This is Mike. I run this site. I'm a bit confused about your ongoing comments here accusing other people of somehow being rude to you or treating you unfairly. As it should be clear, this blog post is about the individual Walter O'Brien. It has little to do with the TV show, other than the fact that the show is supposedly -- if totally falsely -- billed as being based on O'Brien's life.
It seems clear that you like the show. No one here cares.
The whole issue was about O'Brien's clearly false statements of fact and our discussion of that. You seemed very focused on this TV show -- which no one else here cares about -- and some of the regular readers on the site called you out on your confusion.
Since then this has just been a merry-go-round of ridiculousness.
So can we just end this. You can enjoy your TV show. No one's trying to take that away. But just admit that it's pure fiction and that O'Brien is a liar who got the TV show on the air using false pretenses. And please, stop insulting the people around here who tried to respond to you sensibly only to have you mock them.
Massively overpriced shit being marked down and called a sale yet again.
It's pay what you want -- so not sure how you can claim it's overpriced.
At this point Mike, you should just ban all non physical products from your suggested shit.
Many people (including me!) have actually found the courses pretty helpful. I'm sorry that you disagree.
Considering your site often focuses on ethical issues it tarnishes your message to have it associated with this bullshit. Which is more important, your stacksocial bucks, or not being a hypocrite? Here's a hint: being a hypocrite directly degrades your ability to be a force for good in the world.
I'm a bit confused as to what we've done here that you find so unethical?
Yes, they did. They unlinked links. That's modification.
They added context to it, which in the circumstances wasn't warranted.
They did that too. And, at the very least, they could have been more direct in that as well -- letting users know WHICH URLs were the concerning ones, which would have cleared up some of the confusion.
If I have to choose between Google warning me about malware URLs in my email and not warning me, I'm gonna choose warning me. And TechDirt *admits* that the domain *was hosting malware*, so the warning was accurate.
The site was no longer hosting malware -- as the story noted. The story was about how the domain was taken away from the malware distributor.
Asking "permission" doesn't actually solve anything though, because the artist can't prevent legal use of their music. If a politician feels that a particular song reflects the way they feel or the image they want to project, they're free to pay their money and play it to their heart's content.
Artists might not like it, and they're free to express that opinion, but the same copyright laws that they claim are indispensable for artistic creation allow their music to be used this way. Live by the copyright sword, die by the copyright sword.
Yeah, I think what Tim meant is not that they should HAVE to ask permission, but if they want to avoid giving free publicity to people who hate them, maybe ask first. It's a different sort of permission. Basically, figure out how not to give a wide open platform for someone famous to attack you.
Yes yes, correlation does not equal causation. But sometimes it is because of a causal relationship and in this case, the precise timing of the drops -- exactly matching with the copyright terms, provides a very, very, very direct and clear match with the data. The alternative explanations don't even remotely come close to explaining the data.
So, sure, it's a theory, but it's the best one so far. If you've got a better one, present it.
And, yah, I love that page and have pointed people to it in the past, but this data is not the same thing. It's not correlation in mapping two graphs (which that page frequently, if hilariously, games by changing the scale on each side), this data, REPEATEDLY, using three different data sets ALL SHOW a MAJOR SHIFT at EXACTLY the moment of the public domain cut off. That's not just "these numbers correlate." That's evidence of a serious issue.
It seems that loading copyright for all the reasons that "culture disappeared" ignores other factors for the decline in new book publications post 1910
That would be interesting if the data above was about new books being published. It is not. The first chart was about new books available from those time periods. The second chart is digitized publications. Interpreting the chart above as being about the number of new works published is just... wrong. If you look at the actual data on new works published it has generally continued to rise over time.
During this time the economic situation may have had an impact on the willingness of publisher to pay authors but this was massively out weighted by the explosion of new technologies that enabled mass advertising to have a more profound impact on culture and the growth of mass culture by in part bankrolling it. Book publishing was displaced by more appealing media that could be enjoyed together and less expensively.
Again, that has nothing to do with any of the charts above, but really, nice try.
Also, if you look at the massive changes on the chart, they date EXACTLY to copyright terms, and NOT to the specific dates/events that you mention. The US data hits a cliff at exactly the public domain cut off of 1923. The European data, you'll see, has an initial decline around the same date (countries who follow life + 70) and a second decline in the early 1940s (countries who follow life + 50).
So, yeah, nice story, but the data does not say what you think it says. You read it wrong and then made up a story about it that doesn't even fit with what you claimed. And you claim that the folks with the actual data are the desperate ones? Wow. Buy a mirror.
Of course, your quotation of the clearly non self-serving analysis of how useful using Google is compared to buying the book clearly invalidates my repeated personal experience using my lying eyes.
If Google Books snippets is enough to replace buying books for you, then I can only suggest that you must have bought a lot of books for basically no more than one or two pages of those books. That's... weird.
As noted above (did you even read my comment?), the initial fear was over the potential of a much more broad ruling that would have impacted wider cloud services. However, BECAUSE of people raising those concerns, the SCOTUS ruled narrowly (if bizarrely) and that has certainly helped to limit some of the initial concerns. Focusing on the "is it cable" question and avoiding the larger copyright issues helped (as noted above, and ignored by you).
That was true. The lack of a clear standard in the SCOTUS ruling left plenty swimming in the dark. As you or someone else notes below, it did show up in at least some other lawsuits already (thankfully, those have been decided correctly, but it did show up). Furthermore, I personally know of at least two companies that shelved plans for new cloud services because of Aereo.
Just because YOU are ignorant of the impact, doesn't mean there was none.
Still waiting for the parade of horribles you and others predicted would arise if Aereo lost to come true. I suspect I'll be waiting forever. Doesn't the FUD approach get old? I'm sure it generates clicks, but are they worth it?
It's kind of tough to demonstrate the innovations that are NOT happening thanks to fear of litigation, isn't it? The big concern is still very much there, which is that the Aereo ruling could have the potential to chill innovation in the field of cloud computing. I will say that because of the odd way in which the SCOTUS ruling came down -- focusing so much on the issue of "looks like cable" that it probably was not as bad as it COULD have been, where the ruling would have resulted in real problems for cloud providers. But it should be noted, contrary to your mocking, that a good part of the reason why SCOTUS was careful on that point was because folks raised the concerns of a bad ruling on cloud computing.
So, you're attack here seems fairly misguided. First, you're asking people to show you what hasn't happened as a result of the ruling (kind of an impossibility) and second, you ignore that the specifics of the ruling were at least somewhat more targeted than the issue that most of the pre-ruling concerns discussed.
So, no, it wasn't "FUD". Also, who the fuck thinks that writing about the intricacies of copyright law "generates clicks"? Are you daft?
Yes, the Constitution is a limiting document meant, by construction,to remove any ambiguity as to the powers of government. It seems strange to argue the powers granted to Congress were done without the belief and surety of their use. You make it seem as though the power to lay and collect taxes, to regulate commerce with foreign nations, to coin money, and to raise and support armies was granted without the expectation that Congress would do so. Yes, Congress could abolish the Post Office. However, there is little doubt, there was an expectation they would create one.
And yet there are things in Section 1, Article 8 that the Congress chooses not to do, such as "grant letters of marque and reprisal." Even if your Constitutional scholarly knowledge is lacking, you are still missing the point and moving the goalposts.
I was not arguing that Congress need not have any copyright law at all. You started off this conversation by insisting that a registration requirement was the same as Congress removing your Constitutionally granted right.
You were wrong on multiple accounts. 1. the right is not constitutionally granted. 2. Copyright law in the US was without a registration requirement for many, many years.
You are now moving the goalposts rather than admitting that you made incorrect statements.
No, it states why Congress should "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" and the mechanism to do so "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the 'exclusive right' to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
You keep missing the power that all it does is grant Congress the power to do this. Not the requirement. And, furthermore, the preamble part of promoting the progress of science is there to LIMIT the power of Congress, saying that it should not issue monopolies for any other reason.
In the same section, directly preceding, Congress is granted the power "to establish post offices and post roads" Directly following,congress is granted the power "To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court," By your rationale, Congress was not obligated to establish the post office nor tribunals inferior to the supreme court. I do not agree and trust, after much debate, items in the Constitution were placed there purposely.
You are actually quite correct that the Constitution in no way mandated that Congress must do either of those things. It simply granted them the option of doing so. Congress is free to kill off the Post Office or the lower courts if it decides that's appropriate. And, the first option may actually happen one of these days. The second... not so much.
YouTube is chock-full of infringing material. How does that help creators? Many are strong-armed into choosing between constantly sending takedown notices or monetizing their content on YouTube's take-it-or-leave-it terms. How is that fair? What if they simply don't want their stuff on YouTube? Wouldn't "good copyright law" also help them protect their copyrights in a meaningful way?
Was thinking of how best to respond to this and I think I'm going to turn it into a full post, rather than just a comment... and the more I worked on it, the bigger a project it became, so it may have to wait until I have the time to really go through it all. So... stay tuned.
So, Mike, do you believe that copyright law should permit anyone to distribute any content, with or without licenses? Serious question. Thanks.
I see you're making a stink down below about this in your usual trollish manner. I'm not sure what you think you're proving, other than making yourself look foolish.
However, to be clear, you have (intentionally?) misread what I wrote above. What I am saying is that good copyright law enables new platforms to rise up that help content creators: we see tools like YouTube and SoundCloud and Vimeo and Kickstarter and Patreon and Spotify that have been built that allow *content* creators to take control over the distribution of their work, while also offering opportunities to monetize that work in many cases.
For many, many years, copyright did not do that. Instead, what it did was set up a system whereby content creators had to beg/plead with gatekeepers (i.e., labels, studios) for the chance to *give up their own copyright* just so those labels/studios would release/promote/monetize their content. That seems like a pretty bad copyright system that harms the vast majority of content creators, helping only a tiny, tiny fraction at the top, but helping those gatekeepers tremendously in the meantime.
My point (which perhaps was not too clear for someone intent solely on attacking me) was that we're seeing wonderful new platforms these days that put the power and control back into the hands of creators, and are enabling SO MANY MORE creators to create, to release, to promote, to distribute and to monetize their works. I would think you'd agree that's a good thing, unless you really don't support content creators, as you claim.
Given that, it seems clear that any copyright law should try to support the rise of such innovative platforms that enable so much more creation... rather than burdening them with liability that makes them impossible to exist, and pushes us back towards that first world of gatekeepers.
Finally, in answer to your whining below: my TIME and ATTENTION are scarcities. You have no right to them, no matter how often you act like a spoiled child in my comments. I know you've done this for years and years at this point. Most children grow up. I'm surprised you have not.