Put aside the idea that a few bad Skittles justify banning entire classes of immigrants. That’s racist nonsense. Don’t flatter that argument by countering it with statistics. Consider: When you let people in, yes, you increase the likelihood that something bad will happen. You also increase the potential that something good could happen. If you want to make America greater, you need to increase that potential.
Not letting in good people harms America. That's a big deal. My entire family came to America between 100 and 130 years ago fleeing oppression elsewhere. And they've built huge things. Turning our back on others now is profoundly stupid and short sighted.
I agree that Univision acted cowardly, but from a risk management perspective, even if the lawsuits "were obviously bogus," that doesn't mean it wouldn't cost millions of dollars to prove that they're obviously bogus.
Yeah, but the lawsuit remains against Gawker, the company, not Univision. Could they update the lawsuits to include Univision? Yes, but Univision should be able to get those tossed because of the first publication rule.
...unless, of course, it's Aaron Swartz, in which case it's all the prosecutors' fault for driving him to suicide by doing their job.
Nope. FWIW we've always avoided making any such claim. I know others (including his girlfriend) have argued that the DOJ drove him to suicide, but you will not find a story on our site suggesting that is the case -- for exactly the reasons discussed above. I don't know why he killed himself, but I will not pin it on the DOJ.
I will pin lots of other bad behavior in his case on the DOJ -- but not the suicide.
When Matt Lauer is moderating a debate, he is not being a journalist. He is a moderator and I agree that it isn't his job to fact check or call BS. It is the opposing candidate's job. If he is interviewing a candidate or reporting news, then it is his job.
Yeah, maybe if you're a sardine. By and large, people living in NYC live there by necessity, or because they were born there and don't have any easy way to leave. In all my life I've known a grand total of one person who wanted to move there, and she was crazy.
I know a ridiculously high number of people who absolutely want to live in NYC (and many people who live there because they wanted to). Having grown up right outside of NYC, I still frequently think about moving there and I love every time I visit. The idea that people don't like it there seems completely wrong to me.
Excellent. Will the event be live-streamed, torrented, podcasted, or anything similar?
Since much of it is conversational in small groups, there's no good way to live stream or record the whole thing. We will, however, do *something* to get the ideas that were discussed out into the wider world and continue the discussion online.
Big time. In a way that impacted many, many, many websites.
They noticed it and fixed it.
They didn't notice it. Five days of people complaining on Google's own forums and sending in notices did nothing. It was only when I reached out for comment from Google that someone seems to have finally realized things were broken.
Big deal - is there anybody on Earth this doesn't happen to once in a while?
Break a critical system and not notice for five days while your users suffer? Yeah. That doesn't happen that often, actually.
This pretty much sums up your ridiculous approach to IP. You simply label McKenna a "maximalist" and then refuse to engage anything he says on the merits.
You're right. That was both uncalled for and wrong...
I got McKenna confused with someone else and overreacted and I apologize for that. My original comment was not about McKenna's paper at all, but about the quotes you gave from the law. That was it. Then I overreacted and wrote something up quickly when in a rush and that was a mistake.
I understand what you are saying and I'm not upset or angry one way or the other, but, at least in Florida, you are wrong (cue Florida jokes).
In Florida, theft is defined as someone who "knowingly ... uses the property of another with intent to ... appropriate the property to his own use." Fla. Stat. s. 812.014(1). Under this, the Court has held that copyright infringement constitutes theft. See CBS, Inc. v. Garrod, 622 F. Supp. 532, 536 (M.D. Fla. 1985), aff'd, 803 F.2d 1183 (11th Cir. 1986).
It does seem worth pointing out here -- as that ruling does -- that under the 1976 Copyright Act, basically all state copyright laws are pre-empted by federal copyright law and no longer apply. This case notes that it's talking about actions prior to that taking place, but you can certainly point out that this is no longer considered current or good law, because it only refers to actions taking place before July of 1977.
Either way, it is absolutely true that some people have been led to believe that copyright infringement equates to theft, and that means that every so often you get politicians writing "theft" into the law, or even courts coming out with questionable rulings, like the Bridgeport ruling saying "thous shalt not steal" in a sampling case.
But that doesn't change the basic factual point that we're making that copying is not theft.
I wasn't addressing McKenna's paper. As you know, McKenna has a long history of writing papers biased to your general IP maximalist position. I don't take him very seriously.
I was talking about your quotes of the law itself, which make it quite clear that they're talking about unfair competition and deception. Yes, as part of commercial law, it's designed to protect the producers, but FOR THE PURPOSE of not deceiving consumers. i.e., both issues are satisfied under it. But trademark law was NEVER meant to be a "property right" as you and your funders now wish to make it out to be.
Trademark law, from the beginning, was actually about protecting mark owners from unfair competition. The notion that trademark is intended to protect against consumer deception is more recent. This is a fact, and no matter how much Mike resists the reality, it's fundamentally true and easily verified.
Nice try (complete with insults), but your sources don't actually say what you want them to say. Notice that all the quotes you mention talk about stopping "deception." And "unfair competition" is the same exact issue. The "unfair" part about the competition is that it's designed to fool consumers. The fact that it harms both the producer and the consumer is meaningless here. The idea was to prevent consumer confusion.
It's dilution that was added late to the game, and then lawyers looked to retroactively make it look like it had always been there.
So, yeah, I guess since your sources don't actually say what you wanted them to say, you felt the need to resort to ad homs instead. Typical. But, really, doesn't it get kind of tiring to have to always do that kind of thing?
The core of what you are trying to communicate is basically "not all unauthorized reproductions are infringing", right? I happen to agree with that, I just think that isn't what you are communicating with your shirt.
But that's not what we're saying. It's true that not all unauthorized reproductions are infringing, but ALL copying IS NOT THEFT. Some of it is infringing. Some of it is not. And we can't have a reasoned debate on what makes sense and what doesn't when people continually claim that "copying is theft." It's not.
So, we're not saying that infringement is good or bad. We're saying that it's not theft.
Something I can't quite figure: everyone keeps saying Gawker got brought down by billionaire etc etc... but when I look at it subjectively it was really the damages awarded by the court or similar (I'm massively paraphrasing; didn't follow everything in detail). So while the case against Gawker was bankrolled by the wealthy (the lawyer fees at least), it was all down to whether the courts ruled against Gawker. In this case it doesn't matter how much money you throw at the case.
Yes, it was this one court decision that brought down Gawker, but that decision wouldn't have happened if it were not for the billionaire.
Here's why: (1) Jurisdiction shopping: previously the case was rejected by 2 courts as clearly First Amendment protected. Having lots of extra cash meant being able to keep shopping until you find a judge (the most reversed judge in the state, btw) who agrees with you. (2) It wasn't just this lawsuit, but the piling on of multiple bogus lawsuits, which added up the legal fees for Gawker. (3) The support of the billionaire made it possible for Hogan and the lawyers to make some... weird judicial decisions, such as rejecting a massive settlement offer and dropping specific charges that got the insurance company out of the case (normally you want the insurance company to cover to get more money).
So, yes, in the end a judicial decision (one that will almost certainly be overturned) brought it down, but that was only possible because of a billionaire dead set on destroying the company.
With the t-shirt issue, Techdirt has leverage that many small-time graphic designers simply do not have. It's all well and good to say that copying is not theft (and its not). But that is small consolation if, for example, I create a design for a tshirt that proved popular, only to have Hot Topic take it, throw their manufacturing muscle behind it, and sell them without attributing me.
Copying may not literally be theft, but it's still immoral. And in certain cases, it should be rightfully attacked as a crime (not "theft") in and of itself.
I think in cases where we've seen that happen, the person whose image is copied and repackaged has EVERY right to speak out about it and harm the reputation of Hot Topic. That's what I discussed in the post above. If you do copy someone's work without attribution, it can come back to haunt you because the public at large will likely find the practice sketchy.
And, yes, we at Techdirt may have a larger starting platform from which to make that argument, but you'd be amazed at the appetite for stories about "big company uses little designer's imagery..." I see stories like that all the time, and it's possible to shame the big companies pretty readily.
I am saying the internet IS influencing me and I'm the one to know. THIS musician is irrelevant, I've gone to concerts in the past but NO LONGER. Same with my spouse (before we ever met, and who has a huge collection of music), same with my kids and their friends. So I am clearly saying that it's not just me, I know others with this view and who did attend concerts in the past.
Anecdotes are not data. Data shows more and more and more money from more and more and more people attending live shows: