Face facts, pirates. Such as that I can re-post easily.
Geesh Blue, buy a clue.
I'll bet even the people who might be on your side in some of these arguments are clicking report on your comments because they are so outlandish and so lacking of logic and facts that they hurt their side's credibility.
I've tried often to 'splain that purchasing media confers NO rights whatsoever to the content. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA. RIEN. NICHTS. BUPKIS.
And you've been wrong every time. RIAA v. Diamond more or less estibilished that personal time-shifting or format-shifting is Fair Use in the US.
Also, copyright does not and has never (with the exception of Section 1201 - ie: DRM) impeded the property rights associated with the individual copy. For example, I'm completely within my rights to remove all the pages from a dead-tree book and rearrange them into a new story.
Re: Re: Where are all the comments as last week? -- Answer: I didn't put out bait and you pirates have nothing positive to say! Just denials.
Or it's a summer Saturday and everyone but you has a life.
So very true.
Blue also operates under two other misguided delusions concerning the "strawman Techdirt" he's build up in his own head.
#1) That Techdirt readers are all juvenile delinquents living in their parents basements downloading copyrighted material 24/7.
This delusion is easily dispelled by simply looking at Techdirt's actual demographics. %58 make over 50k/year, 77% are over the age of 24 and 75% are college graduates. That sounds like responsible adult members of society to me.
#2) That his comments are actually influential here at Techdirt.
This can also be easily dispelled by simply looking at how many times Blue's comments are hidden via the consensus of the community.
Re: HOLY CRAP! "An easy, accessible system for combating infringement is a generally a good thing."!!!!
I have wandered into an alternate universe! Surprisingly, it's a better one, where "other people's content" is protected, and "combating infringement is a generally a good thing". -- Either that or the Techdirt that I knew has been DNS spoofed.
Or maybe you've had an epiphany and are coming to the realization that the strawman "Techdirt" you've built up in your own mind isn't actually anywhere close to reality.
Re: What's that up there? -- It's a bird! It's a plane! -- Oh, crap! It's just the usual ANOMALY!
The jury should look beyond the high-falutin' legalisms defense lawyers will present to the need to punish corporations that destroy privacy.
This is pure comedy gold.
Blue is basically saying in this comment: "Fuck the law because I don't like what happened in this case."
But, when it comes to filesharing, Blue has made clear he feels this way: "I don't care that a lot of people feel that the law is immoral, I don't feel that way and it's the law, so you are all filthy criminals"
responding to one of those guys who hope to derail the discussion is helping that creep.
I disagree. For starters, derailing the discussion doesn't really bother me all that much. Some of the most intense, informative and entertaining conversations here in Techdirt's comment section have had absolutely nothing to do with actual article. Discussions among humans are always a fluid thing and I see no reason to limit them with artificial restrictions - even if it annoys some people.
And secondarily, I firmly believe that incorrect or incomplete statements should be exposed and corrected so that other readers have enough information to come to their own conclusions.
Re: Response to: Chronno S. Trigger on Jun 17th, 2015 @ 9:51am
Therefore, I've won.
Actually, your comment is the one that is unwittingly revealing, Blue.
That you view Techdirt's comment section as a battlefield where the exchanges must be "won" says quite a bit about your character and morals.
Most everyone else is here to have thoughtful discussions and to possibly learn from opposing viewpoints and for the occasional laugh.
BTW, in my humble opinion, I would have to say that your actual debate winning percentage over the years here on Techdirt is somewhere around 2 or 3%. Making a comment then ignoring each and every rebuttal to that comment that shows how wrong you are is an overall loss in my book.
Re: Re: Re: The internet: say stop stealing and stop watching mindless entertainment,
Lol. Nice try Blue.
You are pretty much the only one who uses the greater than symbol instead of quotation marks or italics when quoting someone (the only other person I know who does that is a Federal agent who's comments are infinitely more intelligent than yours).
At least you admit you are a troll though, that's a start.
If he didn't want to be charged with espionage, he could have released the information to the press...
He did turn over all the information to the press.
...and turn himself in as a whistleblower instead of being a criminal and traitor.
You are making zero sense here. If he turned himself in as a "whistleblower" he would have been treated as a "criminal and traitor" just like the previous whistleblowers have been. What would have been gained by that?
Re: Re: Re: WHAT? After all this time, Masnick ADMITS common law copyright even exists!!!???
His writing style is so unique as to give him away each and every time.
There also the fact that Blue doesn't seem to realize that the phrase "common law copyright" has different definitions.
Blue use the term in the sense of a legal doctrine that is based on the contention that copyright is a natural right and creators are therefore entitled to the same protections anyone would be in regard to tangible and real property. Both the US (Wheaton v. Peters, 1834) and the UK (Donaldson v. Beckett, 1774) have rejected the "natural right" aspect of copyright.
Mike uses the term "common law copyright" to refer to state-level copyright which is preempted by federal copyright law. The only time state-level copyright is important is when it covered something that federal copyright law didn't cover at the time.