What you kool-aid drinking freetards don't understand is that CHANGING local street signs to initial caps ONLY will cost the industry BILLIONS of dollars. But of course YOU petulant children wouldn't CARE about that, because you just STEAL whatever you want for free!
Thanks for a terrific post, Nina. Sums up the issue nicely. If you know of any "rebuttals" that exist, I would be interested in hearing a different perspective too, beyond that very lame excuse you quoted from the FSF.
Also, since you asked for it, a reminder that I think it would be awesome if you made that "Plagiarism Sucks" video I mentioned last week.
The following comment is based on the assumption that "DJ Pauly D" is not an actual DJ, and that's merely his nickname on a stupid fucking TV show. If that is incorrect, disregard it. I'd research this, but if I have to spend time researching a Jersey Shore "star" I would then have to shoot myself.
I'm not really agreeing with your "hey, this guy might have an OK case, if it weren't for all this crazy shit he added" analysis.
DJ Pauly D is not competing in the field of disc jockey services (which I will again assume is the field which the "DJ Paulie" trademark applies to). Therefore, there is no trademark claim.
While the 4th Amendment concerns on this are legitimate, this particular thing (GPS devices being attached to cars) should not be allowed for a much more straightforward reason.
My car is my property. You do not have the right to affix things to my property. Because it's my property, not yours. Only I have the right to make modifications to my own property, and that includes attaching devices. If someone else modifies my property, that's vandalism.
Nina, great post. How about this for a video? Make a 2 second clip of a character saying something like "Plagiarism stinks!". Then have the rest of the video be thousands of lines of credits. I think that could be a humorous and thought-provoking way to get out the basic point of this blog post.
Blocking the spread of ideas is the explicit purpose of copyright. If it doesn't block ideas, it doesn't do anything.
If a person tries to disseminate an expression of an idea that is protected by copyright, that is infringement. The person, not wanting to pay $150,000, chooses not to disseminate the idea. Copyright has thus blocked the spread of the idea.
How is this difficult to understand? It's the whole point of copyright: To give you a monopoly on spreading your idea, as incentive for you to come up with it!
Thanks Techdirt for being on the forefront on this issue and implementing filtering software that hides our Netflix passwords, so that we can't inadvertently break the law. If I try to type my Netflix password here, it shows up to everyone as *******.