"Yet, you only hyper-focus on the outliers. What's the matter with a little perspective on things, Mike?"
What perspective is required for a story about four film studios all trying to illegally suppress a film about a website they hate, and which is (probably) critical of their actions? This isn't just just an "outlier", this is an egregious example of copyright abuse as censorship, an act that is the complete antithesis of the stated supposed of copyright, i.e. encouraging creativity.
"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."
Mike has never claimed such a thing. And your imagination does not count as evidence that he has.
"It's important to pretend like the two aren't interrelated since he hates the means so much."
No, its pretty clear that Mike and many others hate the damage those means, in their current form, are causing. Whatever the desired results from copyright, when the current downsides are considered it's hard to justify keeping the system unless it's massively reformed.
"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."
To be fair, it's pretty hard to see the positives. Feel free to present evidence of modern copyright producing the results intended when it was enacted. In fact, why don't you start your own 'Great Things About Copyright' blog so we can all see how awesome you think things really are!
"His mantra is that it's completely broken..."
That's pretty much the case...
"...and his dream is to see the day when authors have no exclusive rights whatsoever."
... but this claim is the product of your imagination and is not backed up by any evidence you've ever shared here.
"No matter who your friends are, your viewpoints support infringement lawsuits and the lawyers who benefit from them. And nothing else."
This can't be emphasised enough. AJ is just like so many other copyright maximilists who claim to be all about supporting artists, but on closer inspection their arguments are clearly in support of a system that makes a lot of money from artists (via recored companies) but offers nothing in return.
He will never name them. Chances are he's simply making them up to bolster his weak arguments, but if not, I imagine they'd be horribly embarrassed to be publicly linked to someone like AJ.
...as soon as he sets foot anywhere with an extradition treaty with the US, he will get bagged, gagged, and tagged with a one way ticket to the US.
Anywhere with an extradition treaty with the US, just like NZ. What makes you think things would happen any differently in another country. The US's case isn't going to suddenly change from laughably weak to extradition-worthy overnight.
"I didn't claim that, so I am not sure what you feel you corrected. I stated only that "512(f) is there specifically to handle people claiming to hold copyright on something they do not own", but that does not limit to ONLY that purpose."
Actually that's exactly how your comment reads. If that's not what you meant you shouldn't have used the word 'specifically'. In this context it is indeed a limiting statement.
"I don't use regular dictionaries when looking up legal terms."
Eric Holder is not using "theft" as a legal term, otherwise he'd be charging MU with theft. He's using it as a copyright maximalist's scare term based entirely on the commonly understood dictionary definition.
Re:
"Yet, you only hyper-focus on the outliers. What's the matter with a little perspective on things, Mike?"
What perspective is required for a story about four film studios all trying to illegally suppress a film about a website they hate, and which is (probably) critical of their actions? This isn't just just an "outlier", this is an egregious example of copyright abuse as censorship, an act that is the complete antithesis of the stated supposed of copyright, i.e. encouraging creativity.
Re: Yet again, Mike can't find a lower bound.
"Mike definitely has a pattern...
[blah, blah]
Mike is constantly...
[blah, blah]
Mike expects...
[blah, blah]
Mike refuses...
[blah, blah]"
So no logical or meaningful response to the article, just a series of personal attacks. Your contributions couldn't be more worthless if you tried.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
I did, click the link. Then look in my comment history for all the other comments directed at you.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.
"I will directly answer your direct questions without weasel words and without running away. Bring it on."
Liar.
Liar.
Liar.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/02490722336/how-hollywoods -own-pirates-must-inform-future-copyright.shtml#c1524
Re: Re: A sad misunderstanding
"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."
Mike has never claimed such a thing. And your imagination does not count as evidence that he has.
"It's important to pretend like the two aren't interrelated since he hates the means so much."
No, its pretty clear that Mike and many others hate the damage those means, in their current form, are causing. Whatever the desired results from copyright, when the current downsides are considered it's hard to justify keeping the system unless it's massively reformed.
"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."
To be fair, it's pretty hard to see the positives. Feel free to present evidence of modern copyright producing the results intended when it was enacted. In fact, why don't you start your own 'Great Things About Copyright' blog so we can all see how awesome you think things really are!
"His mantra is that it's completely broken..."
That's pretty much the case...
"...and his dream is to see the day when authors have no exclusive rights whatsoever."
... but this claim is the product of your imagination and is not backed up by any evidence you've ever shared here.
Re: The Mike Masnick Copyright Reform Plan
"Umm..... uh........ well............"
We're sorry you're too stupid to understand this, even though it's not that complicated.
Re: Re: Re:
"I know he won't debate me. He's too scared."
You are many things Joe, but scary definitely isn't one of them.
And what the hell is "high-level" about any of this? It certainly ain't rocket science.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"No matter who your friends are, your viewpoints support infringement lawsuits and the lawyers who benefit from them. And nothing else."
This can't be emphasised enough. AJ is just like so many other copyright maximilists who claim to be all about supporting artists, but on closer inspection their arguments are clearly in support of a system that makes a lot of money from artists (via recored companies) but offers nothing in return.
Re: Re:
He will never name them. Chances are he's simply making them up to bolster his weak arguments, but if not, I imagine they'd be horribly embarrassed to be publicly linked to someone like AJ.
Of course I'm happy to be proven wrong on this...
Re: Re:
"You have your opinion but consider one half of humanity disagrees. "
Really? Half of humanity believes we should be under the control of religious police? You sure about that?
Re: Re: Saudi Religious Police
"I don't think it's religion causing this...
...people are the problem."
Religion is people. The problem is religious people.
Re: Too bad for Him
...as soon as he sets foot anywhere with an extradition treaty with the US, he will get bagged, gagged, and tagged with a one way ticket to the US.
Anywhere with an extradition treaty with the US, just like NZ. What makes you think things would happen any differently in another country. The US's case isn't going to suddenly change from laughably weak to extradition-worthy overnight.
Re: Re: Re:
"So, not only are you an immoral scumbag, you're a lying immoral scumbag."
Does this mean his training as a lawyer is complete?
Re: Mike admitz what we knowz: "I'm no expert on extortion law".
"Just because Prenda is horrible doesn't mean that Mike is right on this or his other rants."
There is nothing funnier than watching someone, you in particular, trying and failing to burn someone with completely incorrect info.
I wonder what your definition of schadenfreude is?
Re: Re:
You mean like how copyright holders regularly claim massive losses due to piracy without any factual evidence of harm?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting fight, but...
"I didn't claim that, so I am not sure what you feel you corrected. I stated only that "512(f) is there specifically to handle people claiming to hold copyright on something they do not own", but that does not limit to ONLY that purpose."
Actually that's exactly how your comment reads. If that's not what you meant you shouldn't have used the word 'specifically'. In this context it is indeed a limiting statement.
Re: You just admitted the basis of copyright:
"But you won't see the humor in the admission that copyright is valid on a site where Mike and minions argue to destroy it!"
Ghosh's post is covered automatically by copyright. Everyone knows that. It's not an endorsement or criticism of copyright, it's a statement of fact.
No surprise you see humour where there is none. 'Crazy person laughs out loud at nothing' is hardly newsworthy.
Re: "where I play the role of the lone dissenter"???
"ARE you just "playing a role", Mike? When you use that phrase instead of "I was", readers can ONLY take you literally. -- And I do."
No, you're the only one around here stupid enough to take an obviously humorous phrase literally.
Re: Re: "where I play the role of the lone dissenter"???
"His job is to bolster the Google business model...
He's already switched sides to celebrate Louis CK, the great paywaller...
It will happen."
You must be an absolute hit in moon landing denial discussion groups.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I don't use regular dictionaries when looking up legal terms."
Eric Holder is not using "theft" as a legal term, otherwise he'd be charging MU with theft. He's using it as a copyright maximalist's scare term based entirely on the commonly understood dictionary definition.