Filmmaker Compares Copyleft Supporters To Anti-Gay-Marriage Advocates

from the then-i-get-to-compare-film-makers-to-blue-cheese dept

Oh, where to begin with this one. Once upon a time, in an internet far, far away, there was a Facebook page and a blog (that barely anyone paid attention to) masquerading as some kind of grass roots upheaval in favor of the copyright cartels. It was called Creative America, and man was it terrible. But, as does occasionally happen, this silly land of false statistics and incomprehensible logic bred some interesting discussions between folks on either side of the copyright argument. One of the participants in favor of copyright was filmmaker David Newhoff, someone who I generally thought represented his ideas and opinions with sincerity and class.

Well, to hell with sincerity and class. Apparently you damned pirates and copyleft people are just like homophobic anti-gay-marriage zealots…or something.

It all starts off innocently enough on Newhoff’s guest post for The Copyright Alliance (Does that make us the Pirate Empire? But wasn’t Han Solo a pirate? I’m so confused). We’ve got everything you’d expect from someone supporting current copyright, from the wilfully ignorant claim that “Copyright and Free Speech coexisted peacefully for the entire history of the Republic”, to the invocation of names like Lewis Black as champions of free speech and free enterprise because Black is “entitled to make a pile of cash” because he’s a master at speaking out against the government. Nowhere do we see any actual statistics to back up these claims, of course. There’s no long-form history of copyright with big blinking letters saying “No problems here, people”. Nor do we have any actual financial data on where Lewis Black has made his money. Was it from the real copyright product, royalties from album sales? Or was it his live performances, tours, and appearances? I certainly don’t know, because I don’t have that data. And if Newhoff does have that data, he isn’t sharing it.

But no matter, because these opinions-as-facts are merely the foundation for one hell of a whopper of a claim: anyone who thinks copyright can threaten free speech is exactly the same as a homophobic bigot. Don’t believe anyone could conflate two completely separate issues so badly? Read on, my sweet, naive little zealots:

“Their position reminds me of another First Amendment stumper: that same-sex marriage threatens the Freedom of Religion. As alluded to in one of my recent posts the Kantian principle that your rights end where they infringe on the rights of another is logically implicit, if not explicit, in the broad, human rights established in our laws. In a nutshell, society functions because most of us agree that your pursuit of happiness does not extend to a right to, say, drive an ATV across my yard and tear up the garden.”

Here’s the setup for the false analogy. You have a foundation of law driven by the Constitution, the “pursuit of happiness”, mixed in with a little literal “get off my lawn” attitude, and a cool ATV thrown in to keep the kids happy. Just keep this setup in mind, because we’ll get to the problem in a moment.

“The craftiest of gay-marriage opponents will argue that legalizing these unions infringes on their rights to be Christian in America, which is tantamount to undermining religious freedom. Yes, anyone with two working brain cells can recognize that this isn’t sound reasoning so much as thinly veiled bigotry…Similarly, the copyright-threatens-speech proposal uses the illusion of reverse discrimination to suggest that when the producer exercises his copyright, this somehow infringes on the consumer’s desire to reuse or “share” the work as he sees fit, which amounts to a “chilling effect” on speech. Like the same-sex marriage thing, this argument glosses over personal bias to foster a logical leap to a shaky conclusion. Copyright only threatens speech if we agree that the consumer’s right to reuse is more important than the producer’s right to treat his work as property.”

And here’s where this argument shows itself to be flawed. First, note the attempt to conflate copyleft and bigotry. This is all about setting up good guys and bad guys in the equation, and if you have a problem with copyright, it’s “thinly veiled bigotry” and “reverse descrimination”. Creators, apparently, are to be lumped into the same boat as other victims of bigotry, and if we can draw a direct line to homosexuals who have been descriminated against, it’s an extremely short jump to slavery, interned Japanese Americans, or Jews in Nazi Germany. To borrow (INFRINGE!) a line from Newhoff’s own piece, “this sounds dumb because it is”. This is a discussion about economics, not bigotry.

Which is where we can point to the clear flaw in Newhoff’s argument: yes, there’s an argument that the “pursuit of happiness” should apply to all peoples, including the allowance of marriage. And it’s also true that the “pursuit of happiness” can prevent me from driving an ATV onto David’s well-manicured lawn. But unlike intellectual property, the “pursuit of happiness” was not specifically constructed and even denoted in the Constitution as having its key purpose be the benefit of society at large. The “pursuit of happiness” is personal. Conversely, copyright is supposed to chiefly benefit the public. Mixing these two aspects of our law is disingenous and the attempt to simply label the folks who don’t agree with you as bigots is downright distasteful.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Filmmaker Compares Copyleft Supporters To Anti-Gay-Marriage Advocates”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
153 Comments
ChimpObama McBinLadenBurton says:

Re: Re: Re:

Newhoff wrote:


“Copyright only threatens speech if we agree that the consumer?s right to reuse is more important than the producer?s right to treat his work as property.”

So, I don’t know what the hub-bub is about. Newhoff clearly understands the issue. We do agree, as a nation under the constitution that:

Copyright threatens speech because the consumer?s right to reuse is more important than the producer?s right to treat his work as property.

The above is a paraphrasing of what the Constitution says about copyright. Anyone who doesn’t want to go by what the constitution says is pretty much a bigoted Constitutiophobe.

COMBB

aiming4thevoid (profile) says:

Mr. Newhoff’s argument fails for him not realising that while the logical structure of both sides of his comparison are the same the underlying ethics are different.

Mr Newhoff’s fundamental error lies in him inverting the roles of copyright and sharing in his loose ‘Kantian principle’ argument. Copyright fundamentally goes against the liberty of the individual and the good of society at large by curtailing a most fundamental of human behaviors: the exchange of ideas and opinions. To reuse the metaphor, copyright is the ATV used by content producers to drive in the yard of my knowledge and run of the flowers of my creativity, not the other way around.

Curtailing other people’s behavior in order to make money may be acceptable (if the result is a greater global output of a beneficial product) but it is not a fundamental right, unlike the plights from all discriminated minorities.

Chosen Reject (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I whole-heartedly agree with you here. What many people forget is that copryight is not a granting of a new right to the holder, but a granting of the exclusive use of an already existing right to the holder. That already existing right is the right to copy and distribute, which everyone has. The only way to grant that right exclusively to the copyright holder is to remove that same right from everyone else.

It needs to be said until it’s understood by everyone. When granting a copyright to one, a new right is not being granted to the one, but instead an existing right is being taken away from everyone else.

To make the analogy work with gay marriage, you’d have to have a situation where gay marriage was already legal but where some are trying to make it illegal. Then it becomes a right already held by all, with attempts to make that right exclusive to a few.

Anonymous Coward says:

There is a reason blogs like that don't allow comments...

Any blog or news site that doesn’t allow comments is of very suspicious credibility and intellectual honesty. If they don’t want their ideas discussed, why should anyone take them seriously?

And did he really say “Kantian principle?” There’s a reason I quit the humanities and became an engineer.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

*walks up to the podium, a small amount of feedback echoes across the loudspeakers*
Mr. Newhoff, on behalf of “My People”… GO FUCK YOURSELF.
I’d say something eloquent, but GO FUCK YOURSELF says so much more.
How DARE you try to equate copyright with the discrimination “My People” face on a daily fucking basis.
How dare you try to frame your pathetic argument that the bad people are stealing from you when my people are regularly discriminated against, beaten, and murdered.
Fuck you, Fuck your shilling, Fuck the lobbyist asswipes you shill for.
As soon as I can get married and not have to keep looking over my shoulder wondering if this might be the next bigoted asshole to beat the shit out of me we can discuss copyright. Until then… GO FUCK YOURSELF.
*drops microphone and walks off stage*

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

My perspective is that I can be pissed off about both things, this side of it just pissed me off more. I’ve gotten enough crap in life, but to compare me to them… yeah to far.

I sure hope I haven’t offended “My People” by appointing myself to speak for them again, but I hope most of them would agree.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

*stares at you*
My native language is LolCat with a cynical sarcastic dialect.

I do not understand your comment about it belonging in the 90’s. Please elaborate.

I have never understood this fascination with trying to place where I am from and if English is my second language.

Are the sentences I construct that bizarre? I know my grammar is horrible, but I do seem to have a knack for making my point clear, even in my non-native tongue.

ltlw0lf (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Not the first time people have wondered if English is not my primary language.

I don’t understand why people care. It is not like you are talking to us with your voice anyway. It puzzles me as well when people say that as text doesn’t usually contain dialect, at least not specific dialect (except if someone asks for a pop or a soda or a Coke.)

You could speak Martian as your primary language, That Anonymous Coward. It doesn’t matter to me.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

soda – east coast.
pop – midwest.
Coke – southern.

I just wonder if it is something about how I structure my thoughts that might make them harder for people to parse.
But I think in this case everyone understood exactly what I was saying.

I’ll take an orange coke, in a silver tumbler just like grammy had. Or is that just something I picked up in my travels…

Richard (profile) says:

sex marriage threatens the Freedom of Religion.

Their position reminds me of another First Amendment stumper: that same-sex marriage threatens the Freedom of Religion.

Actually he is right! – but not in a good way…
If same sex marriage was pursued with the vigour that his kind pursues copyright, i.e. if it was enforced on everyone whether they wanted it or not, then it surely would threaten freedom of religion!

englishdevil (profile) says:

Get the right people talking to each other...

Personally i think we should all be ignoring the copyright monopolists and coming up with a plan for the future, they are not prepared to discuss the future, they even ignore the present so why would we have them as part of the discussion, yes they are a part of the market but the market is much bigger than them and if they insist on abusing there power and trying to dictate to us we must get the creators together and come up with a solution and a remedy to the wrongs created by the copyright monopolists.

Why not get all of the authors and musicians and directors together via the internet, lets discuss what we can do without restricting fair use and without infringing on peoples right to share. Lets start talking about how copyright needs to be reigned in, to become more acceptable to customers/consumers.The MPAA and RIAA and all of there lackey need to be banned from the discussion, they are not interested in the creators they are only interested in there bottom line, how much they can make.
Until the actually people on both sides remove the middleman from the equation we are both going to get nowhere, with pirates not paying and creators not getting the compensation they could be getting, if they were not being seen as evil monopolists controlled by the Copyright cartel.

Anonymous Coward says:

Copyright is equal to slavery, you imprison people and force them to do the work for you so you can profit from it.

Any granted monopoly that is not born from market forces and is institutionalized by laws is immoral, but that is not the bad part the harmful part is that it undermines the foundations of democracy itself.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

but that is what he is hoping for.
That copyleft people will see the error of their ways in fighting against silly things like SOPA, et al because they are behaving like the loonies from Westboro.

Of course when people infringe on copyright its horribly wrong, and when people speak against the gays it sometimes ends with a bodycount… its just the same isn’t it?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

LOL

only in american is liberal given a political value and then hated by everyone of another political persuasion.

Plus only in America is liberal assigned to the pseudo left, apparently due to the lack of any kind of major left wing politics so that the proponents of one version of the right wing politics they do have get tagged as being of the left.

Most other places, liberal is a good thing, indicates an open mind and an ability to adapt to changing circumstances, a generosity of spirit and most on the left and the right as well as those of other shades of political opinion would be pleased to be called liberal.

But in a bipolar country that seems to struggle to imagine any other paradigm than goodies vs baddies I guess it makes sense.

Stephan Kinsella (profile) says:

Justice, not Economics

For other absurd arguments for IP, such as “If you oppose IP, you are advocating slavery.”, or “If you are not for IP, you must be in favor of pedophilia”, or “Thank goodness the Swiss did have a Patent Office. That is where Albert Einstein worked and during his time as a patent examiner came up with his theory of relativity.?, see these and other examples collected at this post: http://c4sif.org/2010/12/absurd-arguments-for-ip/

As for: ” This is a discussion about economics, not bigotry. ” –well it should be about property rights and justice, not economics. IMHO. People should have secure property rights in their bodies and in other scarce resources that they either homestead or acquire contractually from a previous owner, as a matter of justice and ethics, not economics.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If you object to the TSA your for the terrorists.
Sounds absurd now, but it worked.

For the longest time you could not get anyone in Congress to make much noise about military spending or anti-terrorism because the argument was framed your with us or your a fucking terrorist lover.

Either your for copyright or your a fucking bigot.
No one wants to be called a bigot, well maybe Limbaugh, so people will run with this idea. It worked on Congress, and there are still people in Amercia who are unaware of the phone hacking done by Murdoch’s people. They believe what the talking heads tell them to believe.

I expect the next round of arguments to be that we are cyberbulling them.

JEDIDIAH says:

Re: Re: Re: Our founding principles.

Iran is a theocracy, the United States is not.

Unless you are in Iran, government acknowledgment of your marriage should have absolutely nothing to do with religion. One minority viewpoint from one particular religion of many should not limit the rest of us.

This includes mixing races, mixing denominations, mixing religions, limiting the number of members in the union, or what their gender is.

It’s simply not appropriate here and it’s gone on for far too long.

Don’t like it? Too bad. This isn’t the Papal states.

You can be a bigot all day long if you like in your own church. Anywhere else, secular principles of equality under the law apply.

Trenchman says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Our founding principles.

This is actually the reason why I don’t understand the fight for the “right” of marriage. The main thing standing in the way of marriage is the government. Not the fact that they don’t recognize gay marriage, but the fact that they have a hand in marriage at all. Everyone in the United States should be pushing for the government to get out of marriage, to stop recognizing it in any form, and out of our personal lives, not trying to bring them even further into them. Anyone who wants the government to be more involved in their personal life is an idiot.

harbingerofdoom (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

see… thats just being stupid.

you have just stated that *ANYONE* that does not agree with gay marriage no matter what their reasoning, is now not only the same as being in iran, but also supporting everything about iran, its religion, its government, its anti-western stance.

in your rush to be loved, you have just done the exact same thing that nearly everyone in this thread has been lambasting newhoff for.

congrats to outing yourself as a narrowminded moron.

JEDIDIAH says:

Re: Re: Re: Don't kid yourself.

Xian fundies and muslim fundies actually have a lot in common. A lot of Americans don’t have so much direct experience so they thing their local version of the Taliban isn’t so bad.

It’s as bad.

They’re like a house cat. They’re only harmless because they are relatively tiny here.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Bullshit!

Morals are based on community mores and change very much with the passage of time, ethics on the other hand do not change.

Morals are NOT ethics!

Trying to actually force your mores (morals) onto others especially on a multitude of others who feel your morals are actually to them immoral is highly unethical

If on the other hand you were correct about morals not changing then under the Abrahamic set of morals that come from the Old Testament we would be allowing 12yr olds to marry, give birth, allow retribution murders, allow women to be killed for adultery… should I go on?

Michael says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“Trying to actually force your mores (morals) onto others especially on a multitude of others who feel your morals are actually to them immoral is highly unethical”

*sigh*

“If on the other hand you were correct about morals not changing then under the Abrahamic set of morals that come from the Old Testament we would be allowing 12yr olds to marry, give birth, allow retribution murders, allow women to be killed for adultery… should I go on?”

*double sigh* If you desire a explanation, go talk to a theologian or something.

DC (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

But we are talking about your position, not the position of some theologian.

“Morals are plainset, structured as very specific way. Otherwise, if they are subject to change/variation with the passing of time, that renders them useless.”

Your position is that morals can not change, otherwise they are useless.

Your unstated position is that morals are universal. They are not.

“Sigh” and “Double Sigh” as responses to arguments are not at all responses, and clearly show that you are not able to argue your position.

Based on what I have read of your postings here, you seem like a reasonable person. It also now seems like you have a hangup on “marriage”.

When posting on a tech blog, I suggest you drop the latter.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

If on the other hand you were correct about morals not changing then under the Abrahamic set of morals that come from the Old Testament we would be allowing 12yr olds to marry, give birth, allow retribution murders, allow women to be killed for adultery… should I go on?

Instead we now murder unborn children. I guess that is an improvement?

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Marriage is the joining of a man and woman by God.

Which God(s)? or for that matter What God(s)

I don’t see where copyright factors into the equation.

Easy, copyright is a human based law and license that restricts an absolute natural/human RIGHT

The same way as the belief that somehow some deity can join in bond of ‘spirit” (or some nonsense) only a man or woman is a law (set of moral orders) made by a religious institution that restricts the natural logical mind to think this idea is not only unethical but flawed.

Therefore they both restrict natural human rights so they are both similar to each other.

Personally I think anyone who actually believes in the full and absoluteness of copyright laws with no reasonable ending nor personal/community fairness of usage is the same as any bigoted person who believes the so called moralistic caveats that religions place upon anyone whether that be trying to stop same sex marriage or any other natural right that the religion thinks is wrongful.

Michael says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Which God(s)? or for that matter What God(s)”

There is only one God: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

“Easy, copyright is a human based law and license that restricts an absolute natural/human RIGHT”

So are you alleging that marriage in and of itself was somehow restricting?

“The same way as the belief that somehow some deity can join in bond of ‘spirit” (or some nonsense) only a man or woman is a law (set of moral orders) made by a religious institution that restricts the natural logical mind to think this idea is not only unethical but flawed.”

That is your belief and you have a right to it.

“Therefore they both restrict natural human rights so they are both similar to each other.”

If you’re implying that marriage ‘leaves out’ homosexuals, that’s impossible because it does the same thing today that it did thousands of years ago: join a man and a woman into one. It is not ‘man’s law’ but rather God’s. So, in effect, what you’re doing is imposing/forcing your beliefs on society as a whole under the guise of “equal rights” and “progress”.

“Personally I think anyone who actually believes in the full and absoluteness of copyright laws with no reasonable ending nor personal/community fairness of usage is the same as any bigoted person who believes the so called moralistic caveats that religions place upon anyone whether that be trying to stop same sex marriage or any other natural right that the religion thinks is wrongful.”

That’s a fallacious argument — nobody was forcing their religion on anybody else. Marriage was always the joining of a man and woman. ‘Gay marriage’ is a relatively new phenomenon and not one in agreement with many religions, mine included (Catholic) and no government nor group is going to make us change. We have a right to believe as we do, just as you have a right not to, but don’t attempt to redefine something and then call everyone who doesn’t agree with your line of reasoning a bigot.

Michael says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

True, although I don’t see how calling him names solves anything. Weren’t you just arguing that nobody had a right to step on you and treat you differently based on your sexual orientation? And that’s a point I agree with you on: you deserve just as much honor and respect as the next guy. We can argue about the stupidity of Newhoff’s comments without descending into immaturity.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Actually I was arguing that for someone to attempt to paint copyright supporters are poor downtrodden people was completely unacceptable.

People can and will treat me how they want, I do not expect a law to make their minds change. What would be lovely would be them getting to know me instead of the boogeyman images preached from pulpits and tv screens. It would be lovely that in a country where all men are created equal that I actually have a shot at being equal.

Immaturity is one of my failings, and honestly I told him more than once to go fuck himself… I doubt me calling him a name would sting right now.

Michael says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Right, it solves nothing. We already know that he’s using flawed analogy in order to demonize the anti-copyright crowd, but it backfired.

As far as how others treat you, nobody has the right to discriminate and treat you as somehow different or lesser on account of your race, creed, sexual orientation, or for any other reason. It’s one thing to disagree from time to time and another to manifest hatred in some form or another, e.g. calling you derogatory names or treating you with disrespect. Granted I haven’t walked in your shoes but I do know something about being picked on and made to feel left out.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Hello Michael, thought your writing style and religious fervour looked familiar

Sadly I will repeat myself as I did on the last comment to you there since your type of illogical bigoted narcissistic & solipsistic pandering to your “Big Daddy, Junior, and Spook” Trinity is not worth my time:
“Basically this is not the forum for this sort of debate/analysis/whatever and to tell the truth I have better things to do than spend my time constantly defending ethics and laws from those who don’t seem to grasp the basic concept of human freedom and the concept that societal mores change over time.”

Michael says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Yes and as you’ll note, my views didn’t magically change. Time doesn’t render morals obsolete. Nevertheless, I’m not a Bible-thumper — I have no desire to force anyone to join my religion or anything.

Besides, we’ve derailed this thread for long enough, wouldn’t you agree?

Michael says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

“Oh, I dunno, Sparky… forcibly thrusting your turgidly Abrahamic definition of marriage into a moist and inviting discussion of copyright sure seems like bible thumping to me.”

To begin with, that was always the original definition of marriage, so anything apart from that is a devaition of its original intention. Newhoff conflates any sort of disagreement with ‘gay marriage’ with bigotry and then goes on to compare that with any disagreement regarding his pro-copyright stance. Therefore, it was a two-fold attack.

Kaden (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Gonna need to see a citation on that ‘original definition of marriage’ thing, Sparky. One that isn’t predicated on accepting christianity as the one true belief, because while such may be the case for you, it isn’t for a substantially larger percentage of humanity.

And it’s still bible thumping, despite the pedantry you choose to sheath it in.

Almost Anonymous (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

To begin with, that was always the original definition of marriage…

The above statement is true only for values of marriage that equal to your narrow definiton of marriage.

Pardon my french, but who the fuck are you to say what the original definition of marriage is?

Also, the Mormons would like to have a word with you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Might I recommend that you read up on the early christian view of homosexuality, spoiler: marriage is never defined as ‘between a man and a woman’.

Doesn’t matter how man has defined it, it only matters how God has defined it and He has always defined it as a union between man and woman. Read Genesis. Look at what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Ah the old tactic of attacking the messenger. Unfortunately for you, people see through that tactic easily.

But to answer your attempted misdirection, no there isn’t. I don’t picket or protest, I don’t do letter writing campaigns or petitions (though I did sign the anti-SOPA petition) and I don’t write my congressman. Like most Americans, I vote on whatever issues happen to be on the ballot come election time.

BeeAitch (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Definition of MARRIAGE

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3: an intimate or close union

Funny, Merriam-Webster makes no mention of god.

Even funnier, they specifically define SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

You sir, are an ignorant bigot.

Michael says:

Re: Re: Re:

The the Merriam-Webster’s definition of marriage is infactual, distorted.

“You sir, are an ignorant bigot.”

It’s clear that you (as well as a few others) will label anyone a bigot who doesn’t forsaken their religious belief in order to conform to your distorted view of marriage. But your attempt to discriminate against me for being true to my God will be to no avail, for even if the whole world stood against me for holding fast to my beliefs, it wouldn’t mean a thing, for nobody has power over my eternal soul except God.

You cannot scare me.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, you are a bigot because anyone who doesn’t conform to your beliefs is suddenly ‘distorted.’ This is the issue I have with Christians. They believe their beliefs are the only thing that should ever be or ever was when they are one of the newest kids on the block. Religiously speaking, my beliefs predate your beliefs. Does that make them better? To me, sure. To you, blasphemy! Or am I just distorted, too?

Michael says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I was brought up to know the difference between good and bad, so naturally I view things in a predetermined way. Whether or not you agree is obviously your call but don’t make it out like I’m running around calling people derogatory names or passing judgement, e.g. “You’re going to burn in Hell,” because I’m not.

abc gum says:

Newhoff has created some pretzel logic – rather humorous on the surface. Sad thing is some people will believe it.

The whole “I’m telling you what to do and it is my freedom of whatever to do so” is so fundamentally flawed that I am amazed that anyone actually agrees with it.

In a similar fashion, there is an effort to paint various “liberal” opinions and activities as being a war on free enterprise. “Free Enterprise” does not mean that companies/corporations are free to do whatever they please.

I’m sure this exercise in contorted logic will proceed to get get much worse as we approach Nov.

BentFranklin (profile) says:

Mr. Newhoff used the word copyleft once in his post, and used it incorrectly, equating it to piracy, or to anti-IP sentiments in general. Mr. Geigner’s post here repeats that incorrect usage in the title and elsewhere without correcting it.

Also, there are no comments on the Copyright Alliance website but Mr. Newhoff’s site is http://davidnewhoff.com/.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

because its propaganda….
here is a real winner of a line…

“I am the father of three and would probably be defined by most people as a liberal”

*blink blink blink*

ZOMFFSM….

“Imagine your diet will henceforth be determined by the tastes of a majority of American ten-year-olds. This may sound as unlikely as it does unappetizing, but the prospect is not really all that different from the basis for at least one of the arguments of the copyleft crowd with regard to distributing creative content via the Web. “

1 word… BEIBER. I didn’t think I could hate him more, but I think I found a new well of hate.

Here is the title of an openminded blog post…
“If you hate Citizens United, think twice about that anti-SOPA campaign.”

I’d post on his site, but I don’t have a script that posts douchenozzle over and over…

Cory of PC (profile) says:

Creative America "Support"

I decided to do a little digging and noticed that Creative America has an option to tell a story how content theft has affected us in some way and they want us to tell about it (under their “Take Action” page). I tried it… and instead of writing how content theft affected me, I ranted how stupid their mission is and I told them to “get the freak off the Internet.” I know they aren’t going to post it but if they do… wow, they’re stupid.

Hey, everyone should try it… just make sure you can write something under 800 characters and claim that you’re a “supporter.”

iarrthoir firinne says:

fag’s have more right’s then anyone in this country now they are all over mainstream media, every office or public outing you go to they are everywhere its a pandemic out break of some kind of brainwashed misguided gayness,,, i don’t have a problem with it really but when they get in to your justice system and public office and try to change things around and corrupt society towards there liking…o’well he will come soon and those who do not repeant will suffer,, so he say’s

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Methinks ‘she’ doth protest to much.

So how long have you had these feelings that everyone around you tells you are wrong?
Does it make you hurt having to make sure you never slipup and say something that might make you look ‘gay’ around them?
Does a little part of your soul die as you have to fight against what you feel?

The flaw in your “logic” (using the term loosely) is that on the one hand you want to pretend we are few in number and don’t matter, but somehow at the same time we control a vast conspiracy taking over the world.
These 2 things can not be true at the same time.

Oh and that’s not thunder you hear, its god facepalming over and over.

Nice troll, you captured the argument perfectly.

Stig Rudeholm (profile) says:

Copyright as Religion

I’ve actually begun viewing Copyright as a sort of religion, with the maximalists being the extremists. People such as myself, who are a against Copyright, are the atheists.

Proponents of Copyright are often citing dubious sources as evidence for their religion. Theirs is the Only True God. Without Copyright, society will collapse. Without Copyright, we’re all just beasts, raping and killing at will. They refuse to listen to rational arguments, of course. They all get very offended when you question the validity of their claims, or suggest that the world would be better without their religion. Etc…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Copyright as Religion

I’ve actually begun viewing Copyright as a sort of religion, with the maximalists being the extremists. People such as myself, who are a against Copyright, are heretics.

FTFY

And you know in medieval times what’s been done to heretics, don’t you? It’s done to the Copyrightism heretics too in current times, but maybe less bloody.

Michael says:

Re: Re: Copyright as Religion

How about we talk about communism, i.e. atheism in government form, and their unmistakable penchant for religious persecution and death on such an epic scale that it literally embarrasses anything else. To this day Christians suffer persecution in communist regimes such as China where they bulldoze churches, spy on religious people and sometimes wisk them away never to be seen again.

DUMBASS POLITICIANS says:

lol

this guy needs to meet canada’s mp vic toews , he completely outrages an entire nation by advocating that if you don’t let the govt spy on your net you stand with child pornographers , then his dirty lil bit about screwing with baby sitters got out and he went crazy about it …..haha

i wonder what would happen if these two had dna mingled what the child would grow up and retardedly say…

WELL we need license fees on all hammers for each use OR you stand with the hammer murderers?

let really the fact is we have as many laws as we need and all that’s happening now is they have to appear like they are dong something so they just keep tacking on laws….the prob is every person that gets buggered takes a fine or prison removes tax revenue from the govt and spending in local economies on small businesses that drive the economy….
KEEP GOING and keep adding to copyright and ip law please i hope the usa goes and puts a pool que up its arse economically as it appears its doing. THEN you wont have any cash to spend ….game over.

Stig Rudeholm (profile) says:

Copyrestrictions

I think the term “Copyright” is a misnomer.

Think about it… When you are granted “Copyright,” you aren’t actually granted any substantial rights you didn’t have to begin with. What is happening, though, is that other people’s rights are restricted.

Here are some “rights” that you have with a work you have created:

* Copy
* Share
* Timeshift
* Formatshift
* Placeshift
* Remix
* Distribute
* Broadcast
* Perform

If Copyright did not exist, you would still have these “rights,” simply by having access to the work.

Now poof, you are granted “Copyright” for the work. What new rights do you get? I can only think of one: The “right” to sue other people for “infringement.”

Now name some rights other people had for that same work before you were granted the Copyright, but that are now restricted. That’s right, pretty much all of them. All of them and more if you ask the Copyright Extremists.

So, “Copyright” should really be “Copyrestriction.”

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Gee think it’ll make it out of moderation?

I stand by my comment on TechDirt.
As soon as the copyright fight has a real bodycount or I have my rights then you can try to make your argument.
Until then I suggest you refrain from trying to equate people who disagree with how copyright is being used to bigots.
Maybe if you had ever been chased IRL with a bat for who you are you might have a partial clue about how offensive your example is.
We get beaten and die, copyright zealots complain about imaginary dollars they might be missing out on.
Totally the same thing, right? *boggle*
When was the last time someone got on a news show and equated copyright holders with pedophiles and bestiality? Huh, seems to happen to me much more than them.
Your entitled to your opinion, but I suggest you find a less offensive way to try and cast yourself as the ?victim? on par with ?My People?.

MrWilson says:

“Copyright only threatens speech if we agree that the consumer?s right to reuse is more important than the producer?s right to treat his work as property.”

And so he actually disproves his own argument, because the right of the consumer to reuse (read: communicate concepts through the words and works of others) is actually more important than the [large corporation’s] right to treat the work of an artist as property.

Media is a part of culture. It’s a part of language and communication. How many people have expressed sentiments by playing a song for someone else. That’s their culture. That’s what culture is supposed to be.

Uttering something only for money degrades the value of what is said. Politicians and salespeople do that. It insults art to imply that the primary value of art is as property, is as a way to make money. Yes, artists deserve the right to make money from their art (if they have a practical business model that acknowledges the nature of reality). Money may be in some cases the necessary evil that gets the art created, but the art is the important part, not the money.

rms (user link) says:

Copyleft=Sharing=Good

I appreciate this support for the technique of copyleft, which I
developed in 1985 in the General Public License for GNU Emacs.
(See http://gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html.)
The absurdity of Newhoff’s attack shows that the enemies of sharing and cooperation are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I suggest, however, that use of the term “intellectual property” to describe copyright is a serious mistake. It is propaganda for the enemy, since if we criticize some kind of “property” it is easy to label us as “Communists” (even though that isn’t true). Even worse, that term confuses a dozen or so totally unrelated laws, which is an obstacle to thinking clearly about copyright. It’s best to resolve never to use that term. (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html.)

I don’t think the issue of freedom to share, or the use of copyleft, is mainly about economics. If it were, it would not be so important. Sharing is good, so society must encourage it, not attack it. Copyleft protects users’ freedoms which, for works used for practical jobs, all users deserve.

richi (user link) says:

Copyleft=Sharing=Good

Marriage is the pure relationship which joins a man and a woman by the God. Same sex marriage was followed with the vigor and it is the threaten the freedom of religion. I think we have to share the freedom and the use of the copyleft. Share with all and the society must have to encourage it.
To find your life partner as per your own preference you can follow online matrimony site.http://www.bivaah.com/

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...