"I do point out that some fair use claims are pretty far fetched and legally might not hold water"
Byut, you never actually state why, you just go "you're wrong and I'm right" without ever providing a single explanation or citation, even when pushed for one. I've seen you make decent points on occasion, but your refusal to participate in an honest discussion always undermines you - and you make far more obviously incorrect claims than potentially correct ones.
As for your DMCA claims, I do laugh at the fact that you reject my comments based on an unfounded assumption. But, even if you're correct, you honestly aren't understanding the issues people have with it (which have to do with a lack of punishment for obvious misuse, no reparations for costs to people who have legitimate claims of fair use, the chilling effects court threats have). No, you just pick the smallest part of an argument you think you can dismiss, and ignore the actyual arguments at hand.
"They would have to burn down every library and newspaper in the world to get rid of those images."
You genuinely don't understand what the actual argument is, do you? For a start, bear in mind that these specific images are not the only thing being discussed.
"Spend a lot of time talking to yourself, then?"
I swear, it's like talking to a 4 year old. You're on the level of "I know what you are but what am I" and "I win because I said so!"
Pathetic. But, I'll always comment on your dishonesty whenever I see it.
Re: Stealing copyrighted material is called infringement
No, infringing copyright is called infringement. You cannot steal copyrighted material by making or distributing another copy. Calling that stealing is a lie.
The scenario above is what would happen without copyright. You can't infringe copyright if it doesn't exist. But you can plagiarise it in a way where the original author has no legal recourse and is not recognised as the original author, and that is tantamount to theft.
If only you morons would learn what's actually being said instead of falling over yourself to jump on a single error... This is coming from someone who supports a version of copyright as well, just not the hideously deformed broken mess we're dealing with now.
"Right now, the main way artists make money is touring and that would still be the case."
Copyright affects more than just musicians. Do you honestly think the OP was calling for it to be removed from musicians and nobody else?
"Who it is worse for is the middle man, i.e. record labels, who aren't as needed today as they once were."
It's also worse for independent songwriters, for example, who can have any song they write copied and released by a major label artist and never get properly attributed - and it's difficult to fight them in court when there's no law stopping them from doing that. Or the coder who just released his nice little side project, only now there's nothing to stop Microsoft putting his code into their OS, with the open source licence he uses now useless due to lack of copyright. Just two examples that spring immediately to mind.
"A large monitor will have more pixels and the same aspect ratio as a good TV."
...and have less TV-specific features, usually have less ports (especially those only relating to a TV and not a PC), require a computer to be attached, may lack features on the remote that people expect, etc.
"The only downside I see is they're smaller"
The only downside to you. Other people have different needs and your setup may not match them.
"The dates were right before LCDs became popular."
...which happened because they became cheap enough to be commodity items compared to a similarly sized CRT. LCD, plasma, etc. only took off when they became affordable enough to the average consumer for them to buy one.
"Big TVs existed before then, and people wanted them but they were considered a luxury"
*sigh* Why do you think that was? Because people didn't want them or because they were so expensive? Obviously, it was the price. Guess what happens when the price goes down significantly on a "luxury" item? People buy more of them! If enough people do so, they cease to be considered a luxury item, as everything from fridges to cars did before them.
Do you get that now? Most people couldn't afford big screens in 1985 or 1995. By 2005 and 2015, they could afford them easily, so they bought them.
"The point is just that people don't "have to" buy huge smart TVs"
They don't have to buy any TV at all. But if they're in the market for them, they'll buy the biggest and best their wallet can afford - and they'll do that before setting up a PC with a smaller screen in their living room.
Look, I see you have your needs matched by a smaller screen monitor setup. Not everyone wants or needs the same thing as you. That's fine, but it's really not hard to understand why most consumers would prefer a 60" TV to a 30" monitor, even if they'd have killed for the latter when the USSR was still around.
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.