I can't think of anything more utterly petty than this response. Your whole life is wrapped up attacking some guy that runs a blog. I'm glad it entertains you so much. I will avoid reading anything you contribute in the future.
So what if he doesn't take a stand. He doesn't have to and that's his perogative. He's going to do and say whatever he wants and you're left complaining about it.
If you don't think he's honest or trustworthy, why come to his website - constantly - to try and out him. What's in it for you? You've been on this blog for years. That's one very sad life. Why do you care so much?
Find something you love to put your energy toward, rather than something you hate.
The guy publishes something every day and you come here just to read it, but then contend he offers nothing?
If you actually believe he brings nothing useful to the table, then why are you eating it up? Why not find something more nutritious?
And as I saw earlier today, the only reason people demand feedback from Mike is so that they can make every effort later to use those words against him.
I just replied to three of your comments in a row, but you no debate me? All you seem to be interested in is discrediting the blog owner.
And I find it amusingly ironic that you dog Mike for making sweeping statements in an article about politicians and lobbyists making sweeping statements - people whose statements have far more influence than anything said here. But I guess you agree with those sweeping statements so it's fine.
And now I'm sorry I bothered to reply to you at all.
Um... it's been stated here many times that it would be better for artists to embrace infringers rather than litigate against them, and relaxing copyright law instead of creating harsher laws is more likely to make them more money.
Make a law that people can respect and they just might respect the laws. It's pretty hard to respect a copyright law that block my attempts to be creative in so many ways.
I agree that quantifying culture can be impossible. It's about a whole lot more than can be measured with dollar figures, which is the only way corporations and the government have to measure things.
And if the effectiveness of copyright can't be measured, then there's really no reason to have copyright.
I'm an artist, a techie, and the public - copyright is messed up from all three perspectives, but I tend to favor reforms that benefit the public the most.
That's different than a government edict. The government isn't publishing the material, merely accepting it as the standard. It wouldn't become public domain or controlled by the government.
At the same time, there's no reason the government couldn't purchase the copyright of privately held works and make it public domain as a way of setting standards.
In the future we will all buy our movie tickets before the movie is even made.
Instead of pitching a story to a studio executive, you'll just pitch it to the public.
Many will fail to properly execute their pitch, and people will be disappointed with the final films. They will not get their next project funded.
But a handful will impress and be able to deliver great films that will lead to more funding for future projects - these will be the filmmakers of the future.
Seems like a typical instance of a politician lying to a special interest to garner their favor. He knows it won't happen and he doesn't have the power to make it happen, so he can talk about it all day like something's going to change and everyone's happy.
You're assuming the person that uploaded the photo owns the copyright. A lot of what is on flickr, esp. the for the kind of old photos that would be considered orphan works, the copyright holder if far more difficult to find than a simple image search.
Even if that were the case, I don't see any politicians on that list. All I see are a bunch of organizations that would financially benefit from a lack of orphan works.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can't think of anything more utterly petty than this response. Your whole life is wrapped up attacking some guy that runs a blog. I'm glad it entertains you so much. I will avoid reading anything you contribute in the future.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what if he doesn't take a stand. He doesn't have to and that's his perogative. He's going to do and say whatever he wants and you're left complaining about it.
If you don't think he's honest or trustworthy, why come to his website - constantly - to try and out him. What's in it for you? You've been on this blog for years. That's one very sad life. Why do you care so much?
Find something you love to put your energy toward, rather than something you hate.
Re: Re: Re:
The guy publishes something every day and you come here just to read it, but then contend he offers nothing?
If you actually believe he brings nothing useful to the table, then why are you eating it up? Why not find something more nutritious?
And as I saw earlier today, the only reason people demand feedback from Mike is so that they can make every effort later to use those words against him.
I just replied to three of your comments in a row, but you no debate me? All you seem to be interested in is discrediting the blog owner.
And I find it amusingly ironic that you dog Mike for making sweeping statements in an article about politicians and lobbyists making sweeping statements - people whose statements have far more influence than anything said here. But I guess you agree with those sweeping statements so it's fine.
And now I'm sorry I bothered to reply to you at all.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, my income is through publishing.
Re:
Um... it's been stated here many times that it would be better for artists to embrace infringers rather than litigate against them, and relaxing copyright law instead of creating harsher laws is more likely to make them more money.
Make a law that people can respect and they just might respect the laws. It's pretty hard to respect a copyright law that block my attempts to be creative in so many ways.
Re:
I agree that quantifying culture can be impossible. It's about a whole lot more than can be measured with dollar figures, which is the only way corporations and the government have to measure things.
And if the effectiveness of copyright can't be measured, then there's really no reason to have copyright.
Re:
I'm an artist, a techie, and the public - copyright is messed up from all three perspectives, but I tend to favor reforms that benefit the public the most.
Re: Re: Re:
Corporations love expensive games because they have enough money to play and the price tag keeps out the riff raff.
Re:
Neutral reports also don't come with campaign funds and private sector job offers.
Re:
That's different than a government edict. The government isn't publishing the material, merely accepting it as the standard. It wouldn't become public domain or controlled by the government.
At the same time, there's no reason the government couldn't purchase the copyright of privately held works and make it public domain as a way of setting standards.
(untitled comment)
In the future we will all buy our movie tickets before the movie is even made.
Instead of pitching a story to a studio executive, you'll just pitch it to the public.
Many will fail to properly execute their pitch, and people will be disappointed with the final films. They will not get their next project funded.
But a handful will impress and be able to deliver great films that will lead to more funding for future projects - these will be the filmmakers of the future.
Re:
Tell your wife you found a way to save $900 a year and take her on a nice vacation.
(untitled comment)
i hope TechDirt is being translated into German.
(untitled comment)
Seems like a typical instance of a politician lying to a special interest to garner their favor. He knows it won't happen and he doesn't have the power to make it happen, so he can talk about it all day like something's going to change and everyone's happy.
(untitled comment)
Gee, they could single-handedly make two or three of those $100 million movies bob likes to watch.
Re:
It sounds like they'd be happy if I didn't watch their stuff at all, which I haven't ever since I got this new fangled internet thingy.
They're climbing the mast of a (slowly) sinking ship.
Re: Re:
You're assuming the person that uploaded the photo owns the copyright. A lot of what is on flickr, esp. the for the kind of old photos that would be considered orphan works, the copyright holder if far more difficult to find than a simple image search.
Re: But you forget, sir...
Even if that were the case, I don't see any politicians on that list. All I see are a bunch of organizations that would financially benefit from a lack of orphan works.
(untitled comment)
If you have a terrorist problem, perhaps being more lenient will get better results than more spying?
Re: MPAA Consider Fair Use
Except the MPAA does everything it can to keep the courts from ruling on Fair Use, since a solid case history would undermine their control.