There's many more like that. So, you can claim we "hate musicians" all you want, but the truth is the exact opposite. We are super happy to see musicians be successful and we spend a shit ton of time trying to help more be successful. We just think that your preferred method of threatening and insulting your fans is not a wise way to do that.
Re: Treaty obligations vs Constitutional Obligations
If TPP gets ratified by the US Senate (one way or another), how does it play against the US Constitution?
The Constitution does trump the TPP, but that doesn't mean it won't still cause problems. What happens is that you get a phalanx of lobbyists arguing how we have to "comply with our international obligations" or all hell will break loose, and then Congress tries to figure out ways to "work around" the situation.
Add to that, things like the WTO and the ISDS panels, and what might happen is that even if the Constitution "wins" and blocks the implementation of the treaty, the US is then "punished" -- either through monetary fines (taxpayer money) or other punishment (like the WTO saying that countries can ignore other US laws as "compensation") and so the US still faces pressure to comply.
Re: I'm growing tired of TechDirt's "no HTTPS" whinging
In this case, since videos of public government hearings for news purposes would clearly fall under fair use (if not public domain), why don't you just host the video yourself? FTFY
C-SPAN does not make them downloadable. If someone wants to figure out a way to get the actual video, we'd happily post it. But, as a warning, doing so may circumvent technological protection measures in violation of the DMCA section 1201.
Re: You have no idea what this "Sovereignty" thing is, right?
Corporation suing government of $country in same $country? Is _this_ supposed to "undermine sovereignty"? Like in:
>> The TPP would newly empower about 9,000 foreign-owned firms in the United States to launch ISDS cases against the U.S. government
No. It's not about "suing government of $country in same $country." It's about avoiding the court system altogether. It's about challenging laws in $country at a non-court tribunal made up of other lawyers who represent other multinational companies in similar cases and letting THEM decide if the laws of a country are "unreasonable."
In other words, giving a small group of corporate lawyers the ability to basically veto any country's laws.
If I patent something but don't have the means to actually see it through, selling the patent is a reasonable way to use the patent system to encourage innovation.
There are two implicit assumptions in that, neither of which hold up under much scrutiny.
Implicit assumption #1: That raising capital for an idea is impossible for small players. If an idea is truly interesting, there are lots of ways to raise capital for it, and you don't need patents to do that (despite what some claim).
Implicit assumption #2: The selling of the patent actually transfers something useful towards the actual innovation. As others have noted, there is rarely much in the patent itself that actually helps the innovation move forward. Most of the useful "know how" is entirely unrelated to what's in the patent.
If a small time inventor isn't likely to see return, they are less likely to do it.
And yet, you almost never see cases of someone selling a patent to encourage development of some new technology. It's almost all about giving control to some party to either sue others over it, or to prevent being sued. It's not actual knowledge transfer.
As I understand it, he leaves out the copyright status markers because he feels that it furthers the idea that everything must be owned, and any use must require permission. 'I do not agree wit the system as it is, so to avoid providing legitimacy for it I will not involve myself with it' basically.
That's basically it. I find it a shame that people need to especially signal that a work is in the public domain. So yes, I have said over and over that our work is in the public domain and people are free to use it as such...
All the European ones seem to want to give us an amount that's not enough to live on by itself. Please confirm: your basic income would effectively be the same amount as the living wage? How much were you thinking of?
We weren't discussing any specific proposal, but the idea of how BIG should work, which would very much be a living wage.
How? Jacking up taxes isn't enough, they find ways around that.
You're really focused on this, as if it's a default that people will avoid taxes. That's a different issue.
On the Pirate Party's subreddit, enthusiasts said it was for anyone with a UK passport.
Again, we weren't discussing one particular proposal, but again, there's no reason why it need be limited to those with a particular passport. In fact, that seems counterproductive.
I was told by other enthusiasts I've spoken to about this that the terms are non-negotiable.
I've seen lots of discussions on BIG with a variety of different ideas. Considering it doesn't actually exist anywhere the idea that things are "non-negotiable" is clearly ridiculous.
If it replaces all other welfare, bye bye pensions. Are they going to keep those after all and add UBI to them?
I still don't see what pensions have to do with anything here, unless maybe I'm missing some sort of difference between the US and the UK. Pensions are private programs unrelated to welfare. Or are you discussing something else?
I STILL don't see the value of giving it to the rich. "But the poor might feel bad about taking it" seems foolish to me.
I don't see that as the reason at all. The reason to give it to everyone has a lot more to do with reducing the overhead issues. If you have to do any means-testing, you automatically introduce a large bureaucratic mess of figuring out who qualifies and who doesn't (and creates opportunities for gaming). If you just do it flat across the board then you reduce the costs of running the program.
It's not enough to live on by itself, so you're screwed if you can't get a job or other form of income
Um, but that's the point. For it to work it DOES need to be enough to live on. You've taken away the most basic premise of Basic Income Guarantee and then said it's no good. But that's only because what you're describing is not Basic Income Guarantee.
Not all rich people pay tax
That's a different problem, which can be addressed.
How in the world can we afford to dish this money out to those who DON'T need it as well as those who DO?
We discuss this in the podcast and it's covered in many other places as well. There are ways to make this perfectly affordable.
Apparently, it's for citizens.
Apparently for whom?
You seem to think that there are set in place official rules for BIG that can't be changed. That's wrong.
left my damn pension alone
Who has said anything about pensions?
You seem to be fighting against a strawman, or some other program that you don't like and assumed that's what we're talking about.
Section 230 is mere statute (common law always trumps it) and in any event only applies when the platform is objectively neutral.
This is false.
Here at Techdirt, it being a business, if Masnick uses his power as administrator / moderator and becomes a partisan to, say, exclude certain persons or aid in harassing them, then he'd lose all protections.
100% false. In fact, CDA 230 makes it clear that the platform can do whatever moderation it wants and not lose liability. In fact, that was the original point of CDA 230 -- to *encourage* moderation in a way that would not rid a site of liability protections. Read 230(c)(2)(A) which says:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"
So you're misinformed. It is not only for neutral parties, and voluntarily choosing to moderate does not shed anyone of Section 230 protections. At all.
If these mashup "artists" are so talented, surely they will have no trouble creating their own original songs, instead of piggybacking on the work of actual creators.
If those musicians are so talented, surely they will have no trouble building their own instruments, instead of piggybacking on the work of actual creators.
One thing I consistently notice about this blog is the very lowbrow appreciation of music, and I'm sure that lack of taste informs the biased opinions against actual creators often expressed here. If you can't value good music because you can't hear the difference, of course you will have no trouble with people profiteering off the backs of actual creators.
Interesting. Based on your theories, nearly all of modern music is "lowbrow." Do you consider Bob Dylan lowbrow? The Beatles? Led Zeppelin? Elvis? Michael Jackson? Almost all of the most successful artists are somewhat famous for building off the works of those before them.
I find it amazing how many people, like yourself, pretend that you are supporting artists when, really, you are dismissing the value of nearly all artists.
I'm curious. Do you think this is "low brow" and that this guy should just "create his own" works instead of what he did here:
This is the first time that "This Week In Techdirt History" has been skipped. Hopefully the decision (if there was one) had nothing to do with last weeks' use of the episode as a convenient dumping ground for off-topic posts of all kinds (& egged on by a skeptic's request for documents).
Just everyone exhausted from Copia summit... everything should go back to normal next week...
Fair use protects him. He only gets permission for social reasons.
Here's the thing: fair use doesn't protect him here. Because the copyright is owned by the Gayes. Blurred Lines itself is infringing and he made a copy of that infringing work. Thus, in this case, fair use *doesn't* work. That's how fucked up this ruling is.
Don't have time for a detailed answer -- been meaning to write a long post about Bitcoin (literally have been planning it for over a year...), but just haven't had the time to focus on it.
But, yes, I think Bitcoin/cryptocurrency is incredibly important and will have a significant impact. Though not in the way most people expect. For the reasons why... well, you need to wait until I get this post together.
Let's see... Former Secretary of State Colin Powell used private email -- nobody is saying diddly. Same with Condi Rice. In fact, John Kerry is the first SoS that actually had an official email setup with the State Department. So why is Clinton getting the Benghazi treatment?
No, we're equally critical of that. In our first posting, we noted that Hillary *CLEARLY KNEW* about these rules, thanks to the KNOWN CONTROVERSY about Bush administration officials hiding stuff via private email accounts.
If you think we're writing about this because of partisan politics, you clearly don't read this site.
Apparently Hillary does not know one can have multiple email accounts on a single smartphone.
There actually has been some discussion on this. Apparently, it was a lot more difficult for some government email systems back in 2009. Many weren't able to do this until much later. So it's not *entirely* crazy: