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 ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 10:49am

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

  Nobody wants to have your boring first-year law student debate about whether "we should have copyright". Nobody is required to engage with you on the reductive and counterproductive playing field you've defined. Some people are actually focused on ways to move forward to everyone's benefit, not on feeding your fragile intellectual ego.
  
  A second ago you were chastising me for not stating my believes, and now you're saying nobody cares. If people ask, I'm happy to answer. If you want to have a serious discussion, I'll be here.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 10:47am

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

  All you are doing is saying "I think it should be morally so, and here are a few other people who somewhat agree."
  
  You haven't explained your moral opinion at all. You just keep restating it. Stop avoiding the question and give an honest answer. Why do you think it should be so?
  
  It’s not just some people who agree with me. This was the dominant view. I’m not just inventing this stuff for the first time. It’s been around a long time.
  
  Here is my answer: I think that a person has a moral claim to the fruits of his labor. This is the labor-desert view. I subscribe to that theory. I am a Lockean. Are you just unfamiliar with the theory? I don’t know how I could be any clearer. I think that if a person mixes his labor with something to create something new, he has a moral claim, superior to others, to that thing. There are provisos, but that’s the gist. Why do I believe this? Because it resonates with my subjective understanding of the difference between right and wrong.
  
  But I’m not only a Lockean. I also subscribe to the Hegalian personality theory, as well as to the economic incentives view. I hold a plurality of views. I think all of these views have a moral element. All positive laws are steeped in normative judgments. Before you say I'm dodging the question again, i suggest framing the question more precisely so that I may answer more precisely. I'm clearly trying to respond to the substance of your question. I know you're just trolling. But I'm obviously not running away. I am stating, explicitly, what I believe and why I believe it.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 10:01am

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

  You're dodging the question. Why can't you give an honest answer? You conflate the ancient and natural ideas about the physical fruits of one's labour with the much-less-natural-and-obvious assertion that it's more true for the non-physical fruits of mental labor. And you do this intentionally, because you know that you have a much weaker moral case to make when it comes to that second assertion. There is, at least, an equally strong moral argument to be made that infinitely replicable, non-physical, non-rivalrous things such as ideas and creative output are naturally nobody's "property" at all, and that attempting to limit their dissemination is itself fundamentally immoral.
  
  Stop dodging the question, stop giving dishonest answers, and stop making weak and vague appeals to supposed authority. Why do you think that things which have none of the natural properties of "property", and abide by none of its physical laws, should be subject to such control? For whose benefit do you believe it should, and on what basis do you say that is morally correct?
  
  No need for the drama. I’m happy to answer your questions. I’m not dodging anything.
  
  I disagree that the case is weaker for mental labor than for physical labor. As one treatise author noted in 1870:

  What property could be more emphatically a man’s own than his literary works? Is the property in any article or substance accruing to him by reason of his own mechanical labour denied him? Is the labour of his mind less arduous, less worthy of the protection of the law?

  Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=JhkzAAAAIAAJ&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
  
  There’s a Lockean argument for why the moral argument is stronger, but I’d have to start with the provisos and walk you through it. There’s a good journal article that does this. If I can find it, I’ll give you the link.
  
  You should read the beginning of that treatise if you have time. It places the foundation of copyright on the natural law. There’s no mention of consequentialist/economic reasoning. And that treatise was the leading treatise of its day.
  
  If you read older case law, you’ll see that it’s replete to citations to natural law. For example:

  The same conclusion is reached on principle and apart from authority. It is generally recognized that one has a right to the fruits of his labor. This is equally true, whether the work be muscular or mental or both combined. Property in literary productions, before publication and while they rest in manuscript, is as plain as property in the game of the hunter or in the grain of the husbandman. The labor of composing letters for private and familiar correspondence may be trifling, or it may be severe, but it is none the less the result of an expenditure of thought and time. The market value of such an effort may be measured by the opinions of others, but the fact of property is not created thereby. A canvas upon which an obscure or unskillful painter has toiled does not cease to be property merely because by conventional standards it is valueless as a work of art. Few products of the intellect reveal individual characteristics more surely than familiar correspondence, entries in diaries or other unambitious writings. No sound distinction in this regard can be made between that which has literary merit and that which is without it. Such a distinction could not be drawn with any certainty. While extremes might be discovered, compositions near the dividing line would be subject to no fixed criterion at any given moment, and scarcely anything is more fluctuating than the literary taste of the general public. Even those counted as experts in literature differ widely in opinion both in the same and in successive generations as to the relative merits of different authors. The basic principle on which the right of the author is sustained even as to writings confessedly literature is not their literary quality, but the fact that they are the product of labor.

  Baker v. Libbie, 210 Mass. 599, 604, 97 N.E. 109, 111 (1912) (emphasis mine).
  
  This type of language is quite common in older opinions. I realize that statutory copyright supersedes common law copyright. But the point is that both, at least in part, are situated on natural law. We give authors rewards as incentives for them to labor, but we also give them rewards because they deserve it because they labored. I think it's both. The Supreme Court agrees. See my Eldred quote above.
  
  As far as the moral claims of others to use works they did not labor to create, I don’t think that claim is very strong. Prof. Gordon has a great piece on this. I’ll post the link if I can find it. I think the view that authors deserve rewards based on their labors runs far deeper than you are acknowledging. And I'm not sure what moral basis you see to reap where one has not sown. I agree that there is a public interest, but I think it's weak early on. The benefits go to the author first and then the nation second because the author deserves them first as a reward for his labor.
  
  I’m out the door. I’m happy to address any more questions you may have. I’m enjoying the conversation. I could do without the insults, but you keep throwing out if they make you feel better. I’m immune at this point, so I don’t care either way.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 09:17am

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

  True. and his claim that "I've read lots and lots of case law, treatises, commentary, etc. that supports my view." is equally suspect. He wants to have an honest discussion yet he keeps repeating the same lies over and over. There is no honesty in this person. I can only hope that he would one day change but I highly doubt it.
  
  How am I lying? What lies have I told? Please be specific. If you're to attack my integrity, back up your claims. What lies?

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 09:15am

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

  There's no centuries of jurisprudence here. Copyright is fairly new. Prior to it the artists got money from patronage or for their own performances.
  
  Sure there is. Even if you start with the Statute of Anne, it's three centuries. But the natural law stuff goes back much farther. Early copyright law is replete with references to natural law. I should dig up some quotes. If I have time later, I will.
  
  I'd ask you to stop being a moron but it's in your nature. The views Mike holds are crystal clear if you take your time to read this blog but worse, he specifically replied directly to you with all the answers but you chose to ignore them and keep acting as a spoiled kid.
  
  They aren't clear. We're all sharing our views of why we have copyright and what it should look like. I'm just curious if Mike thinks we should have copyright. He's mentioned before that his answers aren't perfect. None of us have perfect answers, because none can exist. But we all have opinions based on what we think is right. I'd like to hear his views on that.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 09:10am

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

  No you don't. That said, suppose I see a movie and get an idea that involves using most of its setup to make a completely different plot that's novel and would be simply awesome. If the copyrights expired within my lifetime the world could maybe see my works. But if it lasts more than the lifetime of virtually anybody able to produce further culture on top of it then it is actively hindering creativity and not contributing to the growth of culture.
  
  I'm sure there are some close cases where the line between derivative work and transformative fair use are hard to define. I'm not sure how it could be any other way, unless we create some better-defined uses that are fair. For example, we could saying that quoting 10% of a book over 400 pages long is fair use by definition. I see that as a problem that needs to be worked on, so I think there we agree to some extent. I don't agree though that it's necessarily a bad thing for culture. Culture seems to be thriving to me. Now more than ever. I'm having trouble seeing the doom and gloom because there's a few close cases. I'm all for broader personal use rights. I say just make them clearer so there's not so much guess work.
  
  Nobody does. If they are not needed they can go die in a corner. Nobody cares about buggy whip resellers nowadays.
  
  I think you're downplaying the importance of these middlemen. They provide funding, much like VCs in Silicon Valley. They provide resources. We all love (well, most of us love) the high quality stuff these people put out. I know I do.
  
  You seem to think that anyone who doesn't support your maximalist version of copyright is pure evil or wrong. And you refuse any arguments that hurt your beloved point of view. So far you haven't added anything that can remotely support your opinion whatever it is. If you have nothing to add get lost.
  
  I don't think my view is the only reasonable one. I'm not that black and white. I'm genuinely interested in why people infringe. I think copyright is gravely misunderstood, and I think TD is part of the problem. That's why I'm here.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 08:46am

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

  "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", to interpret that in any other way seems dishonest.
  
  I think it's dishonest to say that that phrase is only capable of one interpretation. That it's susceptible to more than one interpretation is common knowledge.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 08:40am

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

  So from what I gather you think copy protection lengths should be based on your arbitrary moral opinion because you arbitrarily think that your moral opinion is better than mine and the government should give your moral opinion superiority over mine and should enforce your moral views on me and others.
  
  I think everyone's notion of the proper term for copyright protection is arbitrary. That's one of my points. The economic view, which purports to deliver a scientific answer, is nonsense. Many things can't be measured, and if they could be measured, they can't be compared to other things, etc. It's all arbitrary.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 08:37am

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

  And there's the rub. Virtually everyone here disagrees with that moral assessment. You waste all your time here attempting to start a million idiotic debates when fundamentally they are all about the same thing: a different value system and a different moral opinion.
  
  So finally the onus falls to you: why is your moral stance correct? It does not extend from natural law nor is it common in human history, so you better make a case for it. I'd also like to know how you feel about room in the world for differing perspectives on moral questions -- you've frequently rejected the idea that morality is personal and not the subject of Techdirt, calling it a cop-out. But, personally I think it's fine for you to have a different opinion on that, I just think it's ridiculous and pointless for you to spend so much time on what are ultimately secondary debates. So, please, explain the foundation of your view that creative output is morally the author's personal property, and explain why we should be convinced by it. Realize that the onus is on you to find a common ground of values and morals in order to have all the debates you want to have -- without one, you are just a fool screaming at aliens. Your answer will not be deemed complete until everyone here has explicitly stated that they accept it. Your answer must also be attached in full to every comment you make in the future, and you must re-state it and re-engage in the entire process of discussing it whenever anyone requests, even if doing so requires hundreds of comments and hours of your time. Any failure to do any of these things in a timely manner will be labelled "running away" and deemed to automatically invalidate all other points you have made or are attempting to make.
  
  Haha. That's some bar you've set. I'm happy to explain. The idea that the fruits of one's labors are his property, and morally so, is an ancient one. Grotius, Pufendorf, Blackstone, Locke, etc.--these are some of the bigger names. Are you seriously asking me to defend multiple centuries of jurisprudence? This natural law view runs through the case law, and it was commonly understood by many--including the Framers--to be fundamental to the law. I think it makes sense to many when the fruits of one's labor are physical: You fell a tree and build a chair, it's your chair. But I think the case is EVEN STRONGER when it's mental labor. I'm not just making this stuff up. Read some case law or treatises from the 1800s--this is what they say. The incentives/access paradigm rarely is mentioned, if at all. The foundations of copyright law are in natural law, but modern scholars tend to focus elsewhere. I don't care what basis others have for copyright. I'm not demanding that Mike or anyone else share my views. I'm just curious whether Mike thinks there should be any copyright--for any reason. Any more questions? I'm happy to answer them. I probably won't have time to produce the research paper you seem to be asking for, though.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 08:25am

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

  I suppose you can read any document any way you personally want but that doesn't really change how the document was written or intended. Why should we care how you personally choose to read the constitution vs what it actually says?
  
  It's not just a view I made up. I've read lots and lots of case law, treatises, commentary, etc. that supports my view. I think the words are susceptible to multiple interpretations--as are many words in the Constitution. The problems of discerning the Framers' intent are well-known.
  
  Again this seems to be something you made up. The constitution and the founding fathers seem to disagree with you.
  
  http://rack1.ul.cs.cmu.edu/jefferson/
  
  Thomas Jefferson wasn't there when they wrote the Constitution, right? Regardless, Jefferson's views ran the gamut. He changed his mind several times. So what? He's not a Framer, and even if he were, there were others. I know copyright opponents place great weight on what Jefferson thought. I've never understood why. It's cherry-picking.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 08:17am

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

  How long and why?
  
  I've said it already above. Life of the author, at a minimum, and one generation past. See above.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 08:15am

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

  How am I not trying to have an intelligent conversation? I'm asking questions, I'm supported my legal arguments with citations, I'm explaining what I believe and why I believe it, etc. I don't get the need to pretend like I'm not trying to foster an honest debate. You guys create an incredibly hostile environment for anyone who doesn't subscribe to your views. I think that's shameful. You should welcome diversity, not punish it.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 08:13am

  Re: Re:

  Funny, I can follow your rambling bullshit just fine. Even the comments that have been hidden because people are reporting comments for trolling, as per a stated intended use of that button.
  
  Many of my comments have been "reported," even though they cannot possibly be read to be trolling. People are being extremely abusive to me, yet they are not "reported." I'm surprised you guys think this is a healthy environment for meaningful discussions. It's not.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 08:11am

  Re: Re:

  Ah good, then it's working.
  
  You're a troll AJ. This is how trolls are treated.
  
  Don't like it? Stop being a troll.
  
  YOU are the problem.
  
  I'm having a calm, rational discussion about issues that are important to many people here. It seems to me that you are trolling. Are you adding anything of value to the conversation?

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 08:10am

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

  If this were an honest discussion he might eventually get around to admitting that he doesn't care about the public interest or about the artists but only about the parasite middlemen and that's the true reason he believes copy protection lengths should last forever. But there can be no honesty found in scumbag IP extremists, just attempts to buy politicians and subvert the democratic process through backdoor dealings.
  
  I care about the public interest. That's why I think copyright should be for limited times. I think the Framers were wise to put that in the Constitution. I care about artists--it pains me to see their rights trampled on by those who want to watch a movie or listen to a song without paying the asking price. I care about the middlemen. They provide the resources so that authors and artists can thrive. You seem to think that anyone who supports copyright is pure evil. That's not the way I see it.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 08:06am

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

  So how long do you think copy protection lengths should be and why?
  
  Life of author at a minimum. I think it's the author's personal property, because he deserves it morally, and there is no reason why it should not exist as long as he does. I don't subscribe to any one basis for copyright, so you have to keep that in mind. I think it should go beyond the life of the author. 70 years might be too much, because there is a point where it ceases promoting progress. I don't think anyone can say precisely where that point is. It's not something that can be calculated scientifically because there are noneconomic considerations that cannot be qualified.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 08:01am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  What is your opinion on retroactive copyright length extension? I've read all your posts on this page and you've never stated specifically your opinion on retroactive extension. Please do so.
  
  I doubt we'll have any more extensions. If anything, I think we might dial the term back. I don't think copyright needs to be any longer, and there are good arguments for making it shorter. That said, I think the life of the author should be the minimum, and I like the idea of it going one generation after that. There is no scientific way to determine the "optimal" length, IMO. That answer you?
  
  I'd also like to know your specific opinion on ex post facto law, or as Wikipedia puts it, law "that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law."
  
  Why do retroactive copyright length extensions not violate this principle? Isn't Congress barred from passing such laws? When all of the works mentioned in this article were created, and granted copyright, weren't the terms of the deal with the public for the granting of that temporary copyright that the works would pass into the public domain this year?
  
  My understanding of ex post facto is that it applies to criminal law: If something is legal when you do it, it can't be made illegal if the law is changed later. If you do the act after the law has changed, that would be breaking the law. But the fact that you did it before the law was changed means you didn't commit a crime. I guess the same holds true for civil law, but I've not seen it in that context.
  
  I'm not sure how that ties into copyright. Nobody made an ex post facto argument in either Eldred or Golan. Congress can take works out the public domain and give them copyright protection, and this doesn't violate ex post facto because it doesn't change any legal consequences of acts that occurred PRIOR to the change in the law.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 07:47am

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

  This is supposed to be a democracy. The opinions of the corporations that determined the current laws aren't the only opinions that should count just because they have managed to buy and pay for politicians through secretive back door dealings. I know this maybe hard for a shill like yourself to believe but everyone's opinion should count.
  
  So do you think ANY laws are legitimate? I'm not following how copyright laws are undemocratic unless all laws are.
  
  and you haven't shown that it requires the current system. What we are showing is that we disagree with the current system. It's called democracy. We have a right to publicly disagree and if enough of us do so then the laws should be changed. You fear democracy because you don't want enough people to disagree with you to effectively change the laws against your personal interest in favor of the public interest. That's what makes you a lowlife scumbag.
  
  I'm a "lowlife scumbag"? That's not productive. I'm here to have an intelligent debate. Join me?

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 07:46am

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

  Constantly nagging Mike to keep on repeating his point of view won't make it happen. You have been around this blog for long enough to have read Mikes opinion several times before. Do you have dementia? That could explain your memory issues.
  
  What is Mike's opinion? Does Mike think there should be any copyright? If it's so easy to find the answer, you should have no trouble telling us what it is.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2015 @ 07:44am

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

  No, you are playing a silly game. You KNOW his opinion. There are 50,000+ posts on this blog for you to peruse to learn his opinion. There are plenty of articles discussing the reasons for it from every angle.
  
  You are playing a silly game, demanding that this post (or Mike in the comments) rehash the entirety of Techdirt's philosophy about copyright from top to bottom.
  
  Once again, willful stupidity for the sake of starting a fight. That's all you ever have to offer.
  
  I'm here answering questions directly, stating my opinion, challenging others on their opinions, etc. Isn't that what the comments are for? As far as Mike goes, I do not know whether he thinks there should be any copyright because he has never answered the question. If you think you know the answer, tell me what it is. I think it's obvious that Mike goes far out of his way to avoid answering this very question.

Next >>