average_joe 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1892) comment rss

  • On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright

    average_joe ( profile ), 20 May, 2013 @ 11:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.

    Yet, for some reason, you envision Techdirt readers as an obedient, unthinking cult, hanging on Masnick's every word and regarding him as their "leader".

    I think that because it's true. It gets proven daily.

    Mike and his guest bloggers just relay reports of outrageous things that the IP industry is up to, and they often express their opinions about it, and we all chime in with ours. It's as simple as that. He doesn't have us under mind control. He's not our "leader". One misstep and we'll turn on him...for that one post, which is how it should be.

    You're one of the few regulars who is capable of independent thought. I appreciate that.

    Along those lines, let me ask you this. Do you agree with me that Mike has said practically nothing of substance in this post and instead is just making another attempt to discredit copyright holders without actually even looking at their arguments?

  • On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright

    average_joe ( profile ), 20 May, 2013 @ 11:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.

    Then the real question is...what is your point in being here?

    I'm merely pointing out that Mike hasn't said anything of substance.

    He claims that the this group "has written a ridiculous letter with little basis in fact, arguing that this treaty for the blind would be 'casting aside' the 'international copyright infrastructure.'" But then he never actually explains why that's not true. No substance.

    He claims that the proposal would "provide extremely limited situations in which copyright restrictions would be limited for the sake of making it easier for vision-impaired people to access works." But he never bothers to back that up textually. No substance.

    It's just a bunch of faith-based, conclusory statements. I'm pointing out that he's a total hypocrite when he castigates others for making faith-based assertions because he does the same with alarming frequency. I'm pointing out that the whole point of this article is merely to discredit a group that he disagrees with (despite him not appearing to actually understand the substance of the arguments or counterarguments). It's total bullshit. I'm calling him out for it.

  • On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright

    average_joe ( profile ), 20 May, 2013 @ 09:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.

    I am desensitized to it, having been attacked viciously over and over again by the folks on TD who can't stand it when their leader is challenged.

    Address the merits of my post if you would: Do you agree that Mike has not even begun to back up his assertion that this is a "ridiculous letter with little basis in fact"? Do you agree that Mike hasn't shown us the text of the proposal and explained why this response is bullshit? Do you agree that Mike's purpose in writing this article was not to actually advance the debate in a positive way but was instead solely for the purpose of discrediting these people with his usual "they hate the blind!" trope? I feel like I added to the discussion by pointing out how Mike added nothing. I'm not familiar enough with the proposals to add much of value on the merits, but apparently neither is Mike. That doesn't stop him from writing this crap though. Why aren't you grilling him if you agree with me in part?

  • On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright

    average_joe ( profile ), 20 May, 2013 @ 09:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.

    Oh look, personal attacks that add nothing to the conversation. I'm happy to discuss common ground. I'd love to know what the proposal here actually says and why some people are actually against parts of it. But all we get is this faith-based FUD attack and the return of the "they hate the blind!" argument that gets us nowhere.

  • On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright

    average_joe ( profile ), 20 May, 2013 @ 08:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm wondering what the proposal says exactly. I'm wondering why copyright holders are against parts of it. I'm not getting any actual information from this article. Just Mike's conclusory statements as to what the proposal is and that their complaints about it are groundless. It's just faith-based FUD. Let's see the proposal. Let's see the exact text they are taking issue with. Let's discuss it on the merits.

  • On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright

    average_joe ( profile ), 20 May, 2013 @ 08:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.

    I'm just pointing out that this is yet a mindless FUD piece that adds nothing to debate and exists only to fan the flames of hatred towards copyright holders. It's not ego. I seriously wonder how Mike was second in his class at Cornell yet seems incapable of actually being a positive force in the debate.

  • On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright

    average_joe ( profile ), 20 May, 2013 @ 08:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.

    You're claiming you do?

    No. Nobody has such perfect information, yet they are able to have an opinion on what copyright should look like. That's why it's such a bullshit excuse from Mike. He clearly has all sorts of deeply-felt opinions about copyright despite not having perfect information. He just pulls out that excuse when anyone challenges him to state a concrete position on copyright policy.

  • On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright

    average_joe ( profile ), 20 May, 2013 @ 08:30am

    Re: Re:

    Yeah, asking Mike to discuss the actual text of the proposal and their actual position on what they think is wrong with it is derailing the conversation. Not. This is just another "they hate the blind" article that adds nothing positive to the debate about copyright. Mike's specialty, unfortunately. Mike's incapable of anything else, I'm sad to say.

  • On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright

    average_joe ( profile ), 20 May, 2013 @ 08:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.

    I know you're flaming and you have nothing to add to the conversation, but if there's something you'd like to debate me on I'd be happy to oblige. I will directly answer your direct questions without weasel words and without running away. Bring it on.

  • On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright

    average_joe ( profile ), 20 May, 2013 @ 08:22am

    Re: Again, sheerly an anti-copyright WEDGE for Mike.

    For someone who claims he's yet to take a position on how to reform copyright, his articles ALWAYS argue for less of it!

    Yeah, he doesn't have 100% perfect information so he is completely incapable of forming opinions about copyright policy--unless someone proposes to limit it somehow, then he knows that's the right move. Not very convincing on his part. He's obviously working backwards at all times.

  • On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright

    average_joe ( profile ), 20 May, 2013 @ 08:20am

    Of course, it does no such thing. All it does is provide extremely limited situations in which copyright restrictions would be limited for the sake of making it easier for vision-impaired people to access works.

    I know this is just another brainless FUD piece so you can attempt to discredit these pro-copyright people by making it sound like they hate the blind, but your argument that "it does no such thing" would be much more effective if you actually quoted the text of the proposed limitations and exceptions. You could also add something productive to the conversation by telling us your proposed solution to this problem. Or are you only capable of hit pieces like this that add ABSOLUTELY NOTHING POSITIVE to the debate?

    The level of freakout from these giant companies over helping the blind is really quite incredible.

    Your portrayal of these people as hating the blind is what I find to be "really quite incredible," as in, completely not believable and only reflective of your own deep-seated hatred of others who don't think the same as you. Again, if you cited the text and/or told us your suggestions, that would be a lot more productive. As it is, you just come across as a whiny blogger who is only capable of publishing mindless crap in a desperate attempt to discredit others. Add something positive to the discussion for once. Take a concrete stand yourself rather than just shitting on everyone else's beliefs. Seriously, you come across as writing for disgruntled eighth graders.

  • On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform

    average_joe ( profile ), 17 May, 2013 @ 07:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    LMAO. You guys are awesome. I love this place.

  • On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform

    average_joe ( profile ), 17 May, 2013 @ 07:23pm

    Re: Re: A sad misunderstanding

    So your argument is that because you can think one individual who does something with copyright you don't like, that means that we should chuck the whole system? You fit right in with Mike's Army. With that logic, we should chuck every single thing that exists on earth. There's always some perceived asshole doing something. Let me guess: pirate much?

  • On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform

    average_joe ( profile ), 17 May, 2013 @ 07:22pm

    Re: A sad misunderstanding

    Actually, they go hand in hand. You promote the progress by protecting the rights of the people who make that progress. One is not mutually exclusive of the other.

    Mike wants to separate the means from the ends. He wants to promote the progress so long as we don't do it by granting to authors exclusive rights. It's important to pretend like the two aren't interrelated since he hates the means so much. That's why he always and only focuses on the negatives, or his version of the negatives anyway, of copyright. He'll never put things into perspective or acknowledge that there are even positives. His mantra is that it's completely broken, and his dream is to see the day when authors have no exclusive rights whatsoever.

  • On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform

    average_joe ( profile ), 17 May, 2013 @ 06:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Where does Mike say which exclusive rights he thinks authors/artists should have? No where. Where does Mike explain his personal beliefs about the morality of infringement? No where. This isn't hard, Marcus.

  • On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform

    average_joe ( profile ), 17 May, 2013 @ 06:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I enjoy pointing out that Mike is too scared to ever talk about the specifics of his beliefs about copyright. I think it's hilarious that he's so opinionated and given so much thought to copyright yet he's so completely unwilling to discuss things on the merits. It's the classic presentation of a zealous demagogue.

  • On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform

    average_joe ( profile ), 17 May, 2013 @ 06:36pm

    Re: Re:

    I don't get your point. Does Mike tell us how to measure the progress? No. It's high-level rhetoric. It sounds like to say that we should base things on evidence, but he never explains exactly how we'd do that. Nor does he explain how we'd measure the things that can't be measured. You haven't refuted a single thing I said. You're just disagreeing with me for disagreement's sake.

  • On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform

    average_joe ( profile ), 17 May, 2013 @ 06:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHOA! Stop at: "everyone just wants stuff for free".

    Not too bright. The context was obviously referring to the comments in this article in particular. I'm not asking Mike to debate me HERE. Duh.

  • On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform

    average_joe ( profile ), 17 May, 2013 @ 05:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    LMAO!

  • On the post: A Framework For Copyright Reform

    average_joe ( profile ), 17 May, 2013 @ 04:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHOA! Stop at: "everyone just wants stuff for free".

    Yeah, I'm pointing out that he isn't saying anything concrete or helpful. He isn't putting any skin in the game, as per usual. I'm not asking him to debate me because I know for a fact that he is too scared to. I'm challenging to say even one concrete idea about copyright reform.

Next >>