Oh, there's plenty of arguments against it, but people are generally tired of repeating them to people who have already convinced themselves of the nuclear approach.
My primary reason is that while copyright is utterly broken, having no protections whatsoever would be worse. Not only would corporations be free to steal from whoever they wished without payment or attribution, it would also destroy things like CC content and open source software, which depend on the copyright base on which to build their licences. You think it's bad now when major vendors are using FOSS in violation of their licences and major labels/studios are plagiarising everyone? Wait until there's no legal basis to stop them.
Yes, in theory, removing it levels the playing field but reality would dictate a much messier outcome.
"Set your house to a reasonable temp and leave it."
In my experience, cool if you live alone or with people with a similar taste to you as to the heat of the house or of similar health. Otherwise, someone's always complaining or changing the temperature.
"Somehow people have been convinced they need huge TVs, way bigger than existed in the 80s or were common in the 90s"
For this to be an argument to make any sense, you not only have to account for why you've chosen those cut-off dates as anything other than arbitrary (screen sizes were also much smaller in the 60s than they were in the 80s, for example, should we return to those or do you have personal reasons for choosing those dates?) but account for why screens were that size (weight, cost and technology limitations made larger screens prohibitive or impossible before CRT technology was superseded). It wasn't that people didn't want these things, it's that the technology to make them available to the average person didn't exist yet.
I understand that for some purposes using a large monitor might make sense. But as a general argument, the one you have makes as much sense to my mind as wondering why people don't want black & white square screens or VHS resolution when people used to be happy with them.
So? If those are important, then the pages they linked to should also be presented to the court. In fact, given that the target can be changed at any time, it's important that these be gathered as close to the start of the case as possible.
"Context was important because of the nature of the charge."
Then, surely this is what the lawyers are meant to be doing? They either present evidence in the correct context or the opposing lawyer can present this to protect their client if they feel the current context is incorrect. Having the supposedly impartial judge do it instead is very dangerous.
Luckily for your heroes at the RIAA, talent and lack of stupidity aren't necessary for people to consume content. Because if they were, they would have been out of business a hell of a long time ago.
"thank the good Lord that a music studio didn't release ti as a single"
Talking of stupidity, are you only capable of valuing music if a label releases it as a single (not a studio, as anyone with knowledge of the industry should realise)? If so, it must be sad having your musical diet chosen solely by a bank of producers packaging whatever they think will sell best to the lowest common denominator.
"Most of a theater's profits are from the concessions, not from ticket prices."
Thanks, that's possibly the most important thing to note here. The reason they offer alcohol is because it helps draw people in, and they have higher profit margins. If they can't sell that when they show certain kinds of movies, they will inevitably show less of those movies because they make more money with other kinds of movie.
@Mason: That's where the speech issue comes in. The government are indirectly trying to persuade the cinema to curtail certain kinds of speech.
"Piracy isn't about licensed copies, it's about unlicensed usage."
No shit. Nothing I said is counter to that fact.
"I am pointing out the very legit, very reasonable fair use claims such as in reporting."
Indeed. Whereas, in threads where Techdirt points out a legitimate use by an artist or other independent entity that should be considered fair use, you try to wave away the fact that right exists for them.
"I tend to support DMCA claims on situations where fair use is not clear or not easily established. That shifts the burden to the user"
...which tends to be extremely unfair when the user is an individual, the rights holder is a corporation (whose word is taken at face value, even if they can't prove they own the material), there's no due process before action is taken and there's no effective penalty for the constant misuse of the system. Things you tend to ignore, strangely enough.
There's a debate to be had there, but you're not that honest.
"I don't have to"
No, because that would constitute an honest critique of the article and an honest attempt to debate opinion. You are far from honest, as you prove constantly.
"I know you have a crush on me"
Don't flatter yourself. I state my opinion on the threads here that interest me, I just happen to also counter comments from dishonest pricks who lie, deflect and try to derail honest debate. If that asshole seems to be you every single time I encounter you, that says more about you than it does me. I have absolutely no problem commenting in threads where you don't appear. In fact, i prefer them. But I won't let your lying ass go uncommented upon whenever I see you say something dishonest. Which is every damn time I've seen you type something.
I'd presume because the act of serving alcohol is not always illegal, but becomes illegal based purely on the content of the movie.
If the cinema weren't allowed to serve alcohol regardless of the content of the movie there probably wouldn't be a speech issue. But, since the content of the movie/speech is what's used to determine the legality of the alcohol, it becomes a speech issue.
"the content of movies that are not legally obscene and that have artistic merit"
I know they're not exactly legally binding like the ones in other countries, but has there ever been a movie with a valid MPAA certificate below an X/NC-17 that's been held up as obscene? If not, it seems like a massive waste of time to go trolling R rated films.
"The tank man shot that corgis has a licence for is not the iconic shot of the tank man that went global, and even if it was there are still other photos shot of the same scene by other photographers"
OK, didn't realise that, although the one in the original article certainly looks similar.
I wouldn't say either of those things you addressed are irrelevant, but as with most of these things I'm more concerned with the overall implications rather than a cherry-picked example. The massacre is something that's perhaps a little too well documented for censorship of Western media to work in the short term. But, for less well documented events, and in the long term as original paper documents become less easy to obtain?
Even considering the above, it's not like DMCA takedowns are known as being monitored to ensure they're valid. If a media corporation can get legal content removed, why can't China? If they can get those things done through mere incompetence, why is it not relevant to consider deliberate censorship using the same tools? Sure, companies like Google are making sure that takedowns get publicised and criticised, but not every company is as friendly and the Chinese might not be as idiotic as to keep going after Google rather than take down original sources.
"And it may end up that this part is irrelevant too"
That part's never irrelevant, though. Individuals are able to keep using copyright to censor they dislike, even if that's not always successful. That's relevant anywhere at any time - even if handing that ability to a foreign state with a vested interest in censorship doesn't result in the kind of censorship that's discussed here.
I can't see how it's considered allowable anywhere, to be honest. Depending on the system, jurors merely contacting outside parties can be ruled enough for them to be thrown out or a mistrial. The idea that a presiding judge can just go looking at the defendant on Twitter seems very problematic. I mean, surely this is why there's a discovery process, so that both sides have a way to counter evidence being presented to the court - something not possible if the court are doing their own research.
Even if the evidence presented is the same as what he finds, he could still have his verdict coloured by linked opinion pieces, tweeted reactions or accusations that hadn't been posted before the trial started, etc. IANAL, Canadian, etc., but all of this seems weird to me.
"Techdirt is overhyping something that isn't particularly relevant, trying to scare monger against copyright"
Which part of this is irrelevant:
- China have routinely tried eradicating evidence of Tienanmen from history - Chinese companies are still somewhat under the control of the Chinese government - Images of Tienanmen, including the very images that generated calls to action against China at the time, are now under control of a Chinese company - Copyright is routinely used to attempt censorship of media that the copyright owner dislikes, even in countries with supposed free speech protections - There is no reason to doubt that the Chinese will use copyright as a tool to reduce the availability of these photos now that they have copyright as a tool with which to do it
Be specific. Now, bear in mind I'm not saying this will be effective. But, is it truly irrelevant to point out that a foreign country has a tool, provided at your government's behest, to censor your freedom of expression?
At best, you can argue that actual effective censorship of these specific images is unlikely. But, it's not just about these specific images and not just a question of how effective it will be. The fact that it's even possible that such censorship can take place with these tools should be a cause for concern.
"Surprised they didn't tie David Bowie into it"
Yeah, god forbid a current affairs blog should bring current events into discussion of concepts the subject was directly involved with, at a time when his name was most relevant to a discussion of those concepts.
You must be so busy, attacking all the other websites and news sources that do this. Unless you're fundamentally dishonest and only use that as an excuse to attack this blog and not everyone else. Let me guess...
"First and foremost, that image is licensed a million times over already, has appeared all over the place"
So has every image, video and other product that your heroes use copyright to fight against being pirated. Yet, you usually support these actions as if they are workable solutions.
Are you now admitting that this line of attack is utterly useless and there's other ways to address piracy? You know, like you attack this site for suggesting every time you type your inane comments?
"Plus haul out all the usual fair use examples you cite so often, and the whole question of censorship goes out the window."
The ones you constantly mock this site for pointing out, and who your corporate heroes are doing everything they can to eradicate? The ones that the DMCA processes you defend so valiantly are effectively destroying as we speak while routing around due process?
I can't help but notice that you offered no actual reason why the claim that a Chinese agency would attempt to censor images of an event that the Chinese government has tried to eradicate from history is not correct. Only half-assed claims that require you to suddenly agree with things you constantly try stating are false or irrelevant. Interesting.
"As more people cut the cord, they have to raise retransmission rates to make up for the loss of income due to fewer users"
But, that only makes sense up until a certain point, where the rule of diminishing returns hits and the whole thing becomes unsustainable. At this point, it's clear that they need to do something else, either to adjust their business to gather other forms of revenue to replace that being lost, or to attract customers back to using the services that are collapsing. Only raising prices without doing the other things at this point will only speed up their demise.