Re: Re: Re: Number of people employed at McDonald's may be all-time high too.
"do you even understand what a 'natural right' is ?
clearly you do not."
Your screed has left me thinking the same thing about you.
"is it your natural right not to be mugged ?
is it your natural right not to be murdered ?
or to have your car stolen or your wife raped ?"
Why on earth do copyright maximalists always insist on bringing murder and rape into a discussion about copying, as if they're anywhere close to each other in significance. There is nothing, NOTHING, you can create that is significant enough to compare it's copying to murder and rape. The comparison makes you look like an over-entitled fool.
"copyright and the protection of idea's is also not contingent on specific laws and are in fact 'inalienable' rights..."
This is simply false, and I again ask for any credible source for this claim.
"You write a book you have a natural right not to have that stolen from you..."
Society has long agreed that it is wrong to physically take that book away from you and deprive you of its use, i.e. steal it. Copying is completely different, as is society's attitude to it.
"...and copying something and reducing any profits made from that creation is theft."
That is simply not the definition of theft, not by any dictionary, legal or common-sense meaning of the word. There is no natural or legal right guaranteeing a profit. Profit is something you earn by convincing people to pay more for your product or service than it costs you to provide.
Re: Number of people employed at McDonald's may be all-time high too.
"As I've written before and will again, copyright merely recognizes the natural rights of a creator to control copies of a work..."
No such natural rights exist, and I challenge you to offer any credible proof that they do. Humans have been freely copying each others creations since we first started scribbling on cave walls.
Re: Re: From the privileged-frat-boy-thinks-everything-is-free dept.
Out of curiosity, is Mike the only person on the internet who won't "engage" with you, or do you pester other bloggers with the same obsessive behavior?
Usual shill rubbish, supporting government and industry actions in direct opposition to the public's best interest or wishes. No surprise, that's what you guys are paid to do!
"Kim Dotcom got all those cars and his mansion how again?"
By providing a service that millions of people around the world considered worth paying money for. You should try it some time.
And even if you went along with your provably false statement that MU was a genuine 100% piracy site, your one solitary example proves very little. The claim is that lots of piracy sites are getting rich, but you have no other examples.
"You pirate douchebags are hilarious."
And your attitude to the very people whose behaviour you want to change is hilariously stupid. Why would I listen to anybody who calls me names?
It's a bit hard to get excited over copyright infringement. Perhaps you should divert your efforts to championing a law that protects from actual harm instead.
So in a post about reselling used goods you resort to "ripping off creators"? Are your feelings on selling used cars, houses, clothes, etc just as stupid?
"Enforcement will never touch soulless, thieving freeloaders such as yourself."
Note that this person is acting on behalf of large, soulless, morally bankrupt corporations who claim to represent artists. This is a the language of a corporate thug, not actual creative artists. The dollar we are accused us of "stealing" was not taken out of the pocket of an artist, but from someone who gives as little as practically possible to those artists. So these insults will not illicit guilt or shame or behavioural change or one penny of extra income, because these companies deserve none of that.
And by winning, you mean fucking over the public for the gain of your corporate masters. With that sort of amoral attitude, it's incredibly galling for you to talk about the "immoral" behaviour of copyright infringement
"Of course it's not the old model, but they still do a lot of heavy lifting for the artist."
You mean just like it says in the article? You seemed to have missed the point while reading it, and then stated said point as if we don't already know.
"So this argument is entirely correct: if people can get content for free (both guilt free and money free), there's no reason to expect they'll pay for it."
You're right, iTunes and Spotify will never work...
And you've yet to prove that even once. If you had, you might get a shred of respect around here, but you have never once proven Mike to by lying about anything. And no sorry, saying something you don't agree with is not lying.
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Chilling Effects On Research
Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/02490722336/how-hollywoods-own-pirates-must-in form-future-copyright.shtml#c1524
On the post: Julie Samuels' Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Number of people employed at McDonald's may be all-time high too.
clearly you do not."
Your screed has left me thinking the same thing about you.
"is it your natural right not to be mugged ?
is it your natural right not to be murdered ?
or to have your car stolen or your wife raped ?"
Why on earth do copyright maximalists always insist on bringing murder and rape into a discussion about copying, as if they're anywhere close to each other in significance. There is nothing, NOTHING, you can create that is significant enough to compare it's copying to murder and rape. The comparison makes you look like an over-entitled fool.
"copyright and the protection of idea's is also not contingent on specific laws and are in fact 'inalienable' rights..."
This is simply false, and I again ask for any credible source for this claim.
"You write a book you have a natural right not to have that stolen from you..."
Society has long agreed that it is wrong to physically take that book away from you and deprive you of its use, i.e. steal it. Copying is completely different, as is society's attitude to it.
"...and copying something and reducing any profits made from that creation is theft."
That is simply not the definition of theft, not by any dictionary, legal or common-sense meaning of the word. There is no natural or legal right guaranteeing a profit. Profit is something you earn by convincing people to pay more for your product or service than it costs you to provide.
On the post: Julie Samuels' Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Number of people employed at McDonald's may be all-time high too.
No such natural rights exist, and I challenge you to offer any credible proof that they do. Humans have been freely copying each others creations since we first started scribbling on cave walls.
On the post: Did Stephen Colbert And President Bill Clinton Violate The CFAA?
Re:
This from the person posting the same idiotic schtick over and over and over and over and over and over and over...
On the post: Authors Guild's Scott Turow: The Supreme Court, Google, Ebooks, Libraries & Amazon Are All Destroying Authors
Re: Re: From the privileged-frat-boy-thinks-everything-is-free dept.
On the post: In Which NY Times Reporter Jenna Wortham Accidentally Reveals How She Violated Both The CFAA & The DMCA
Re:
Have you ever considered not being a complete asshole, but instead contributing to the discussion in a mature and adult manner? I doubt it.
On the post: Hilarious And Ridiculous: Networks Threaten To Pull Channels Off The Air If Aereo & Dish Win Lawsuits
Re: Re:
On the post: Veoh Still Not Dead Enough For Universal Music; Asks Court To Rehear Case Yet Again
Re: Re:
The brief is totally solid but Mike Masnick AND THE COURTS (ALL OF THEM!) are so hilariously dishonest that they refuse to admit it...
FTFY
On the post: Senator Hatch's Plan To Give Hollywood The Key Seat At The Table For All Future Trade Negotiations
Re:
On the post: Recording Industry Lobbyists Accuse Pandora Of Deliberately Not Selling Ads To Plead Poverty To Congress
Re: Re: Re:
By providing a service that millions of people around the world considered worth paying money for. You should try it some time.
And even if you went along with your provably false statement that MU was a genuine 100% piracy site, your one solitary example proves very little. The claim is that lots of piracy sites are getting rich, but you have no other examples.
"You pirate douchebags are hilarious."
And your attitude to the very people whose behaviour you want to change is hilariously stupid. Why would I listen to anybody who calls me names?
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: University Threatens Own Faculty With Copyright Infringement For Campus Survey
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And there we have it. Mike's got more important things to do, and you don't.
On the post: Deep Dive: Prenda Law Is Dead
Re:
On the post: ReDigi Loses: You Can't Resell Your MP3s (Unless You Sell Your Whole Hard Drive)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Arrested Development Documentary Has To Hit Up Kickstarter Because Fox Claims Copyright On Set Photos
Re: This isn't actually new, it's just now public.
We should be so lucky...
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Note that this person is acting on behalf of large, soulless, morally bankrupt corporations who claim to represent artists. This is a the language of a corporate thug, not actual creative artists. The dollar we are accused us of "stealing" was not taken out of the pocket of an artist, but from someone who gives as little as practically possible to those artists. So these insults will not illicit guilt or shame or behavioural change or one penny of extra income, because these companies deserve none of that.
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And by winning, you mean fucking over the public for the gain of your corporate masters. With that sort of amoral attitude, it's incredibly galling for you to talk about the "immoral" behaviour of copyright infringement
On the post: Musician Alex Day Explains How He Beat Justin Timberlake In The Charts Basically Just Via YouTube
Re: Re: Re: He does have a label.
You mean just like it says in the article? You seemed to have missed the point while reading it, and then stated said point as if we don't already know.
On the post: Musician Alex Day Explains How He Beat Justin Timberlake In The Charts Basically Just Via YouTube
Re: would be interesting if true...
On the post: A Tale Of Two Studies: Can File Sharing Both Harm And Help Sales?
Re:
You're right, iTunes and Spotify will never work...
On the post: A Tale Of Two Studies: File Sharing Hurts Sales!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you've yet to prove that even once. If you had, you might get a shred of respect around here, but you have never once proven Mike to by lying about anything. And no sorry, saying something you don't agree with is not lying.