DanC’s Techdirt Profile

cranedj

About DanC




DanC’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 20th, 2013 @ 11:59am

    (untitled comment)

    "when actually copyright is simple common law: 'I made it, therefore I own it'."

    This is a perfect demonstration that ootb doesn't actually understand the basics of copyright. When you get right down to it, people don't actually own what they've copyrighted. They own the copyright itself, which grants them special privileges in exchange for eventual release to the public domain and as the Constitution says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The timeframe for releasing works to the public domain has been unfairly lengthened to ridiculous levels by politicians since its inception, however.

    So it's not as simplistically wrong as "I made it, I own it" at all.

  • Aug 21st, 2012 @ 9:45pm

    (untitled comment)

    Depending on what range of years is used, I'm either a late Gen-X or an early Gen-Y. Either way, my bank account can attest to the fact that book publishers are receiving plenty of my money.

    I think the myth that the current generation doesn't read is nothing more than a gut reaction of the previous for having the audacity to have differing values. It's nothing more than the "kids these days" syndrome that occurs with every generation. I daresay we'll be just as guilty of it ourselves on some level.

  • Mar 27th, 2012 @ 10:10am

    Re:

    A distributor that won't distribute is little more than a parasite, disallowing the creator from finding a distributor that will actually perform their job function.

  • Jun 16th, 2010 @ 6:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Maybe not Hypocrites ...

    I know a little bit of the history behind the agreement between Gaiman and McFarlane. It was essentially a handshake agreement, which is why the issues of copyright ownership, royalties, and the like have been in the courts for so long.

  • Apr 14th, 2010 @ 10:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Then shouldn't the producers of content be honest with their customers and tell them that they're actually only renting the music and movies?

  • Jan 21st, 2010 @ 5:23pm

    Re: Re:

    Because it covers quite a bit more than just counterfeiting, despite its title.

  • Jan 7th, 2010 @ 3:03pm

    Re: RE

    "It's stealing if you didn't come up with it"

    Not even close, but keep trying. You don't make any sense either...you bemoan someone's attitude as creating the "ownership structure we are stuck in now" when your notion of what constitutes ownership and theft leaves no room for fair use or the public domain. It also demonstrates a tremendous lack of common sense. As Sir Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

    Additionally, I'm not sure if you're trying to imply that you're a lawyer, but if so, you should definitely start spelling it correctly.

  • Dec 30th, 2009 @ 4:43pm

    Re: Re: Fuzzy lines

    Whether the person is profiting is only one of the factors a court uses to determine fair use, and hardly the only thing that matters.

    There is no hard line that determines what is and what is not fair use. There are generalities that can be used to determine if something would most likely be considered fair use based on common sense and court rulings.

  • Dec 10th, 2009 @ 10:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Another lovely from Mike

    In which case you should have just bought a motherboard with integrated graphics in the first place.

  • Nov 11th, 2009 @ 9:26am

    Re: News must be free

    Um, there's no paywall on TechDirt.

  • Nov 10th, 2009 @ 9:24am

    Re: Murdoch's lock

    I have long wondered why WSJ stories are accessible on-line during the initial search but then locked when you share them with others (e.g., via social media channels). It's unbelievable actually.

    It's actually more evidence that Murdoch is trying to spread FUD about Google. The WSJ checks the referrer header, and if it comes from Google, you get to see the full article. If the link didn't come from Google, you don't.

    Murdoch knows full well that Google provides a valuable service to his organizations, he just doesn't want to have to admit it.

  • Nov 9th, 2009 @ 4:18pm

    Re:

    You're making it sound like Google News provides nothing to the news sites, which obviously isn't true. If it were, every news site would simply modify their robots.txt file and be done with it. Google News sends visitors to the news sites - what they don't like is that Google makes money on providing a service making fair use of their material.

    Your "solution" of stopping the aggregators simply wouldn't work, regardless. The newspapers all complain about Google, knowing full well they can block it easily. It's posturing, plain and simple - they don't want to lose the audience Google sends their way. So they raise the threat of a paywall, to see if they can get Google to cough up some money for them.

    The newspapers aren't interested in solving their problems - they're interested in finding someone to blame, and trying to make them pay. Paywalls have been tried before, and for the most part have failed miserably. And without the ability to share links, social networks won't touch the sites. Micropayments are another dead-end - nobody wants to break out their credit card to read a news story.

    It's not the aggregator's fault the news sites are losing money - they're just being used as scapegoats. The real problem is the news sites themselves, who have developed a massive sense of entitlement to any use of their content. They think if they can just "take back the news", everything will be fine, except what they're proposing is essentially a suicide pact.

  • Nov 9th, 2009 @ 1:17pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Check your bank account, check his. Check the number of companies you own, check his list. Call me when you catch up. Just being insulting towards a very successful businessman is arrogant.

    Translation: since you're not as successful as Murdoch, you should just automatically assume every idea he has is brilliant. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy.

    The fact is, since they've always had the option to block Google's news aggregating, it's nothing but empty blustering when he bashes them.

    Distribution should be something you ask for,

    Says who?

    not something that is shoved onto you without permission.

    Sorry, the internet doesn't work that way. Linking, aggregating, embedding, etc...no permission required. If you don't want your stuff distributed on the internet, don't put it there.

  • Nov 5th, 2009 @ 4:41pm

    Re: Homework

    You mean it's not a criminal issue - it's still a legal issue regardless.

  • Oct 18th, 2009 @ 11:34am

    Re: I just don't get why this is an argument

    Why are you arguing about the morality of stealing copy written material?

    Because stealing and infringement aren't synonyms.

    We're not talking about someone stealing bread and water so they can live in this case either.

    Exactly correct - those are physical items. If you take someone's bread and water, they no longer have those items. It doesn't work that way with so called "intellectual property". Infringement is unlawful copying, not stealing.

  • Oct 17th, 2009 @ 10:52am

    Re:

    Except that, if you knew anything about TechDirt, you'd know it is not, in fact, ad-supported.

    It has ads, but does not rely on them to keep the site running.

  • Sep 17th, 2009 @ 3:00pm

    (untitled comment)

    Most of the articles I've been able to find claim that the two patents at issue are the same ones Paltalk sued Microsoft over previously.

    5,822,523 - Server-group messaging system for interactive applications
    6,226,686 - Server-group messaging system for interactive applications

    PalTalk acquired the patents from HearMe, formerly known as MPath.

  • Aug 14th, 2009 @ 8:08am

    Re: Re:

    Yes, and could imagine the uproar if every book in a bookstore suddenly had a label slapped on it to that effect? every time you picked up a book, someone tapped you on the shoulder and reminded you that you can read it at the library for free?

    Except that in order for any of this to come about, someone has to install the extension - it's a user choice to install and use it, and since it's accessing public domain material, I'm not really sure where you're seeing a lawsuit.

  • Jul 10th, 2009 @ 12:36pm

    The promoter, not Deep Purple?

    According to this article, it's not the band itself but the concert promoter who failed to pay the proper public performance licenses.

    The whole matter still seems incredibly ridiculous, however.

  • Jun 19th, 2009 @ 10:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Not Your Choice

    Hey genius, most musicians that copyright their music do it with their own production companies.

    While I'm sure you meant 'genius' sarcastically, you haven't contradicted what I've said.

    This does not mean that you buy a record and you can copy it and give anyone who wants a copy. Whether you like it or not the law is still the law. Just ask the lady in Minnesota who got nailed yesterday.

    Ok...you're apparently reading things I didn't write. In any case, your original comment had nothing to do with the article. You did, however, manage to present an example that illustrates the point quite nicely. The use of 'Imagine' in the Stein's propaganda film was ruled fair use; it doesn't matter if Ono supported the films viewpoint or not. The use of the song was allowable, and there is no moral right as to how music is used.

More comments from DanC >>