts
Re: Re:
Oh crap. Did I just violate someone's IP rights by inadvertently coming up with the same analogy independently? Oh, well. Sue away. Like they say: you can't get blood from a turnip.
On the post: ICE Starts Raiding Mobile Phone Repair Shops To Stop Repairs With Aftermarket Parts
Re:
That's an incorrect analogy. It'd be more like the guy at the flea market busted for sewing up the rips in your NFL jersey with thread that wasn't bought from the NFL. Capice?
And I don't believe the shops were trying to pass off the parts as official "Apple" parts at all. At least, that's what I got from Mike saying this:
On the post: Jaron Lanier And Gobbledygook Economics
Re: Re: Re: Re: price vs value
I think you are incorrect here. The article you pointed to talks about the "legal obligations" of a CEO. Those would be enforced with legally binding contracts, not something codified into law. And the terms of the contracts could and would differ from company to company.
So no, I don't believe that there is a "law" that says this. But, I could be wrong.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Out Of State Residents Have No Constitutional Right To Virginia's FOIA Law
Re: Re: Re: bloggers versus journalists
How would anyone be deceived? If the volunteer lives in the state, how is that deceitful in any way, shape or form?
On the post: Supreme Court Says Out Of State Residents Have No Constitutional Right To Virginia's FOIA Law
Re: Re: bloggers versus journalists
Right. And that in and of itself makes me give more weight to what I read at Techdirt over MSM.
MSM gives me selected "facts" (usually only from one side of an issue) and expects me to believe it's the whole truth.
With Techdirt I get an opinion, backed up with facts to explain how the opinion was reached without trying to hide the fact that there is always another side to every issue.
Personally, I prefer to be treated as someone who can make up their own mind, instead of a mindless dolt that needs to be told how to think by MSM.