Anyway, I'm finished responding to your silly posts.
That's cool with me. I'm kind of tired of correcting your obvious mistakes myself.
Gotcha games are not interesting to me.
I'm not playing any sort of game here. Just simply correcting your incorrect notions concerning copyright laws. If I get something wrong, I fully expect a copyright lawyer or somebody else who is knowledgeable in this area to jump in and correct me.
Ripping and/or reencoding video is a derivative work. Only copyright holders have the statutory right to do that.
Not true. It's already been determined that I have a Fair Use right to do such things.
From RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999:
In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main purpose - the facilitation of personal use. As the Senate Report explains, "[t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294, at *86 (emphasis added). The Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. § 1008, which "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings," H.R. Rep. 102-873(I), at *59. The Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or "space-shift," those files that already reside on a user's hard drive. Cf. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984) (holding that "time-shifting" of copyrighted television shows with VCR's constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement). Such copying is paradigmatic noncommercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act. Emphasis mine.
The copyright holder does not have any right in any way, shape, or form to dictate whether I merely listen to the commentary while working on something else, nor can (s)he tell me which of my devices I can experience the content on. If you are right you ought to be able to cite a law or link to an article proving your point.
I would also like to read an argument like that myself, if one exists. I think it would prove to be pretty humorous. I've done some cursory Google searches and can't find anyone making an argument like that all.
Read that section and try to absorb what the result is of having the sole right to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; and to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.
You are omitting the fact that those exclusive rights are also subject to the exceptions provided in Sections § 107 thru § 122. Which includes Fair Use. It has already been established that time-shifting and format-shifting are valid Fair Uses with digital products. Creating derivative works in the context of Fair Use is also not infringement. Those rights aren't as exclusive as you are making them out to be. Section 1201 impedes my right of Fair Use by making the act of accessing the work illegal.
If I, as the copyright holder, have to sole ability to prepare derivative works, then guess what--I'm dictating how a non-copyright holder gets to use the work.
Like I said above, that right isn't exclusive as you are thinking. I can cut all the words from your dead-tree book, rearrange them and create a collage and it could be considered Fair Use. I cannot do similar things with a DVD because I would have to circumvent the DRM to do so. See the difference?
And if that work is video content, I get to dictate how you consume that content.
Repeating something doesn't make it true. Copyright holders have never had the "right to dictate how a work is consumed". Section 1201 doesn't give you that right at all, it only removes my right to circumvent the DRM.
Ok. You don't seem to be getting my point. Section 1201 specifically restricts me from "doing what I want" with my individual copy. For example, playing a DVD on a Linux box is technically breaking the law. GeoHot was sued for modding his PlayStation 3. That is not really "doing what I want with it".
It's been known for ages that a person "owns" the physical media but does not own the copyrighted content.
Not really. Traditionally one has had full property rights to the individual copy that they own. For example, with a dead-tree version of a book I can write on the pages or reorder the pages or destroy chapters I dislike or whatever. Section 1201 (which is what this article is about) changed that by restricting what I am allowed to do with my property in the privacy of my home.
Section 1201 also impedes Fair Use. Without Fair Use, copyright would run afoul of the First Amendment. I'm of the opinion that Section 1201 is fundamentally unconstitutional, even with the granting of the exceptions.
This article makes me wonder if the automotive software could be replaced with open source software. That way you could actually own 100% of your vehicle.
Also, since they are claiming that they "own" a portion of your vehicle, wouldn't that also make them legally responsible for a portion of the liability that would occur when your car is in an accident?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "I can't prove the "shill" accusation" -- So, you were lying.
It's clear you don't even want this simple fact stated:
Google directly funds Mike Masnick, "editor" of Techdirt.
That is not a fact at all. All you know is that Google provided space for a Techdirt event many years ago, that the CCIA (Computer and Communications Industry Association, of which Google is a member) sponsored some research that Floor64 did and that Google is a current sponsor of the Copia Institute. Beyond that is pure speculation on your part.
In my opinion, you are bordering on libel with this unwarranted attack and you should be careful.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Instead of the mysteriously vague ad hom warning -- "You should be careful which way your deflections are headed." What does that even mean? -- you should state something positive.
Umm....Ok. How's this:
I'm positive that Whatever was trying to deflect the conversation away from Hollywood accounting and onto Google and that he should be careful because the big studios do the same type of things he's accusing Google of.
(PS: I'm sorry you weren't intelligent enough to figure that out for yourself.)
Re: Re: Re: Consent is the ultimate Fourth Amendment waiver
Because being intimidated or even 'just' bamboozled into signing such a form by an authority figure during a stressful situation is totally impossible and would NOT make it so much harder in every conceivable way for the citizen to show that the search was unconstitutional.
Actually, I don't think it would.
Duress is an established common law defense in contract law that would cause the form (contract) to be voided which would make it a search without consent and therefore unconstitutional.
No great investigations into Google? We know that they have used every tax dodge and offshoring option possible to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Many major tech companies have done similar things...
You should be careful which way your deflections are headed.
Corporate tax dodging isn't limited just to tech companies you know. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Disney also does the exact same things reduce their tax liabilities.