Re: Re: Does this mean we have to stop calling them "bank robbers"...
Oddly enough, MrWilson, I didn't use the terms " copyright rape" or "copyright murder"; you did. Now, I might call that technique a "strawman argument", but I'm sure you'd come up with something that makes you sound like less of an @ss. Similarly, I didn't use the term "pirate" as you did.
I do note that you admit that this unauthorized use constitutes a crime (" a description of the crimes committed "). Even though you don't want to call it theft. Get used it. You may -- as even I do -- think the current system of copyright law is wrong. But... it is the law for now. A great many people whose works have been used without authorization do colloquially refer to this as theft, since it often does (contrary to "information wants to be free" types') negatively impact sales.* "Colloquial" is the key here. Possibly it escaped your notice that musicweek.com is not a court, and their article was not a formal legal ruling from the bench.
Interestingly, in the US, copyright infringement has formally been considered theft, as opposed to mere colloquial usage. Public Law 113-52 (17 USC § 504) includes language that implemented... ...wait for it... the Digital THEFT Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 (emphasis added-cb).
"Musicians who have had their copyrights stolen by corporations are victims of theft. The public who has had its public domain works stolen by Congress and their masters in those corporations are victims of theft. As Nina would say, "copying is not theft"
Now you've confused me. Help out a slow guy by explaining why "copyright infringement" by an individual isn't theft, while copyright infringement by a corporation is theft. Are you suggesting that the record companies are breaking into musicians' houses at night at making off with all their sheet music and lyrics, leaving no copies behind? Did all those works that were in public domain magically evaporate (some sort of scifi-ish retroactive temporal anomaly) from the universe when Congress changed the rules? And if Congress were to abolish copyrights would currently protected works in the physical hands of artists everywhere somehow vanish and reappear in in someone else's hands, or would such legislation only affect... copying which "as Nina would say, 'copying is not theft.'"?
Why is something affecting copies sometimes "theft" and sometimes not?
--- * I'm all for reforming, or even eliminating, the current copyright system. I await a reasonable explanation of what incentive creators will have to write books, songs, or otherwise create new works in a "the words aren't yours/info wants to be free" (two phrases I heard many times from people who didn't think they should even kick in a small voluntary donation for my books) scenario. When I get that explanation, maybe I'll dust off the next two manuscripts in my series and publish them.
Does this mean we have to stop calling them "bank robbers"...
...since they only steal money from banks, rather than the actual buildings?
C'mon, complaining about "copyright thief" in a very abbreviated headline that indicates topic and not specific details is nitpicking. They used the term to indicate a general class of theft, not that a copyright was stolen.
Re: Every fanboy lusts for the unearned. But common law requires return.
Not theft. Your babble would be more entertaining, and just possibly mildly useful, if you knew WTF you're talking about. The USPS page doesn't cite the actual law, but the applicable US Code title and section is:
Specifically: "(b) Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender. All such merchandise shall have attached to it a clear and conspicuous statement informing the recipient that he may treat the merchandise as a gift to him and has the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender."
The US Code " is what applies equally to all people [in the US], and you should learn it".
In related news, regulators are moving to ban water testing, soil pH testing, and Radio Shack multimeters on the grounds that stupid effing regulators are incapable of properly understandin g test results. Meanwhile the Department of Education is evaluating the possible effects on Common Core testing, as they are unsure which group they should consider idiots: students, teachers, parents, or themselves.
Digression: Do I understand correctly that K-man calls himself "Dr. Chaps", a monicker which -- given the homosexuality subcontext -- immediately brought to mind the Village People's gay, chaps-clad cowboy?
If they've nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear in releasing the SPOT data
I just love the excuse that, "We can't tell you what or how we do what we do because that would hurt what or how we do what we claim to do;" whether it's the TSA hiding their SPOT program, or the NSA and its spying, or...[insert agency/clusterf-k ad infinitum]... I carry a handgun for personal defense. The fact that ballistics data on the .45ACP cartridge has been widely published for a century doesn't seem to be hampering its effectiveness.
But then, I'm concerned with personal security. They are concerned with their job security if they ever admit how screwed up and useless they are. Which, considering how tough it is to eliminate a federal program, just demonstrates how paranoid they are.
ootb, you have a solution to the "problem" of people here not wanting to read your incessant, off-topic whining about Techdirt and its policies: http://www.blogger.com/home
Get your own blog and dissemble there.
Censorship is preventing a person from speaking (or writing, etc.). But free speech rights don't include the right to use someone else's soap box. Get your own blog.
People saying that you aren't worth listening to isn't censorship. And if other people want to read your drivel here, they can always "click here" to show comments. You aren't even being relegated to a "free speech zone"; we're just ignoring you like we would any other shizophrenic street nut who has long since ceased to be amusing.
But prove us all wrong. Prove the world wants to read your posts. GET YOUR OWN BLOG. It's free. It's easy (even you could figure it out). You have access to blog stats to prove how more popular you are than Techdirt.
So do it. But stop your whining here. I've babysat two year-olds who whined less about getting want they want.
Ah, NASA... Still on the cutting edge of decades-old concepts.
"SpiderFab, for cryin' out loud. I think O'Neill's people dreamed up a beam extruding space station-assembling robot (similar to how custom rain gutters are fabricated onsite) back in the '70s or '80s. Seems like they even built a proof of concept prototype. Maybe NASA should check their files.
Or read a little science fiction. As I recall, the concept showed up as "shelobs" in the Niven et al novel Falling Angels in '91-- just 22 years ago. At this rate, NASA might even come up with the idea of habitats and craft constructed of high tensile strength fabric and inflated with expanding foam (and carved out to create living and working space) in another 10-20 years. I know that idea showed up in SF in the mid '90s, and again in my own novel Net Assets a decade ago (before Bigelow's inflatable "space hotel") (Fee download - http://www.bussjaeger.org/index.html#netassets).