antidirt 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (747) comment rss

  • On the post: Public Domain Monkey Selfie Now In A Trademark Application, Using Photoshopped Gap Images [Updated!]

    antidirt ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2014 @ 07:42am

    So, to recap: we have a (most likely) public domain monkey selfie image, which someone else is seeking a trademark on, using another company's photoshopped photos. In this scenario, please describe how much the lawyers are going to bill to sort this all out?

    Fun post. I think the IP questions are interesting (and more likely to be on an exam!). Is the monkey selfie copyrighted? Is the new image fair use? To what extent is the new image itself copyrightable? Is the new image on the gap's shirt registrable as a mark?

  • On the post: Chris Hadfield's Outer Space Version Of Space Oddity Is Back… But It Still Never Should Have Gone Away

    antidirt ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2014 @ 02:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Once again, intellectual property does not equate to physical property. At times, I think you conflate the two on purpose just win an argument. You really should know better than that.

    I'm not conflating them. I just look at property differently than you do. For me, "property" refers to the intangible rights that someone has in a given thing. It doesn't matter whether that thing is tangible or intangible. When someone owns a thing, whether that thing be tangible or intangible, the owner generally has the intangible right to exclude others from making certain uses of the thing. You're getting hung up on whether the thing itself is tangible or intangible, but for me the issue is the same either way. Asking permission to use someone's property--that is, asking permission to do something that the owner has an intangible right to exclude you from doing--is just how property works. It's the same whether the thing is a copyright or a hedge trimmer.

  • On the post: Chris Hadfield's Outer Space Version Of Space Oddity Is Back… But It Still Never Should Have Gone Away

    antidirt ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2014 @ 02:07pm

    Re: Re:

    It's. Not. Property.

    It's. A. Monopoly. AND it's supposed to be temporary.

    Drop the conceit about property. Move away from the conceut about property. Never, ever touch it again. Thank you.

    Disagree? Explain to me when my house will become public domain. The End.

    I don't think this type of argument is persuasive. You're saying that unless copyright has Attribute X, it's not really property. The problem with this type of argument, generally, is that Attribute X is not really a necessary condition for something to be property. So, in your example, you think that something that is really property doesn't fall into the public domain. My response is that all property rights are limited in some way, and copyright just so happens to be limited in duration (as the Constitution requires). But it's not true that something can't be property if the rights are of a limited duration. I can sell you my house with a clause stating that title reverts back to me after 10 years. During those 10 years, you own the house. It's your property. But then after 10 years, it's not. Whether something is property, of course, depends on how you define the word "property." I define property in terms of acquisition, use, and disposition of a given asset. But there's no hard-and-fast rule. For example, I could have a usufruct whereby I have use of an asset, and even though I can't dispose of it, I still have a property interest in it. There's all kinds of property, and it's generally known that there's no one definition that captures all the possibilities--contrary to what you seem to think.

  • On the post: Chris Hadfield's Outer Space Version Of Space Oddity Is Back… But It Still Never Should Have Gone Away

    antidirt ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2014 @ 01:50pm

    Re: Re:

    In your permission culture you would have to ask Mike if you were allowed to use a mockup of his logo. Big deal, genius!

    report

    I didn't ask Mike's permission because, even in my view, not all uses require permission. Give me a break.

  • On the post: Chris Hadfield's Outer Space Version Of Space Oddity Is Back… But It Still Never Should Have Gone Away

    antidirt ( profile ), 05 Nov, 2014 @ 01:49pm

    Re: Re:

    It's a big deal to me.

    Our society's slide towards a permission culture concerns me greatly.

    I honestly don't see what the big deal is. I think the whole "permission culture" argument is idiotic. Requiring permission to use other people's property has been a part of our culture for a long time. If I have to ask my neighbor's permission to borrow his hedge trimmer again, do you think Mike should write a post about terribly inefficient the entire hedge trimmer ecosystem is? Give me a break.

  • On the post: Chris Hadfield's Outer Space Version Of Space Oddity Is Back… But It Still Never Should Have Gone Away

    antidirt ( profile ), 04 Nov, 2014 @ 02:04pm

    Once again, this process seems silly and unnecessary. If everyone is so happy about this -- and it's reinvigorated the song and attracted plenty of new interest in it -- why not grant a perpetual license? What possible harm is done in granting a perpetual license so that this process doesn't have to be replicated every few years -- other than to the billable hours of the various lawyers who have to negotiate such a silly thing? Copyright defenders often point to the need for copyright to enable agreements like this, but it seems to be enabling a ridiculously inefficient process, rather than making things easier.

    Do you think Bowie et al. should have these exclusive rights in the first place? (Rhetorical question--I know you refuse to take a concrete position on copyright). If so, I don't see the problem. They were granted a one-year license. That license expired. They asked for a second license, and they got a two-year license. So what? It's Bowie et al.'s property to do with as they please. I know you hate this fact more than probably any other fact, but authors and artists have the right to decide how their works are used by others. Crying about inefficiency, I think, is your backhanded way of complaining about this fact. Yes, they needed permission. Big deal.

  • On the post: Journalists Need A Point Of View If They Want To Stay Relevant

    antidirt ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2014 @ 07:25am

    This article is republished from The Conversation under its Creative Commons license.

    I love it when people come on Techdirt and remind us that their works are copyrighted. There's no shame in it! Thank goodness copyright gives you the power you've exercised in granting this license. Flaunt those rights!

    Being transparent about point of view is the honest approach for reporters

    I agree, which I why I find it so strange that Mike can't be transparent and honest about his views on copyright. Why won't Mike tell us whether he thinks authors and artists should have any exclusive rights? Why is he so desperate to tell us what he really believes about a subject he writes about frequently?

  • On the post: When Even The New Yorker Is Doing Long Features On The Ridiculous State Of Copyright Law…

    antidirt ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2014 @ 09:19am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Awwww crap.. get back in the bottle you!!!! that's not what I ment!....

    Just don't say my name three times. :)

  • On the post: When Even The New Yorker Is Doing Long Features On The Ridiculous State Of Copyright Law…

    antidirt ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2014 @ 09:19am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Looks like someone was lying about not being able to log in. Surprise, surprise.

    When did I lie? I was unable to log in to my old account, so I created a new one. Later on, I was able to log in to my old account. I think it's because Mike et al. lifted whatever ban they had in place.

    I said as much here: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140904/09583328416/tor-asks-help-keeping-net-anonymity-as-option-anyone-any-site.shtml#c1446

    Quote: "I created a new account because I was unable to log into my old account. It told me there was no such account. I see that I can log in to that account now, so thank you for restoring it."

    I explicitly said on September 8th that I now can log in to my old account. So, no, I didn't lie.

    As far as lies go, I'd love Mike to have a frank and honest discussion about why he tried to ban me two summers ago. I'd love for him to explain why my home IP address is still being routed to the spam filter, even though I'm a financial contributor to the site. It's the secretiveness that bothers me. Where's the transparency that Mike demands of others?

    And why is everyone here so hostile to anyone who expresses a differing point of view? Looking through my profile, I see that many comments are hidden. The only way to see those opinions is to leave the profile view, go to the thread, and click un-hide for each post. That just sucks. I'm happy to challenge anyone here. Heck, I'm even happy to have every single person here gang up on me. But hiding my posts because you don't agree or don't like me just fucking sucks.

  • On the post: EU Court Of Justice Says Embedding Is Not Infringing: Could Mean Streaming Sites Are Legal

    antidirt ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2014 @ 01:52pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    This EU case doesn't address the question of embedding infringing content as TD suggests. The case was about embedding an original work, not an infringing copy.

    That makes more sense than what Mike said. Have you seen an English version? Got a link? Thanks.

  • On the post: EU Court Of Justice Says Embedding Is Not Infringing: Could Mean Streaming Sites Are Legal

    antidirt ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2014 @ 01:51pm

    Re: @PaulT

    There is an English version of the ruling that's clear and detailed

    Do you have a link to the English version? Thanks.

    but why bother reading the order from the court when you can reply on the ever colorful interpretations of Mike Masnick.

    I'd be shocked if Mike got this one right. Seems like one of many posts where he doesn't have the primary documents and instead just copies what TorrentFreak said.

  • On the post: US Solicitor General, Don Verrilli, Tells Supreme Court That Of Course You Can Infringe On An Invalid Patent

    antidirt ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2014 @ 08:54am

    Even more unfortunately, Verrilli attacks the point that CAFC makes that you can't infringe on an invalid patent. CAFC noted "it is axiomatic that one cannot infringe an invalid patent." Nuh-uh, claims Verrilli. Of course you can infringe on an invalid patent:

    A patent is infringed, regardless of its validity if the defendant has practiced all of its elements without authorization.
    He says all invalidity does is "preclude liability from that infringement." Got that? Even if the patent is totally invalid, you can still infringe on it, you just can't be held liable for it. Welcome to upside down world -- where infringement is the standard, and not infringing on an invalid patent is some sort of exception or defense against liability.

    So are you arguing that that's not an accurate statement of the law, or is your complaint that you don't like the law? I think the statement makes sense. Under 35 USC 282, the patent is "presumed valid." And anyone who "makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells" that presumptively valid patent "infringes the patent." 35 USC 271. "Noninfringement" and "invalidity of the patent" are defenses to infringement. 35 USC 282. First the plaintiff proves infringement, then the defendant proves a defense. How else would you have it work?

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    antidirt ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2014 @ 03:18pm

    Re:

    Does TD feel all better now that it has again posted something negative about the individual from the Copyright Alliance? Of course, this does nothing to correct the errors contained in the original article.

    It was never about getting it right. It was about sensationalizing events to make copyright proponents look bad. It's funny to note that the article Mike referenced but didn't link to, which was posted on Bloomberg, didn't even support Mike's version of what Aistars said. Moreover, the Bloomberg piece has since been taken down (as has Lemley's comments on Facebook). I had assumed that Mike didn't bother to link to it because he hadn't actually read it, and now that I've read the piece, I think that's correct. But, of course, since it's been taken down, he couldn't link to it he wanted to--not that he ever wanted to. I appreciate the fact that Mike updated the post, but his updates are just as ridiculous as what he originally said. And the irony of it all is how Mike complains that the other side can't engage in "real discussion" about copyright, when the reality is that Mike has no intention of ever engaging in any real discussion about copyright. His intentions, which he has made clear repeatedly as he made clear in that post, is that he only wants to attack the other side personally. Just think about Swartz/Snowden/SOPA/PIPA/TPP/ACTA/etc. Mike will never engage in any real discussion on any of those issues. He'll run away every time.

  • On the post: Copyright Law Stifling Free Speech And Artistic Criticism

    antidirt ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2014 @ 03:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ha ha. As soon as the evidence comes out, he's gone. Sounds about right. I honestly think that the post above is nonsense, and I don't think his explanation makes much sense. The fact is I just don't have the wherewithal today to get into an argument. I'm still worn out from yesterday's escapades. It's just unbelievable to me that he claimed that Aistars was saying all of these crazy things, such as there's no innovators who want copyright perform. I merely suggested that perhaps Mike was wrong, and his throng went insane censoring and calling me all sorts of names. And then the evidence comes out this morning proving that Mike was wrong, and all the trolls scattered. And, of course, Mike is nowhere to be found. Of course, he can't even admit that he got it wrong. And then he has all these post where he complains about other people's lack of integrity. It's just unbelievable. Where is Mike's integrity? I seriously wonder if he has any.

  • On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]

    antidirt ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2014 @ 03:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Video and transcript

    Funny how they all ran away. And, of course, Mike will not admit that he got this one wrong. Journalism!

  • On the post: Copyright Law Stifling Free Speech And Artistic Criticism

    antidirt ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2014 @ 02:05pm

    Re: Re:

    Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it. That makes sense. By the way, are you going to comment on the evidence that you mischaracterized Aistar's position? She didn't say what you claimed she said. It seems that, given how important journalistic integrity is to you, you should say something. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141019/18125628883/copyright-maximalists-lobbyists-insist-criminal-elements-are-secretly-leading-copyright-reform-effort.shtml#c2268

  • On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]

    antidirt ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2014 @ 11:00am

    Re: Video and transcript

    We have the video and the transcript. Can anyone find where she said these criminal elements are "secretly leading" the reform movement? Can anyone find where she said no one in the "innovative sector" supports reform? It's not there. Where did everyone go who demanded I admit it if I were wrong?

  • On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]

    antidirt ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2014 @ 08:30am

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

    Thanks for posting this. I have no trouble with people disagreeing with me, preferably explaining why they think I'm wrong. I am troubled, however, that people here "report" my comments because they don't like me--even if the comment is anything but trollish. I wish that Mike would step in and say something like what you've said here.

  • On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]

    antidirt ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2014 @ 07:29am

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

    No wait, you were serious? You can't honestly expect a single person to believe that, after you have been called out literally HUNDREDS of times and yet have not once admitted to even being so much as slightly incorrect, let alone outright wrong. Even when PROVEN you were wrong, even when your being wrong was as simple as a TYPO, you refuse to admit you were wrong and instead try to turn it back on the criticizer (see the black/white/gray comment above - that is you to a 'T') and then keep arguing against the point.

    Link to a comment where I was wrong, explain why you think I was wrong, and if I think you're right, I'll admit it. I'm happy to admit errors. Let me ask you this, why isn't anyone here calling out Dark Helmet for his mistake above? Am I held to a different standard than the people that work for TD?

  • On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]

    antidirt ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2014 @ 07:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yes, several of you have "censored" to the point that someone like me who would like to read the string of comments in its entirety and without interruption is effectively prevented from doing so.

    I think that's the idea. They want to hide dissenting views so that it's more difficult to see what the dissenters are saying. And, of course, Mike never says anything about the "report" button being abused. I wonder if hidden comments aren't picked up by search engines. That would be a nice little bonus for Mike, I'm sure.

Next >>