antidirt 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (747)

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2015 @ 11:48am

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

  They are all up there, waiting for your reply, including the assertion that your morality is based on childish selfishness (care to respond?) and that your refusal to acknowledge the importance of non-rivalrousess is facile (care to revisit?) Not to mention all the earlier points about your transparently disingenuous debate tactics (you ran away from those one ages ago)
  
  OK, since you haven't provided links to the questions above, I'm just going to have to go from what you've said here. If you want something more specific, you need to ask questions are more specific.
  
  1, Childish selfishness: I assume you think that the "I made it; it's mine" thing is childish and selfish. Is that it? it's hard to tell since you're not being specific. That Lockean notion of ownership from labor is literally the basis of most property systems around the world. Are you seriously trying to brush off centuries of property law with a couple negative adjectives? I can't tell if you're just not aware of the law and its history. it seems to be the case. Have you studied this stuff at all? Are you denying that Lockean notions are not a part of the property system?
  
  2. Nonrivalrousness: I happen to the think the nonrivalrousness thing is not a big deal. You disagree. Again, centuries of law are on my side. Patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, publicity rights, privacy rights, etc. Almost every country around the world on multiple dimensions affords property rights to nonrivalrous things. It's the excludability that matters, right? You seem to think I'm crazy for thinking this, but again I have to wonder if you've just never studied property law. Have you?
  
  3. Debate tactics: I'm happy to address whatever your question is here, but I can't figure out what it is. What are you getting at? Be specific. Thanks.
  
  Anyway, I'll check back in tonight. I await your detailed questions.

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2015 @ 11:39am

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

  There are already a bunch of questions and points above you haven't responded to. In fact, of all the threads you ran away from, the only one you seem to have found time to respond to today is the one accusing you of running away. Funny, that.
  
  Good. You're here. You are claiming that I'm running away from questions. Back up that claim. Ask me the specific questions you think I'm running away from, and I will answer them directly and honestly. It should be easy. Copy and paste if you want. No more generalizations. Be specific. What are the exact questions that I'm running away from?

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2015 @ 11:35am

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

  Excuses. The truth is nobody was accepting your circuitous, bullshit answers -- they were demanding actual honesty -- so you gave up and ran away.
  
  I've been waiting for an hour. Where did you go? I want to answer each and every question that you think I'm avoiding. I am heading out soon, but I will check in this evening. Post that list! I want to dive into each and every question until you are satisfied.

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2015 @ 10:26am

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

  Excuses. The truth is nobody was accepting your circuitous, bullshit answers -- they were demanding actual honesty -- so you gave up and ran away.
  
  Attacking my integrity and credibility? Super angry? Thinks anyone who disagrees with him is dishonest? You sound just like someone I know. Hmm...
  
  Just to prove that I'm not running away, I will take time out of my busy day and devote it you. You're that important. Ask me anything, and I will respond swiftly, honestly, and directly. I'm happy to do it. Fire away, friend. I don't have time for the pile-on. But I will answer your questions, and only your questions. Shoot! Give me your best. Show everyone how I'm running away. I can't wait.

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2015 @ 09:35am

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

  Don't bother -- he ran away. Just as he did on the New Year's post once I called out his obvious childish tactics.
  
  Just remember these threads: they will be handy links next time he accuses others of refusing to engage.
  
  Refused to engage? LOL! I sat here for hours yesterday and engaged several people at once directly and honestly. I'm working today. I wish I had time to continue the lengthy discussions we've had already, but I need to make up for the time I spent here yesterday as it is.

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 02:22pm

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

  The hypocrisy is in the fact that you are being critical of others because you perceived that they are doing what you yourself admittedly did.
  
  Please link to and quote where I was "critical of others" because I "perceived that they are doing" what I myself "admittedly" do. I'm happy to address your criticism, but your basis has not been established yet.

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 02:20pm

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

  This, again, exposes what kind of dishonest person you really are. Natural law is what exists outside of government. Copy protection laws are a result of government. There is no natural law entitling anyone to benefit from their labor. If you spent all your time building a nice sand castle or digging a hole at the beach that doesn't entitle you to anything. No one forced you to build or dig anything. If you don't like the fact that no one wants to pay you to dig holes at the beach then don't do it. But to force everyone else to comply with your demands just because you did something is not something you are entitled to. Until you can have the honesty to admit that copy protection laws are not natural it would be impossible for you to have a serious discussion on the matter. By refusing to acknowledge this simple self evident truth you are refusing to have an honest discussion and are only showing what kind of dishonest person you continue to be.
  
  Wow. The insults are strong with you. If you'd like to discuss natural law more with me, stop with the insults. I love natural law. I'm happy to discuss it with anyone. Well, anyone except serial abusers as you're being now. Seriously. Drop the 'tude, dude. Make an argument without insulting me, and I'll gladly respond.

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 02:17pm

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

  It is your perception that their beliefs are subjective. Your criticism is that they are injecting your perception of their subjective belief into what is best. Yet you admittedly do the same.
  
  I gotcha now. Yes, I think everyone instills their subjective beliefs into what they think is right and wrong. There's no such thing as total objectivity.

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 02:12pm

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

  Ahh, you're a self proclaimed expert. Are we really supposed to take you seriously just because you said so?
  
  You're the one quoting Wikipedia. Have you read Beckett, Wheaton, or their progenies? I have. And I've read lots of commentary discussing them. It's difficult to discuss this with you if you're insulting me the whole time and you haven't even read the opinions. Sorry, but that's the truth.

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 02:07pm

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

  You are ignoring the fact that creative output is, in addition to being intangible, non-rivalrous. And that changes the moral situation drastically. The notion that a person has a natural right to the fruits of their labour is an easy thing to define and understand regarding rivalrous goods; it is not so simple with non-rivalrous ones, and you are ignoring that fact (and for the first time I'm not going to accuse you of willful ignorance -- I think you just genuinely haven't thought this through).
  
  I have thought it through. I simply disagree that the nonrivalrous thing changes the calculus much. The value isn’t in how easy it is copy. The value is in the author’s time, energy, money, skill, etc. that went into creating the thing. It’s also in that author as a person, for his or her own sake.
  
  "Ownership" is a concept that relies entirely on rivalrousness.
  
  That’s simply untrue. Intangible property is owned. Ownership is the legal relations between a person and the public vis-à-vis a given thing. Whether that thing is corporeal or incorporeal, rivalrous or nonrivalrous, it’s still a thing that can be owned.
  
  My moral right to deprive you of use of my property exists because the only other option is you depriving me of my use of my property. It's a zero-sum game. Not so with creative works. There is no way that you using, publishing, sharing, altering or performing my works can limit my ability to use, publish, share, alter or perform my works, and vice versa. There is no rivalry, and thus no need for either of us to be deprived of use of the work.
  
  You’re deprived of my work because it’s mine. I created it. You didn't. My labor created it. I have the moral claim to it because I expended time, energy, money, skill, etc. into creating it and you didn’t. If I spend a year writing a book, you have no moral claim to benefit from my labors. You didn’t earn it.
  
  And I would argue that to demand deprivation, to demand control and limitation of people's freedom, where none is necessary or natural and where this is no rivalry or scarcity, is fundamentally immoral.
  
  It’s completely natural. It comes from the natural law. What’s unnatural is reaping where you have not sown. I get that you disagree with me, but I don’t think you’re dishonest. I hope you can afford me the same courtesy. I simply don’t think you have any moral claim to download a work that is for sale (or otherwise) that you didn’t create. The fact that it’s easy for you to do does not address the moral issue. It’s easy to do lots of things that are not morally right.

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 01:39pm

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

  You really twisted what you quoted in as much as you twist the constitution and the intent of the founding fathers. You haven't really provided evidence for your claims, all you managed to do is to quote things and twist their intent as per usual.
  
  "Property in literary productions, before publication"
  
  Once published there is no natural right limiting its distribution.
  
  "I can find many applying it. I provided a cite to one case."
  
  As usual even your own citation doesn't really support your claim as you say. Just like you twist the constitution you twist everything you quote.
  
  "What have you cited?"
  
  The constitution for one.
  
  Here is another citation
  
  "The "natural right" aspect of the doctrine was repudiated by the courts in the United Kingdom (Donaldson v. Beckett, 1774) and the United States (Wheaton v. Peters, 1834). In both countries, the courts found that copyright is a limited right created by the legislature under statutes and subject to the conditions and terms the legislature sees fit to impose."
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_copyright
  
  The overwhelming majority of texts disagree with you and even the texts that IP extremists here quote are often twisted to mean something they don't (how badly you twist the constitution should bring into suspect anything you say)
  
  You're all over the place. I don't know where to start. The meaning of the Copyright Clause? The holding of Donaldson v. Beckett? The holding of Wheaton v. Peters? My understanding runs far deeper than the Wikipedia article. I'm having trouble seeing how the game is worth the candle with you. The insults aren't helping.

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 01:22pm

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

  Still haven't answered either of my questions. Waiting to hear WHY that resonates with your subjective understanding of right and wrong, what that subjective understanding is and why we should agree with it. I also would like to know what you mean by "thing" -- what are the boundaries of a novel or a song or an image as a "thing"? You are relying on the implicit meaning of simple words which really only have meaning in relation to physical property -- if you want to use them here, you need to define them in this context and explain why you think it's appropriate for us to use them when there is no reason or need to.
  
  Still waiting for you to stop dodging the question, stop making increasingly pretentious appeals to authority (seriously dude, you sound like a hipster-philosopher humanities student who has never had an original thought in his life) and give us some honest answers.
  
  it's quite obvious what you're doing. I clearly am more forthcoming than Mike with my beliefs, and you know it. You're asking me to explain how I determine right from wrong. That's a great question. It's a philosophical issue that I'm not qualified to answer. I can only tell what I believe, explicitly, and tell you the philosophy that i ground it in. You want me to defend all of morality on some deeper level. I can't do it. I'm not a philosopher. The best I can do is tell you that I have a moral compass. I think everyone does. How that moral compass works, I honestly don't know. Can you tell me anything that you believe to be right, and then explain to me in the level of detail that you want from me? Maybe you understand this better than me. I'd love to know how it works if you do. I am being as honest with you as I can. The "thing" is the work, in the copyright sense. I don't understand what you want me to say in addition to that. It's not a physical thing--except insofar as it's fixated initially. But the work itself is incorporeal. As is all intangible property. What don't you understand?

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 01:15pm

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

  You dishonestly miss the point. You complain about others injecting your perception of their subjective beliefs yet you admittedly inject your own.
  
  Good grief wit the insults. I just feel sorry for you at this point. When did I "complain about others injecting [my] perception of their subjective beliefs"? I'm not sure I even understand what that means. Who is injecting my perceptions into their beliefs?

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 12:33pm

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

  So you are in favor of using 'noneconomic'/subjetive considerations to determine lengths yet you are against the use of subjective beliefs being used to determine what is best.
  
  Of course not. My point is that we determine what is best based, in part, on our own sense what is just. Many of the doctrines in copyright law were created by courts of equity--the chancellor imposed his own view of the right and good ("et aequo et bono"). This is where first sale, fair use, implied licenses, common law copyright, etc. come from. Subjective considerations about things such as distributive justice have always been a part of copyright law. Many of the doctrines that people here value come from those subjective determinations of what justice requires. This happens in all law, not just copyright.
  
  What objective considerations do you have to support whatever length it is that you support? Oh, that's right, you already admit that you don't have any because it's not something that can be scientifically calculated.
  
  I think there are good arguments based on economic reasoning. For example, a work is commercially valuable for a shorter time than the copyright subsists. That implies that maybe we should have shorter terms. But then there are countervailing interests in the author's just deserts and personhood. How to balance those requires subjectivity. That's what I'm saying. Do you have a perfectly objective system for copyright that you think would work better?

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 11:48am

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

  I vehemently disagree with this. Yes, encouraging the authors to disseminate their works via the marketplace is a good place to start, for a limited time. (Personally, I feel 20 years or so to be about the maximum term for copyright).
  
  But, you seem to be forgetting the most important part of how human culture and knowledge evolves - by building upon the works of others. By locking works up for 150 years (or forever, if Disney keeps up their antics) you have effectively curtailed human creation. Is that within the stated purpose of copyright?
  
  That's right. it's because it's important to build on the works of others that copyright is for a limited time. But how long is too long? The answer to that question requires normative judgment calls. It's often spoken of as "balancing." But I think balancing is code for injecting one's subjective beliefs of what is best.

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 11:43am

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

  My question is this: Why is that fact pointedly ignored by copyright maximalists? If filesharing is considered to be morally OK by a large swath of the population, why have we been ratcheting up the penalties for personal filesharing into the realms of the uncomprehendable? Shouldn't we be moving in the other direction?
  
  Ignored by many, yes, but how many pirates really think they're morally justified in benefitting from a work they didn't pay for? I dunno. I doubt it's a large percentage. The penalties may be steep, but they're basically a joke for the right holder. I think we are moving in the other direction at the same time. Fair use is broader than ever. More uses are understood to be personal and non infringing. The First Amendment is more robust than ever. I think we're witnessing a seismic shift in copyright policy because of the internet. I support meaningful rights for authors with plenty of privileges for the public. I have no trouble with the shift away from more protection. I think it's probably a good thing. But I also think the rights that do exist should be meaningful, that is, enforceable and enforced. /ramble

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 11:17am

  Re: Re:

  Mike states his opinion very clearly right in this very article (and every article he writes):
  
  "Given that, it makes absolutely no sense that these works are not in the public domain."
  
  Sounds like a statement of opinion to me.
  
  That is an opinion. He has no trouble telling us that in this case, there should absolutely be no copyright. But this is a safe thing to say. I'm asking him to discuss the more difficult issue of whether other works should be copyrighted. That's a tougher question.

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 11:15am

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

  I would think that progress, in this context, is realized only by using any given work to create another and so, in effect, your usage of the word progress is entirely and exactly the opposite. Long lengths only has potential to create "profit" - bereft of progress.
  
  I think progress means dissemination: We advance knowledge by encouraging authors to dissemination their works by way of the marketplace. It's not about disseminating at all costs. it's about disseminating on the author's terms.

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 11:06am

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

  vMore unsubstantiated nonsense.
  
  I quoted a leading treatise and provided a link to the original. That's substantiation. Can you demonstrate any courts rejecting the natural law view? I can find many applying it. I provided a cite to one case. What have you cited?

• On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 11:04am

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

  Again you are attempting to impose your presumed superior moral opinion on others. This is morally wrong. The government should not regulate morality. Different people have different moral opinions. Your arbitrary moral opinion is no more valid than anyone else's. If you wish to follow your arbitrary moral opinion go ahead. But you have absolutely no right to impose it on others.
  
  Are you suggesting that morality has no connection to positive law? People have different moral opinions, but that doesn't mean that there's not a general consensus. For example, most agree that murder is wrong, morally speaking. That's why it's illegal. The morality of the act and the legality of the act are intertwined.

Next >>