So your argument is that because you can think one individual who does something with copyright you don't like, that means that we should chuck the whole system? You fit right in with Mike's Army. With that logic, we should chuck every single thing that exists on earth. There's always some perceived asshole doing something. Let me guess: pirate much?
Actually, they go hand in hand. You promote the progress by protecting the rights of the people who make that progress. One is not mutually exclusive of the other.
Mike wants to separate the means from the ends. He wants to promote the progress so long as we don't do it by granting to authors exclusive rights. It's important to pretend like the two aren't interrelated since he hates the means so much. That's why he always and only focuses on the negatives, or his version of the negatives anyway, of copyright. He'll never put things into perspective or acknowledge that there are even positives. His mantra is that it's completely broken, and his dream is to see the day when authors have no exclusive rights whatsoever.
Where does Mike say which exclusive rights he thinks authors/artists should have? No where. Where does Mike explain his personal beliefs about the morality of infringement? No where. This isn't hard, Marcus.
I enjoy pointing out that Mike is too scared to ever talk about the specifics of his beliefs about copyright. I think it's hilarious that he's so opinionated and given so much thought to copyright yet he's so completely unwilling to discuss things on the merits. It's the classic presentation of a zealous demagogue.
I don't get your point. Does Mike tell us how to measure the progress? No. It's high-level rhetoric. It sounds like to say that we should base things on evidence, but he never explains exactly how we'd do that. Nor does he explain how we'd measure the things that can't be measured. You haven't refuted a single thing I said. You're just disagreeing with me for disagreement's sake.
Yeah, I'm pointing out that he isn't saying anything concrete or helpful. He isn't putting any skin in the game, as per usual. I'm not asking him to debate me because I know for a fact that he is too scared to. I'm challenging to say even one concrete idea about copyright reform.
The guy publishes something every day and you come here just to read it, but then contend he offers nothing?
Yes. Mike never takes a concrete stand on copyright. He pretends like he is completely unable to form a solid opinion on things. And he claims that since he doesn't know something for a fact with 100% certainty, he is unable to form an opinion on it. Now, he will of course cite with glee anything that anybody says that reflects negatively on copyright. And he'll latch onto just about any argument that calls for less copyright. But when pressed for his personal views to be stated concretely, he makes excuses and runs away every time. Just watch him over the next couple years with this copyright revision. He'll have all sorts of opinions, but none of them concrete and he won't discuss his views on the merits.
I just replied to three of your comments in a row, but you no debate me?
That's not the same A.C. The whiny, "debate meeeee!!!" A.C. is in fact Average Joe.
I have not once asked Mike to debate me. Again, making up stuff and ignoring the evidence.
Average Joe would never, in a million years, say something like "IP is a privilege provided for by the government and no one is entitled to anything the government provides."
IP is rights provided by the government, not privileges, but I certainly agree that rightholders are not necessarily entitled to these rights. One day you'll represent my position accurately. Um, on second thought, probably not. You ignore evidence too much.
You don't have "artist friends." You have "lawyer friends."
Oh look. More sweeping pronouncements stated as fact that are not based on any evidence. Your specialty!
This is flat-out ridiculous. The public's interest is the only interest that matters.
So artists don't matter? Techies don't matter? I don't agree.
This is to say that the public doesn't benefit from artists and technology - certainly, they do. But as far a copyright is concerned, those two interests are derivative of the public's interest. Not the other way around.
But we give the exclusive rights to the artists/authors so that in turn can benefit the public. We don't give the rights to the public first.
I know you love to pretend that the public isn't a stakeholder, that they're just onlookers in the copyright debates. They're not.
And yet I said: "Of course the public is a stakeholder too . . . ." Again, ignoring all evidence you don't like to make claims not based on the evidence. You're really good at it, Karl. Kudos. It's truly remarkable.
Reading your comment threads reminds me of when Joe Scarborough went on Charlie Rose to debate Paul Krugman about the US debt and deficit. Paul presented salient points and well reasoned arguments, while all Joe could do was spew ad homs and scare up boogeymen. You've even got the same name! Coincidence? Maybe. But then again, maybe not?
I'm pointing out that Mike has not said one concrete thing. And I suspect, based on years of watching him only approach copyright from a high-level, he never will. I'd love to see him actually make even one concrete suggestion based on any of his "framework" above. Mike hasn't presented any "salient points." It's just a bunch of rhetoric. Krugman at least says concrete things about the economy. Mike just gives us the view from the clouds without ever putting any real skin in the debate.
LOL! I know he won't debate me. He's too scared. I'm just challenging him to actually say something concrete. This high-level nonsense doesn't tell us anything useful. Anyone can make sweeping pronouncements like this. Stating something concrete is difficult, but it's way more productive. Mike wants so desperately to be in on the debate. That's great. But he needs to actually bring something useful to the table.
As we've seen over and over again, consumers are actually spending more today on entertainment than ever before, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And tons of studies have shown that the biggest infringers also tend to be the biggest spenders.
Again, this is all just high-level stuff that doesn't tell us anything concrete. Let's assume that it's true that the biggest infringers are the biggest spenders. So what? What exactly do you think we should do about that fact, Mike? You never tell us anything concrete. Make an argument about what we should do given that fact. Get some skin in the game.
Decisions need to be made based on empirical data. As we've discussed in the past, historically, copyright reform discussions have been almost entirely faith-based. This is why the claims of "everyone just wants stuff for free" are so concerning," since the data suggests that's not even close to true. Given the recent call for objective research that would be useful in the copyright debate, by the US National Research Council, I'm hopeful that we'll actually begin to see some useful data for this discussion. Hopefully those in Congress will actually pay attention to the data, rather than continue to insist that blatantly false claims must be true.
This sounds good as a high-level principle, but you never explain exactly how we measure the "the progress." What variables are there? How are they weighted? How does one measure them? And what about all the things that simply cannot be measured? How do you account for that? You make it sound like this is simple to do, but it seems to me to be impossible.
I like objective data as much as you, but I fail to see how this stuff could ever really be measured in meaningful way. Thoughts? I'd love to hear the details of how you think we obtain and agree upon this data. As it is, I think you just keep repeating this as a rhetorical device, but I've yet to see you give it any concreteness.
Too many representatives continued to set this up as a battle between "content creators" and "the tech industry." This is dangerously misleading. In fact, at one point, Rep. Deutch flat out said that any copyright reform must carefully benefit "creators and the tech industry, as if those were the only two stakeholders. The real stakeholders of copyright law, however, have always been the public, who were barely mentioned at all in the hearing. Or, when they were mentioned, it was often with the somewhat disparaging term "users."
It seems pretty accurate to me. As your site demonstrates daily, it does boil down to your tech buddies vs. my artist friends. Of course the public is a stakeholder too, and they count at the ballot box, but the two interests who are going to drive most of this copyright reform are techies and artists. The public's interest is derivative of those two interests.
Because if copyright infringement were rape, Mike would be saying, "rape is not OK, because it happens against the victim's will."
This is not very controversial, and it is not even remotely like the argument that rape victims "should just like it."
Wow. So it's reasonable to think that the only reason rape is not OK is because it goes against the victim's will? That strikes me as very controversial. What about the fact that it causes harm to the victim? What about the interests of society?
So, not only are you an immoral scumbag, you're a lying immoral scumbag.
Getting personal much? It's one thing to disagree with me, but you needn't call me names like this.
He has provided none. Nobody else has provided any. The reason is that none exists.
And before you ask Mike to show "that there is no such evidence," you know very well that this is factually impossible. You can't prove a negative.
Contradict yourself much? You claim that it's impossible to prove there is no such evidence, but then you state categorically that there is no evidence. LOL! If you admit that you can't prove there is no evidence, then why are claiming that there is no such evidence? You can't prove that, as you admit.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LMAO. You guys are awesome. I love this place.
Re: Re: A sad misunderstanding
So your argument is that because you can think one individual who does something with copyright you don't like, that means that we should chuck the whole system? You fit right in with Mike's Army. With that logic, we should chuck every single thing that exists on earth. There's always some perceived asshole doing something. Let me guess: pirate much?
Re: A sad misunderstanding
Actually, they go hand in hand. You promote the progress by protecting the rights of the people who make that progress. One is not mutually exclusive of the other.
Mike wants to separate the means from the ends. He wants to promote the progress so long as we don't do it by granting to authors exclusive rights. It's important to pretend like the two aren't interrelated since he hates the means so much. That's why he always and only focuses on the negatives, or his version of the negatives anyway, of copyright. He'll never put things into perspective or acknowledge that there are even positives. His mantra is that it's completely broken, and his dream is to see the day when authors have no exclusive rights whatsoever.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where does Mike say which exclusive rights he thinks authors/artists should have? No where. Where does Mike explain his personal beliefs about the morality of infringement? No where. This isn't hard, Marcus.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I enjoy pointing out that Mike is too scared to ever talk about the specifics of his beliefs about copyright. I think it's hilarious that he's so opinionated and given so much thought to copyright yet he's so completely unwilling to discuss things on the merits. It's the classic presentation of a zealous demagogue.
Re: Re:
I don't get your point. Does Mike tell us how to measure the progress? No. It's high-level rhetoric. It sounds like to say that we should base things on evidence, but he never explains exactly how we'd do that. Nor does he explain how we'd measure the things that can't be measured. You haven't refuted a single thing I said. You're just disagreeing with me for disagreement's sake.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHOA! Stop at: "everyone just wants stuff for free".
Not too bright. The context was obviously referring to the comments in this article in particular. I'm not asking Mike to debate me HERE. Duh.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LMAO!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHOA! Stop at: "everyone just wants stuff for free".
Yeah, I'm pointing out that he isn't saying anything concrete or helpful. He isn't putting any skin in the game, as per usual. I'm not asking him to debate me because I know for a fact that he is too scared to. I'm challenging to say even one concrete idea about copyright reform.
Re: The Mike Masnick Copyright Reform Plan
Ha!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The guy publishes something every day and you come here just to read it, but then contend he offers nothing?
Yes. Mike never takes a concrete stand on copyright. He pretends like he is completely unable to form a solid opinion on things. And he claims that since he doesn't know something for a fact with 100% certainty, he is unable to form an opinion on it. Now, he will of course cite with glee anything that anybody says that reflects negatively on copyright. And he'll latch onto just about any argument that calls for less copyright. But when pressed for his personal views to be stated concretely, he makes excuses and runs away every time. Just watch him over the next couple years with this copyright revision. He'll have all sorts of opinions, but none of them concrete and he won't discuss his views on the merits.
I just replied to three of your comments in a row, but you no debate me?
Do you want the honest answer?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHOA! Stop at: "everyone just wants stuff for free".
That's not the same A.C. The whiny, "debate meeeee!!!" A.C. is in fact Average Joe.
I have not once asked Mike to debate me. Again, making up stuff and ignoring the evidence.
Average Joe would never, in a million years, say something like "IP is a privilege provided for by the government and no one is entitled to anything the government provides."
IP is rights provided by the government, not privileges, but I certainly agree that rightholders are not necessarily entitled to these rights. One day you'll represent my position accurately. Um, on second thought, probably not. You ignore evidence too much.
Re: Re:
You don't have "artist friends." You have "lawyer friends."
Oh look. More sweeping pronouncements stated as fact that are not based on any evidence. Your specialty!
This is flat-out ridiculous. The public's interest is the only interest that matters.
So artists don't matter? Techies don't matter? I don't agree.
This is to say that the public doesn't benefit from artists and technology - certainly, they do. But as far a copyright is concerned, those two interests are derivative of the public's interest. Not the other way around.
But we give the exclusive rights to the artists/authors so that in turn can benefit the public. We don't give the rights to the public first.
I know you love to pretend that the public isn't a stakeholder, that they're just onlookers in the copyright debates. They're not.
And yet I said: "Of course the public is a stakeholder too . . . ." Again, ignoring all evidence you don't like to make claims not based on the evidence. You're really good at it, Karl. Kudos. It's truly remarkable.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reading your comment threads reminds me of when Joe Scarborough went on Charlie Rose to debate Paul Krugman about the US debt and deficit. Paul presented salient points and well reasoned arguments, while all Joe could do was spew ad homs and scare up boogeymen. You've even got the same name! Coincidence? Maybe. But then again, maybe not?
I'm pointing out that Mike has not said one concrete thing. And I suspect, based on years of watching him only approach copyright from a high-level, he never will. I'd love to see him actually make even one concrete suggestion based on any of his "framework" above. Mike hasn't presented any "salient points." It's just a bunch of rhetoric. Krugman at least says concrete things about the economy. Mike just gives us the view from the clouds without ever putting any real skin in the debate.
Re: Re:
WHY YOU NO DEBATE ME!!!1!!!
LOL! I know he won't debate me. He's too scared. I'm just challenging him to actually say something concrete. This high-level nonsense doesn't tell us anything useful. Anyone can make sweeping pronouncements like this. Stating something concrete is difficult, but it's way more productive. Mike wants so desperately to be in on the debate. That's great. But he needs to actually bring something useful to the table.
(untitled comment)
As we've seen over and over again, consumers are actually spending more today on entertainment than ever before, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And tons of studies have shown that the biggest infringers also tend to be the biggest spenders.
Again, this is all just high-level stuff that doesn't tell us anything concrete. Let's assume that it's true that the biggest infringers are the biggest spenders. So what? What exactly do you think we should do about that fact, Mike? You never tell us anything concrete. Make an argument about what we should do given that fact. Get some skin in the game.
(untitled comment)
Decisions need to be made based on empirical data. As we've discussed in the past, historically, copyright reform discussions have been almost entirely faith-based. This is why the claims of "everyone just wants stuff for free" are so concerning," since the data suggests that's not even close to true. Given the recent call for objective research that would be useful in the copyright debate, by the US National Research Council, I'm hopeful that we'll actually begin to see some useful data for this discussion. Hopefully those in Congress will actually pay attention to the data, rather than continue to insist that blatantly false claims must be true.
This sounds good as a high-level principle, but you never explain exactly how we measure the "the progress." What variables are there? How are they weighted? How does one measure them? And what about all the things that simply cannot be measured? How do you account for that? You make it sound like this is simple to do, but it seems to me to be impossible.
I like objective data as much as you, but I fail to see how this stuff could ever really be measured in meaningful way. Thoughts? I'd love to hear the details of how you think we obtain and agree upon this data. As it is, I think you just keep repeating this as a rhetorical device, but I've yet to see you give it any concreteness.
(untitled comment)
Too many representatives continued to set this up as a battle between "content creators" and "the tech industry." This is dangerously misleading. In fact, at one point, Rep. Deutch flat out said that any copyright reform must carefully benefit "creators and the tech industry, as if those were the only two stakeholders. The real stakeholders of copyright law, however, have always been the public, who were barely mentioned at all in the hearing. Or, when they were mentioned, it was often with the somewhat disparaging term "users."
It seems pretty accurate to me. As your site demonstrates daily, it does boil down to your tech buddies vs. my artist friends. Of course the public is a stakeholder too, and they count at the ballot box, but the two interests who are going to drive most of this copyright reform are techies and artists. The public's interest is derivative of those two interests.
Re: Re: Re:
Because if copyright infringement were rape, Mike would be saying, "rape is not OK, because it happens against the victim's will."
This is not very controversial, and it is not even remotely like the argument that rape victims "should just like it."
Wow. So it's reasonable to think that the only reason rape is not OK is because it goes against the victim's will? That strikes me as very controversial. What about the fact that it causes harm to the victim? What about the interests of society?
So, not only are you an immoral scumbag, you're a lying immoral scumbag.
Getting personal much? It's one thing to disagree with me, but you needn't call me names like this.
Re: Re:
He has provided none. Nobody else has provided any. The reason is that none exists.
And before you ask Mike to show "that there is no such evidence," you know very well that this is factually impossible. You can't prove a negative.
Contradict yourself much? You claim that it's impossible to prove there is no such evidence, but then you state categorically that there is no evidence. LOL! If you admit that you can't prove there is no evidence, then why are claiming that there is no such evidence? You can't prove that, as you admit.