Crade's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the favorite-them-up dept
This week's favorites post comes from crade
Happy Saturday to the workers. I guess we have another week of dirty tech and it would be good to review, summarize, and have a look at the best posts of the week. We aren't going to, though; we are going to have a look at the ones I happened to take a fancy to instead.
Now I am a great lover of irony and one of the things I have found the most ironic about this whole ever-encroaching copyright "cage of security" is that while the biggest pushers for a smaller cage claim it's all for the protection of the artists, they are near legendary for their constant mistreatment of those artists. Not only that but copyright is one of the strongest tools they have used to do it. So it was in the heyday of vinyl and so it is today. So, here they are again, using copyright legislation to force the takedown of the work of an emerging artist. And using their stricter rules to censor people trying to speak against them and to keep people from trying to be artists all while Senator Leahy claims there is no First Amendment issue at all.
Ironic enough? Ha! It gets better. At the same time that the record labels use stricter laws to censor new music, they are also breaking the law themselves. The artists are lining up to sue the labels for infringment and the record labels could owe them up to $2 billion. Of course making sure artists get paid for their hard work is the labels' greatest desire, their raison-d'être and certainly the reason they need to make the security cage so tight we can't breathe.
I know I shouldn't find this stuff funny, but I can't help it.
Besides being a lover of irony, I am a somewhat lawfully minded individual. I believe in the law (to a decent extent). Laws are decided jointly, to a minimum extent (if they were not, there would be rebellion), and when the law is wrong, or bad, I believe it needs to be addressed, not reinterpreted to do "less" harm, nor ignored nor casually broken. Now laws that are wrong are not easy to fix, certainly my opinion is not going to do it, and I'm not entirely convinced even logical arguments from the Harvard Business Review, explaining how big content is strangling innovation, are going to get the job done. In order to get laws changed, we need outrage.
The completely unjustified secrecy around ACTA generated some nice controversy and got a few people asking questions, and now with the TPP, they may be doing the same thing. Splendid! Alzheimer's Institute of America directly interfering with Alzheimer's research by suing a bunch of other researchers has the potential to ruffle a few feathers. Although the ridiculous liability issues Google and Yahoo are facing (Google is being found liable for its Autocomplete Suggestions and Yahoo for its users being able to search for infringing movies) are over in Italy this week, perhaps it is a sign of things to come. Or maybe it will piss them off enough to start doing more about the issue in general.
We have seen that people are willing to get up in arms about the hyperbolic amount of cashola involved in copyright infringement lawsuits, so maybe it's a good thing that the record companies aren't letting up on that front, as well, and are still appealing to try to get Joel Tenenbaum to pay $675,000 for downloading a measly 30 songs. Sliding in at the last minute, Denmark's recent decision to endorse retroactive copyright extensions sure seems outrageous to me, so here's hoping it makes some waves.
So thats what I come to Techdirt for. A little humor, and hopefully some pot stirring and a bit of hope for the future!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Too many thieves and pirates break ANY business model.
Being offended that ootb's garbage ad hominem's aren't even true is like being offended that the world is still turning.
Re: Re: Too many thieves and pirates break ANY business model.
You forgot, imho the biggest reason:
Because the actual musicians mostly all hate them for how badly they have always treated musicians in the past and have actual choices now.
Re: Re: Re: Too many thieves and pirates break ANY business model.
I take special care to not infringe on copyrights, although certainly not because I believe in copyright law as it is. I don't pretend that I haven't ran afoul of copyright law, though.. I'm pretty sure thats not actually possible to accomplish in our day and age. Just that I do my absolute humble best not to.
I hope it's not my statement that is offensive? I'm just making the moral argument that ootb requested:
Even if you assume that copyright infringment is wrong
It doesn't change whether or not punishing those who are not responsible is wrong.
Re: Too many thieves and pirates break ANY business model.
"You pirates".. lol I love people who can't make a real argument.
Hows this:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
(untitled comment)
This talk of balance between security and freedom of the press sounds really familiar.
I guess they decided China was right all along.
(untitled comment)
" and then complain that the process isn't working"
No $h*t Sherlock. So the answer must be "pile on more of the same" right? lol
(untitled comment)
They probably did research, made a decision and closed their browser window. Thats what I would do.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that this change specifically only deals with the case where there is no copyright infringment involved *does* tell you that it cannot possibly weaken copyrights. It does weaken the ability to harrass people for other reasons that are not related to your copyrights, though... That is the whole point.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree. It is complete nonsense so it must be part of copyright law. If you are not doing anything related to copying anything or even related to copyrighted content in any way, you are infringing on copyright. Makes sense in a copyright law kinda way. Must be part of copyright law. Gold Star!
(untitled comment)
You can't fix it now.. You just finally managed to force Canada to put it into our law. :(
Re:
Cuz no one has actually done anything to make them stop yet.
Re:
Pretty much. Another win for Prenda by my count. Thats all they ever seem to be getting anywhere else as well.
Did they even have to pay for his lawyer fees?
(untitled comment)
They are just trying to help him out.. You can't join classics like Lolita without being banned and censored by a few Orwellians.
Re: Re: Re:
Either way, evidence that reality shows are rigged doesn't seem to really affect the people who like them much..
Re: Responsibility
The person who pulled the trigger is always blamed and punished plenty (assuming they aren't already gone). Trying to learn the whys is intended for the future, not the past.
(untitled comment)
That article you linked to doesn't seem to say that mass shootings are decreasing at all. It says there hasn't been an increasing trend over the last "several decades", but it definately increased in 2012. It doesn't seem to make the claim that there has been a decreasing trend either, though, and seems to just assume that 2012 was an anomaly and can be ignored.
(untitled comment)
Only problem is there is just as much violent media in other countries that aren't currently having a rash of psychos flipping out...
Re: Re:
exactly. Combine that with the fact that at least a few people think there is the potential for a problem and how much airlines love security theater, and you have your reason. No one said it was going to be a good reason :)
(untitled comment)
Way I see it is basically their house, their rules. I wouldn't be happy if someone ignored my rules at my place because they thought they knew better than me and there is no evidence that marble can be harmed by not using coasters (or whatever), so I try not to do it to others unless theres good reason..
(untitled comment)
The reason is that they aren't 100% sure that the phone couldn't interfere with the plane in some freak million to one scenario that no one has thought of. It's not because they expect interference, or because interference is likely, it's just because they haven't tested every phone in every situation. Of course they know there is hardly any chance of a problem. If there was decent chance of a problem, you can bet they wouldn't rely on their current "say and pray" policy for handling it.
On the other hand, if there was some freak problem caused by interference from a cell phone, they don't have to take responsibility for it as long as they have their token policy in place.