Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the funny-funny-insight dept
Another week, another set of comments. First up on the insightful side of things came the following comment on the post about Chris Dodd’s new post as head of the MPAA where he compared infringement to theft. An Anonymous Coward commenter decided to explore the difference between theft and infringement (and yes, I noticed the two 4s. Guess it’s kind of funny that the most insightful commenter can’t count):
Theft and Infringement
A lesson on the difference between physical property and intellectual property, between theft and infringement.
1. Physical property is any tangible thing that you own. The piece of paper on your desk is your physical property.2. Intellectual property is an idea or expression of an idea that you own. In your mind, think of an imaginary creature that no one has ever seen before. You own that thought–it is your intellectual property.
3. Draw your imaginary creature on your paper. You now own both the paper (physical property) and the creature on it (intellectual property).
4. A property right is the freedom you have to do whatever you want with anything you own.
4. My physical property rights mean that I can do whatever I want with my piece of paper. I can draw on it, write on it, fold it into a little hat, tear it up, or eat it. You can do whatever you want with your paper, too!5. My intellectual property rights mean that I can do whatever I want with my imaginary creature. I can give him a name, write stories about him, draw more pictures of him, or make a movie about him. You can do whatever you want with your creature, too!
6. Infringement is preventing someone from exercising his rights. If I prevent you from drawing on your paper, I am infringing on your physical property rights. If I prevent you from writing a story about your imaginary creature, I am infringing on your intellectual property rights.7. Theft is the act of stealing, or taking something without permission. If I take your paper without your permission, I have committed a theft. You no longer have the paper–I do. By stealing your paper, I have prevented you from doing anything with it, so I have infringed on your physical property rights.
8. What happens if I draw an imaginary creature that looks just like yours on my paper? Have I taken your creature from you? If you still have the idea of the creature, and you still have your drawing of the creature, then I have not taken it–I have not committed theft. Have I prevented you from drawing more pictures of him? If I have not prevented you from exercising your rights, I have not infringed. Drawing a picture of your creature is neither theft nor infringement; it is exercising my physical property rights to my paper.
9. What happens if you try to prevent me from drawing an imaginary creature that looks just like yours on my own paper? Look at paragraph 6. Preventing me from exercising my rights would be infringement; you would be infringing on my physical property rights.
10. If you can do anything you want with your imaginary creature, and I can do anything I want with your imaginary creature, then who really owns your imaginary creature? Who holds the intellectual property rights? The answer is nobody! It is impossible to own an idea. You cannot have property rights to an imaginary creature because it is imaginary. Even if your imaginary creature is really, really original, and you thought about it for years before you drew it, and you actually spent millions of dollars on fancy pencils to draw it with–it’s still imaginary, still an idea, and you cannot own an idea.
11. Unfortunately, that’s not how the law works. Legally, you can prevent me from exercising my physical property rights by accusing me of infringement. If I use my paper to draw a copy your imaginary creature, you can sue me, or even have me arrested–for infringement. And yet, it is you, not me, who is preventing someone from exercising their rights.
12. Obviously, the law is wrong
Coming in second on the insightful list (and also doing pretty well on the funny side of things) was a comment from Chris Rhodes in response to Bon Jovi’s complaint that not buying a totally unknown record in a record store based on its cover art took away some magical moments in music. Chris thought Bon Jovi was a bit off on that:
So he’s pining for a time when people made music decisions based on the album art? And having people to listen to a track before parting with their hard-earned cash is “killing music”? Yikes.
If that’s the music industry he wants, I’m glad it’s dead. Somebody put a couple more rounds in it for good measure
There was a tie for third place, and both were really, really close in score to Chris’s comment, so we’ll throw both of those in, rather than an editor’s choice. The first comes from a comment on Dark Helmet’s post about thinking up other logically inconsistent claims, similar to the claim that people will want to pay more for bandwidth, and an Anonymous Coward came up with the obvious retort:
“I think you will naturally see evolve a world where people who watch very little television expect to pay less and people who watch a whole lot may complain, but in their hearts know they are going to pay more than somebody who watches television once a week. I think there will always be an unlimited tier, but I think you’ll see the element of consumption introduced over time.”
And, finally, another one from an Anonymous Coward (and yes, that’s three out of the top four — who says anonymous commenters are all bad?), in response to a comment from someone who tried to say that copying something from inside a store is the equivalent of theft, this commenter pointed out where that doesn’t make sense:
what if i walk into a best-buy and write down the configuration of a bad-ass gaming computer they have on display, go home, and build the same machine with my own parts? have i stolen their computer? or have i just copied their configuration?
On the funny side, the winner by a wide, wide margin also came on Dark Helmet’s post asking for similar statements concerning people coming to terms with wanting to pay more, and an unregistered “Michael” won the funny category by pointing to taxation:
I think you will naturally see evolve a world where people who work the least will expect to pay lower taxes and people who pay a whole lot may complain, but in their hearts know they are going to pay more than somebody who can offer benefits to the politicians. I think there will always be whiners, but I think you’ll see some kind of lubrication introduced over time.
Oh wait…I think this already happened.
Coming in second was a comment by Atkray from last week’s Insightful/Funny post, helping readers here identify trolls:
“What’s a Techdirt troll? Is that pretty much anyone who shares a dissenting position?”
Let me help you understand by paraphrasing Paul Newman.
He said “If you’re playing a poker game and you look around the table and can’t tell who the sucker is, it’s you.”
In answer to your gyestion, What is a Techdirt troll?
If you are reading Techdirt and can’t tell who the troll is, it’s you.
And, because I can, I’m going to include three more as “editor’s choice,” because they’re all short and they all struck me as funny. The first two actually came in fourth and fifth in voting, and the last one was a little further down the list. First up was codeslave’s response to my point in comparing the NY Times’ decision to charge different amounts for its paywall, depending on what device was being used for access, to the music industry trying to charge different prices, if you listened on headphones vs. speakers. Codeslave seemed to think that some in the recording industry might get the wrong idea:
Somewhere a music executive just got chills down his spine and doesn’t know why.
Then there’s Gwiz’s response to the news that the TSA naked scanners are emitting ten times more radiation than promised:
Pay no attention to the glowing TSA workers they are simply shining with pride over keeping our sky’s safe….
And, finally, there’s Marcus Carab’s response to Bon Jovi’s prediction that kids these days are going to wake up with their iPods and mp3s and such and ask “what happened?” to the good old days of vinyl records:
Ah yes, that terrible and fast-approaching day when we will all wake up to a world devoid of music! When everyone will throw their iPods to the ground and chant “Bring Back Vinyl!” When kids in their rooms won’t bother practicing the guitar, because what’s the point if you won’t get to design an album jacket one day?
Oh horrible portent – tell us Bon Jovi, whose words have been duly marked, how do we avoid this awful future?
And that’s it for this past week. Get your comments revved up for this coming week…
Comments on “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt”
“So he’s pining for a time when people made music decisions based on the album art? And having people to listen to a track before parting with their hard-earned cash is “killing music”? Yikes.
If that’s the music industry he wants, I’m glad it’s dead. Somebody put a couple more rounds in it for good measure “
Not to mention, once you buy it, you’re no longer allowed to take it back.
Oh, and AT&T recently announced they want to buy T-Mobile. Supposedly this is to help the consumer, but I think everyone knows better.
Re: T-Mobile Merger
At this point in American history, I think we can safely say that the corporate structure serves the interests of the board, period; nothing is done for any other reason and it is required by law that satisfying shareholders comes before EVERYTHING. So in light of this truth (mount a corporate defense if you can), the question we need to ask is, When does corporate damage become criminal? The RICO statute
(Racekteer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) designed specifically for financial fraud, has yet to be invoked, and you’re right, the T-Mobile/AT&T deal won’t do anything for anyone but T-M/AT&T (and a few starving lawyers)
If I was rolling out a point-by-point dismantling...
like the winning AC, I’d be thrilled if the only flaw was a misnumbering. Well done!
Re: If I was rolling out a point-by-point dismantling...
But… could it have been intentional?
Re: Re: If I was rolling out a point-by-point dismantling...
It was intention. It’s the one that law missed, it’s sort of the “hidden child” and thus 4a is usually read as 4 without considering 4b.
Atleast it appears so to me.
Slight flaw in the AC's logic
The problem with the very verbose step through presented in the comment is that it hinges entirely on the following assertion to come to it’s eventual conclusion.
“You can’t own an Idea”.
This is an interesting sentiment, but the AC hasn’t actually backed that up with arguments or evidence. It is, in essence what is called “Begging the Question”, by presenting an argument to support your position based solely on your position being true.
On the contrary, there is a substantial history that people do in fact consider there to be “ownership rights” to ideas just as much as there can be “ownership rights” to buildings or cows. While the “ownership rights” of ideas are rather weaker than the “ownership rights” of cows, to reflect the difference in physical entity, that does not mean they don’t exist.
The current situation is “You can own an idea for a limited time, with some significant restrictions on that”, with intellectual property rights actually being a lot weaker than physical property rights. And of course it’s good that is so, ideas ownership should be a lot weaker than physical property ownership. And we should all oppose the attempts to turn intellectual property rights into shackles and bonds.
But there are much much better counter arguments to over-enforcement and misuse of intellectual property laws than trying to claim no one can “own an idea”. That certainly won’t get you many friends amongst those who earn their living by writing, drawing, acting or singing…
Re: Slight flaw in the AC's logic
Quote:
Just look around you, people can and do copy things freely, there is no stoping that or are you trying to say people are not doing it?
If ideas could be owned, there would be a way to protect those things, but there is no way to do it is there, you think you can? Please go visit the Pirate Bay.
Quote:
Patents last for 24 years.
Copyrights last for almost 200 years.
Patents don’t have restrictions on derivatives.
Copyrights makes you pay for deriving something.
I don’t think we live in the same world.
Quote:
Well that is just the simple truth of the matter, copyright is an obsolete law that did work when things where different and it is now encroaching on people’s life.
Re: Re: Slight flaw in the AC's logic
“If ideas could be owned, there would be a way to protect those things, but there is no way to do it is there, you think you can? Please go visit the Pirate Bay.”
And if cows could be owned there would be no such thing as cattle thieves.
Re: Re: Re: Slight flaw in the AC's logic
Good job conflating scarce things with infinite things o-grand-purveyor-of-logic!
Re: Slight flaw in the AC's logic
‘The problem with the very verbose step through presented in the comment is that it hinges entirely on the following assertion to come to it’s eventual conclusion.
“You can’t own an Idea”‘
Odd that the commenter I think you’re referring to said pretty much the opposite: “You own that thought”. Your whole comment seems to be arguing against things no one appears to have said.
Re: Slight flaw in the AC's logic
Quote:
Nonsensical assertion:
– Copyrights lengths are longer than patents(i.e. copyrights last for almost 200 years while patents last for 24 years)
– Copyrights forbid derivative works patents do not.
– Copyrights act in a realm of the imaginary where you can claim that something is to close and seek remedy against that, patents only protect the implementation not the idea supposedly but that may change.
– Copyrights give total control over the author/creator in the form of moral rights that are accepted everywhere except the U.S., patents have no such a thing.
Re: Slight flaw in the AC's logic
Quote:
Evidence?
Here is evidence that anyone can corroborate instantaneously.
Get any DVD, CD and make a copy right there you are infringing copyrights, can you or anyone do anything about it? I doubt it, there are no laws or technological means that will stop that and so there is no workable concept of “copyrights” as it stands today, there is a barrier here one that people forget to acknowledge, commercial institutions depends on the state to exist the individual does not and it is not controllable by it at that level and that is why sharing will never stop, unless you change culture which means creating more hedonistic f’ers that don’t care about others, which means more people not caring about ANY kind of right to others only their individual ones, and that is very bad.
Re: Slight flaw in the AC's logic
People can’t exclusively own an idea once you have expressed that idea to others or once others have independently come up with the same idea. Or at least it is not your natural right to control the use or expression of that idea. I do not want my government giving you such a right.
and patents aren’t supposed to be on ideas, being that different people often come up with the same ideas, but they’re allegedly supposed to be on a specific implementation or design (though, in this day and age, the USPTO doesn’t really seem to make a distinction).
“That certainly won’t get you many friends amongst those who earn their living by writing, drawing, acting or singing.”
It may not get me friends amongst a few who earn their living that way, but I don’t want their content and I don’t want my government spending my tax money enforcing some ‘right’ I think they should not have. Others will happily create music, art, and content without these privileges. To say otherwise is a bunch of unsubstantiated fearmongering FUD, this isn’t the mainstream media, unsubstantiated fearmongering FUD doesn’t work here.
I also don’t want such copy’written’ music occupying our public airwaves either on public property or on any private property I may own and I don’t want it displacing the free flow of freely copyable and redistributable content on those communication channels as well. Earn your living without monopolizing content and information distribution channels.
and besides, most of these copy’rights’ aren’t intended to benefit content creators, they’re intended to benefit the otherwise unnecessary middlemen who are only necessary because the govt grants monopoly privileges over information distribution channels. Plenty of content has been, and will be created without these privileges. and to the extent that these privileges distort the free market and causes more content to be created, that’s an inefficient use of market resources. Society will be better off if those content creators that require these privileges to create content contributed to the economy elsewhere instead of costing society so much time, effort, and resources to enforce nefarious laws. Not that content creation isn’t important, just that the government shouldn’t subsidize it through incentives that take away from other marginally (though not necessarily absolutely) more important branches of the economy.
Re: Re: Slight flaw in the AC's logic
“It may not get me friends amongst a few who earn their living that way, but I don’t want their content and I don’t want my government spending my tax money enforcing some ‘right’ I think they should not have. Others will happily create music, art, and content without these privileges. To say otherwise is a bunch of unsubstantiated fearmongering FUD, this isn’t the mainstream media, unsubstantiated fearmongering FUD doesn’t work here.”
Huh… Okay, for a start I’m going to assume that you’re using Linux installed onto a computer you built yourself. So I won’t call you out on using copyrighted software…
But are you really, *really*, saying you don’t read webcomics, watch TV, or even read that ‘free’ newspaper shoved through your door?
I think you misunderstand how “free” things like web-comics TV and free newspapers work. They still depend on Copyright to protect their creators rights. Someone who makes a living from a web-comic by selling advertising and merchandise will want to keep their comics on their own site, or require a link back to their site, and copyright is what lets them do that.
Free-sheet newspapers and TV work by selling advertising, but they would be undercut if someone else decided to just copy all their articles or TV programs for their own freesheet or channel. Copyright prevents that.
Re: Re: Re: Slight flaw in the AC's logic
No, copyright does not “prevent” that, it punishes after the fact, yes.
But here is one of the subtle points made on this site and by many above…. copyright does not *let* anyone do anything. It is possible (and even happens often) to execute a successful business model without using copyright or patents.
All those laws do is give an entity the ability to pursue legal means to prevent others from following in their footsteps. Which, you might note, is pretty much against the entire history of cultural and technological progress.
Free-sheet newspapers and other “free” things would be better off if they focused on competing rather than litigating. People are pretty good at identifying poor copies and shallow-value.
Re: Re: Re: Slight flaw in the AC's logic
“But are you really, *really*, saying you don’t read webcomics, watch TV, or even read that ‘free’ newspaper shoved through your door?”
If all those things are abolished as a result of copy’right’ abolition, I will be fine with it. I do not think copy’right’ is necessary for content creation, I think many of these things will survive. Some of the current businesses may go away, but new businesses will take their place. But even if they don’t, I’m good with it.
“They still depend on Copyright to protect their creators rights.”
It’s not a natural right and it’s not a right I want protected. Their creators have no rights and I do not want their privileges protected. If they don’t like it, they can contribute to the economy elsewhere.
“Someone who makes a living from a web-comic by selling advertising and merchandise will want to keep their comics on their own site, or require a link back to their site, and copyright is what lets them do that.”
Some people might want this, but not all people, and those that don’t can go find another job. Content creation will continue without copy’right’, to say otherwise is a lie because you know better. There is plenty of content released under licenses mostly designed to circumvent copy’right’.
“Free-sheet newspapers and TV work by selling advertising, but they would be undercut if someone else decided to just copy all their articles or TV programs for their own freesheet or channel.”
If they don’t like it, they can go out of business and find other jobs. Newspapers are obsolete anyways, they have always provided us with terrible journalism and no ability to correct them when they’re wrong or to provide dissenting views (letters to the editor are carefully selected). I have absolutely no problems with newspapers going out of business if that’s what copy’right’ abolition results in.
Television in the U.S. is completely over-priced, we have way too many commercials and cable costs a fortune for no good reason despite being commercial rich. Cable used to be commercial free and it was much cheaper than it is now. and the reason for this is because the government grants exclusive rights of ways on cableco infrastructure, which keeps out competitors who would offer free content (and free content will be created, it’s all over the web), free content that can benefit from a wider distribution that will allow for better funding (and by free, I mean permissibly licensed). Good content will be created without copy’right’, it’s just that the system is set up to prevent its widespread distribution by wrongfully giving corporations government imposed monopoly power over the distribution channels and that makes it hard for permissibly licensed content to be distributed. There should absolutely never, ever, exist a monopoly on both content distribution and on content at the same time. That’s about as corrupt as it gets.
As far as public airwaves are concerned, the government should take back exclusive privileges over public airwaves and allow anyone to use those public airwaves however they see fit. It’s my right. If you broadcast your content on public airwaves, that content should be free for me to copy. Otherwise, keep your signals off of my private property and keep them off of other peoples public property and don’t do anything to prevent others from freely distributing their freely copyable and redistributable content on public airwaves.
But even if content dries up as a result of copy’right’ abolition (which is simply unsubstantiated FUD), I’m fine with it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Slight flaw in the AC's logic
and besides, newspapers are a waste of trees anyways.
Re: Re: Re: Slight flaw in the AC's logic
“Huh… Okay, for a start I’m going to assume that you’re using Linux installed onto a computer you built yourself.”
I am not, I am using Windows seven. My school even offers it for free under some agreement with Microsoft.
But even if copy’right’ abolition resulted in no more creation of Windows operating systems, I’m fine with that too. So long as patent abolition is also provided so that competitors can freely build competing operating systems and so long as the government does nothing to artificially increase the price of distribution (which they sorta do already).
Re: Re: Re: Slight flaw in the AC's logic
Basically, I’m fine with whatever doomsday scenario you can come up with that will occur as a result of copy’right’ abolition, partly because I know that 90% of it are nothing but corporate sponsored exaggerated lies (but even if they’re not, given how much of an abuse these laws are, it’s a risk I’m perfectly willing to take), and partly because I’m fine with whatever does happen as a result (newspapers going away, I can care less. It’s not the governments job to provide newspaper creators with jobs, let them find their own jobs), and partly because at least some of those who do lose their jobs as a result of copy’right’ abolition will find marginally more relevant jobs to contribute to the economy which will benefit everyone in some way.
Re: Re: Re:2 Slight flaw in the AC's logic
As a citizen, I want copy’right’ and patents gone, or at least substantially alleviated, and I’ll live with the consequences. The consequences will be my problem, not the governments and not the corporations and not the content creators problem, but mine, and if the world comes to an end as a result of copy’right’ or patent abolition, I’m fine with it. I’m encouraging all citizens to hold the same position. These laws need to go, public airwave monopolies need to go so that anyone can broadcast and use those spectra for wifi and broadcasting, whatever the consequences maybe, I don’t care, partly because I know that 90% of it are lies and the other 10 percent I’ll live with, but even if all the doomsday scenarios in the world are true, I’m fine with it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Slight flaw in the AC's logic
I would rather lose my newspapers, lose new operating system creation, lose new innovative creation than to lose my right to freely independently invent something, sell whatever I invent, copy others peoples invention, and copy others content without having to worry looking up what I can and can’t do and what I can and can’t copy because someone else has some copy’right’ or patent on it. If you distribute it, it should be free for others to copy, I do not want to have to waste my time figuring out what I can and can’t do with each piece of content that comes my way. Whatever the consequences, my right to copy, independently invent, and benefit from those independent inventions and copies how I see fit (commercially or otherwise) is more important to me than whatever I lose as a result of copy’right’ and patent abolition. I want these laws GONE, or at least substantially alleviated, and I’ll live with the consequences.
Another week of jokers trying to rationalize why they’re freeloading parasites.
Re: Re:
How many freeloading parasites does it take to screw an entire industry? No, seriously, I’m asking. Is it more than one? More than one hundred million? That seems like a lot!
Re: Re: Re:
no, no, only one, maybe ten. there abouts anyway.
they do this by being put in control of said industry.
(… not even I’m sure if this is a joke or not :S )
Re: Re: Re:
i dont know, but since the process of freeloading parasites screwing corporate entities was just given a patent to a joint venture of apple microsoft and sony which was then cross licensed to RIAA comcast ATT orange julius and strangely enough both the republican and democrat political parties, we will never again be able to actually find out
Re: Re: Re:
This depends on the location of the freeloaders, and the industry involved.
The Entertainment Biz could probably cope with multiple millions of freeloaders copying. But would of course prefer not to.
The Banking Biz collapsed because of a few hundred freeloading Derivative Traders.
Whether it’s one person or one hundred million doesn’t change the fact that they’re a free loading parasite.
Re: Re:
Not how it works. If it’s one hundred million, then you’re a prude and possibly a luddite.
Owning an idea
Isn’t copyright law (allegedly) clear in that you can’t own an idea but only the expression of the idea? IIANL so I could be wrong but that gets said an awful lot.
Re: Owning an idea
Patent law does however allow you to own an idea for a limited time. Copyright law allows you to own the expression of an idea for a much longer time, which is similar enough for what I meant. Of course, I entirely agree with the sentiment that Copyright terms are much too long right now, but I disagree with the idea that there should be no Copyright at all.
Re: Re: Owning an idea
No, I whol;eheartedly agree that copyright should exist. Just not for 5-8 Generations of people. I’d argue that, after five years, you’re free to do whatever the hell you want with the expression.
Re: Re: Re: Owning an idea
“I’d argue that, after five years”
Why five years, please?
Comments
12. “Obviously, the law is wrong” – a brilliant response.
US Const
from the US Const, Section 8-
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”
What more does one need to say.
Re: US Const
from the US Const, Section 8-
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”
What more does one need to say
Agreed! Since you’re obviously pointing out that today’s copyright and patent laws fail to meet the standard set forth (“to promote the progress”), as currently written, they’re unconstitutional. Staff, I’m glad we finally agree on something!
These are great. I think “Obviously, the law is wrong” is my favorite!
daytimer on desk
I have a question… A coworker of mine claims she saw something that I wrote in my daytimer at work that I keep open on my desk. She claims the I “invited” her into my work place to show her something. While I was showing her something. she read something in my book. She has accused me of harrasment. I was writing down times she was working. She takes lots of breaks & always takes long lunches. Everybody sees it but does not comment. She is know to be nosey. I have been told that my daytimer on my desk is public domain. I realize I should of closed the book knowing she is nosy. I do not remember “Inviting” her into my area & even if I did I sure wouldn’t have invited her to read my book. What do I do?