I actually do. So try slinging your bullshit in my direction. I'm actually a person who says 'out loud' (so to speak) that enforcing copyright is wrong. To my knowledge, Mike has never said so. The closest he's ever gotten is something along the lines of "I hate it when copyright is enforced...to the detriment of basic human rights that everyone is supposed to have". If you want to call out someone for being 100% anti-copyright, target me. Rikuo is what I am called. Target me, and not Mike.
Even if we accept Feinstein and what she is saying now, that would only lead to the logical conclusion that with Snowden, they weren't being careful beforehand. They didn't vet their employees and subcontractors. So up until 2013, according to Feinstein, they deliberately didn't have proper controls in place?
In fact, a story such as this would actually not be out of place on Techdirt. The problem is you're introducing it in the comments section of an article that has nothing to do with it. What I suggest you do is write up an article yourself and submit, and hopefully it gets published. That way, the story and point you want to make gets addressed and seen by an audience and then we can have a discussion. No-one wants to be reading an article about the MPAA, cinemas and Google Glass and then suddenly someone brings up Thailand for some fucking reason: that's an entirely different topic. It'd be like being in English class studying Shakespeare one day and then your professor mid-quote in Romeo and Juliet starts talking about the effects of the logging industry in South America. Good topics both, but they just don't belong together.
That's not Mike hiding those comments. For the last friggin' time, Mike does not choose which comments to hide. It's the community, and yes, I clicked report too. Each person who clicked report on those comments did so individually, there was no conspiracy or meet-ups or conversations between Techdirt members saying "Guys, click report on this!" We all as individuals read those comments and individually came to the conclusion that they had nothing to do with the article.
If you want to complain about your posts being hidden, go right ahead. Just don't immediately start off assuming that it was Mike. It wasn't. It was me and those of the Techdirt community who clicked report. Direct your complaints to us.
I already know of that story (I am a Techdirt Insider after all) and that was basically the answer to my question: that is part of what I fear and loathe about copyright law, in that in order to enforce it, you have to allow law enforcement officials wide powers to detain and punish suspects pre-trial, which is obviously not the society I want to live in.
After I write this comment, I'm going to email the head office of my favourite local cinema chain and ask them what their policy and views are on this matter. Sure, the law was clear and for the most part uncontroversial when the only recording devices commercially available were relatively large, bulky and noticeable, but thanks to the never-ending progress of technology, that is no longer true. As I've stated up above, what happens once bionic eyes with storage and Wi-fi are invented? In order for copyright to be enforced today and tomorrow inside of the cinema, you have to allow for extremely invasive search and seizure with very little justification, since (pretty soon) there's no real way to tell the guy actually camming the movie apart from the guy who is.
That...doesn't even make sense. When you're playing the DVD as it was designed to be played, you're not circumventing the DRM, you're putting the correct key in the lock so to speak. And no copy protection in CSS? So then...why would the movie studios who hate copies so much then push for CSS? I agree in that CSS doesn't actually prevent copying but that was its stated goal.
I know I hate it too but a DVD rip is not legal: to rip it, you have to circumvent the DRM on the DVD and that is in and of itself illegal, even if your end goal is something that is legal (a personal backup).
"It depends - are the lyrics relevant? If they're confessional in nature, or contain details that only the perpetrator would know, then yes?"
You'd have to be very careful then. If I write a rap song that has in the lyrics a murder that has Location A, Weapon B, Method C, Time D, Victim E (in other words, specifics), and a murder does happen that contains all of those, you would have to make sure that only I, the author of the rap, would know all of these details. If I were a famous rap artist and millions of people had heard y song...well then, plausible deniability.
What you said is technically incorrect. The US Government, by law (I know I know, I laugh too at the thought of the US government actually following the law) can't force somebody to say something that is an outright lie. At worst, they can force someone to stay silent on a given subject. So when somebody is talking about the security letters, if they say "I cannot confirm or deny I have received one" then take it as a given that they have. Or if they stay silent.
Wow. What little respect I had for the Register just went down the drain. They can have their opinions about whether certain online services can succeed or fail, but the article's author no less than three times insulted Dotcom's weight in that short article. This is the best you can find on someone criticizing him, blue? Someone who has to stoop to childish insults about someone's weight, instead of trying to give an honest-to-god's fair analysis on this piece of news?
...Mooncalf Mike? I'll give you points for finally tiring of your old insults, then I'll just as quickly take them away for using such a stupid and meaningless insult as Mooncalf, especially since it doesn't apply to Mike. Congratulations though on reading Shakespeare and H. G. Wells. Never would have thought you would have read them.
I suppose we should chalk this up to agree to disagree? I respect your opinion and do understand your desire to be compensated for your work - I'm just of the opinion that in a world where one group of people argue for the restriction of speech and property rights from everybody else (no matter how benign your intentions are in the first place), then you simply don't deserve it. Perhaps I blame what copyright has become, and refuse to recognise any potential benefits it had in its original form and so have become soured on the whole idea, but I don't want to give up my inherent rights merely so someone else can attempt to make a living. It's too high a price for me to willingly pay.
BTW, I'm first wording your comment as a shining example of how someone should argue for copyright. I disagree, but you explained yourself well. Hopefully certain people who shall go nameless can learn from your example.
Thank you. My wish has been granted. I can understand your premise and somewhat agree with you as to your reasons, but I oppose copyright purely for free speech and property rights.
Where it comes to property, it means that many of the machines that I buy do not actually transfer into my ownership. I may own the physical hardware, but I cannot reprogram or alter the device. Think the PS3 and Geohot. Where it not for copyright, anyone would be free to reprogram their machine to do whatever it is they want, but thanks to copyright, nope. As for free speech, copyright takes away my right to speech. It starts a process of self censorship, where if I want to make a point say in a Youtube video, I have to be careful about what it is I use. As for your point about selling your content - copyright does not grant you the ability to sell your works. You already have that . Give us a reason to buy from you. Instead of using legal power to quash other sellers, use social pressure and the power of social media to say to your fans to buy only from people you specify. Make your work available worldwide, with no bullshit geo-restrictions, and, as long as your work is good, your fans will gladly pay. If you gain enough of a following, and gain enough influence, you won't need to use the legal system to stop unauthorised sellers of your works - they'll either won't have a detrimental effect to your income or simply fade from existence. I'm saying this as a former hardcore pirate. Now I have a huge Steam library and pay to stream the shows I want to watch.
Pretty much. The way fair use is used today means you can't invoke it at the point you're accused. You can only really assert fair use once you're in court and in front of a judge, and they are the person who makes the final decision as to whether what you did counts as fair use. This is a huge problem because even just going to court at all is an expensive and frightening undertaking for most people: this is why copyright claimant trolls have gotten as bad as they are: they scare their victims into settling by saying how expensive a court case is.
"ONLY the cost of reproduction should be charged."
So in other words, when trying to determine the price at checkout, a digital download of a movie/game/song/ebook should only factor in the cost of downloading - which last I checked was barely a few pennies for a multi-gigabyte game, and this cost can be lowered even further down to effectively zero if the title is distributed via peer-to-peer. At which point, the argument you have just made shows that the cost to the customer, the price they pay = $0