antidirt 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (747) comment rss

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

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

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

    By the way, you might want to learn grammar, and include all of the words in the sentence, it might make you look a little more credible. doubt it, but anything is possible.

    You got me there. I made a mistake. I left out a word. I erred. See, it's easy to admit. I think there's a difference, though. This poster has called me a "lier" before, so it seems clear that he/she doesn't know how to spell the word. I, on the other hand, do know proper grammar, even if I make an occasional mistake grammar-wise. Regardless, I made a mistake. Mea culpa. Thank you for pointing out my error. I appreciate it. I have no trouble admitting the error, and I have no trouble thanking those who point out my errors.

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

    antidirt ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2014 @ 06:46am

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

    If you turn out to be wrong though will you admit to it? Will you admit that maybe Mike actually had enough reason to believe the validity of the claims enough to post them?

    Of course. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. I can almost guarantee you that Mike will not say a thing if the video comes out and shows that Aistars did not say that these "criminal elements" are "leading" the reform movement and that there's no innovators who want reform. My understanding is that she did in fact say there are "criminal elements" who want to eradicate copyright, but she didn't say they're leading the movement and she didn't deny that many people in the movement are innovators. She was merely talking about a subset of the reform movement (which makes a lot more sense than the extreme view Mike attributed to her). I think Mike will do like Dark Helmet did above--run away rather than admit a mistake. If I'm wrong, call me out, and I will readily admit it. I have no trouble admitting mistakes.

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

    antidirt ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2014 @ 05:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If these panels are representative of the public and artists why are they being kept so secretive? What do the panelists have to hide?

    The conference was publicly announced, anyone from the public could attend, and the videos will be made public soon. What's secretive about that?

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

    antidirt ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2014 @ 10:56am

    As for the idea that this is an acceptable state of affairs, I find that to be troubling. We shouldn't rely on judges to determine the overall aesthetic value of things, because that is, by definition, a regulation on speech that shouldn't be permitted under the First Amendment. Judges determining the aesthetic value of a particular work is a dangerous path to tread.

    Mike,

    Why did you leave out the third case Tehranian discussed, namely, Cariou v. Prince? He argues that aesthetics lead the Second Circuit to find fair use. Did you leave it out because it doesn't support your claim that "this is a dangerous path to tread"? Was the omission intentional?

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

    antidirt ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2014 @ 08:52am

    The video of the panel in question is now posted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U50PNQPLPLs

    I don't have time to watch it right now as I'm out the door for an appointment. If anyone has time, watch it and let us know what she actually said.

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

    antidirt ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2014 @ 07:28am

    From the TD Insider Chat window just now:

    Violynne:

    I agree, Ninja. Given the audicity TD readers have, they wasted zero time in censoring a specific user, regardless if the post wasn't trollish at all. I FUCKING HATE this hide system TD implemented.

    If users want to hide the post of a user, I have no problem with it. The problem I have is their idiotic reasoning is thrusted upon me, forcing me to unhide those comments.

    If that's not the definition of censorship, I don't know what is.
    I appreciate that this person can at least admit that it's censorship. Censorship is not limited to the government, and it's not limited to completely removing speech. There's private censorship too, and making something more difficult to read is censorship. TD users are engaging in censorship at an embarrassing level. Seriously, given the values many here purport to have, you should be ashamed at what you're doing to the dissenters. Stop making excuses. If you disagree with someone, address the merits of what they're saying. Use more words, don't hide words you don't like.

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

    antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 07:28pm

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

    Output is the measure the framers were interested in. It's the entire point of copyright.

    I think that's a ridiculous view of what the Framers thought, not that I think it matters too much what they thought. I'm happy to discuss this with you, but first I think you need to man up and admit that you were wrong to (1) attribute that other person's claim to me that you said I wouldn't defend, and (2) acknowledge that your answer about trademark rights didn't address my questions about copyright rights. Can't you admit a simple mistake? We all make them. The better of us admit them. I mean, even RD of all people, thinks you're wrong. That should tell you something.

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

    antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 07:21pm

    Re: Re:

    Don't for a second claim that this is creators standing up for their rights. That's BS. This is legacy industry corporations standing up for their "right" to make as much profit as possible from the creative output of others, by putting themselves between the creators and the public using bought-for laws and made-up rights.

    You've apparently bought into the TD narrative hook, line, and sinker. Do you actually know who was on this panel? Do you actually know what they said? Do you actually delve into matters to get to the truth?

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

    antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 07:20pm

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

    This coming from someone who promised to leave the site, then came back within the period he promised not to visit the site and openly trolled everyone, is not a credible statement.

    That's the best personal attack you can muster? Sounds about right.

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

    antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 07:19pm

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

    No, this is the one instance you are right.

    Haha. So even RD admits that I am "right," yet Dark Helmet can't be bothered to admit that he was wrong. I love it.

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

    antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 06:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, this is something you made up out of nowhere. Mike attempts to present the facts the best he could and allows the reader to determine for himself what alleged facts to believe, what not to believe, and how to interpret the facts.

    I disagree that Mike does "the best he could." I think he hears a couple of things and spins into the most ridiculous version of the "truth" that he can. This post is a prime example.

    It's not that people take what was alleged to have happened as 'fact' it's that Mike presents us with the facts the best he could that

    He presents it as fact, and people here accept it as such. There's no hedging on his part. He claims that Aistars said those things. His headline insists that she said it, and that these other unnamed people agreed. The whole post is bullshit.

    and the reader is to be the judge of what they think happened. They can use different factors such as Mike's history, his reputation and judgement, his reasoning/logic, and the reader's own reasoning and logic to determine what they think might have happened. That's the point of having this presented in a discussion, so that we can discuss it.

    And the comments make clear that no one other than me questions what he's said. They accept his account, as unsupported as it may be, because it feeds into the TD narrative that "they" are clueless. The only thing this post shows is that Mike doesn't care about getting the facts right and that the people here can't wait to agree.

    and who are you that I should take seriously or believe a word you say?

    I'm just commenting. I don't expect you to believe me without proof. If I were writing a post where I claimed that so-and-so had said something, I'd back it up. I'd link to that article that supported my claims, even if it were behind a paywall. I'd name that person who was there. I'd base my claims on the quotes that I provided, not based on some crazy, extremist takeaway that the provided quotes don't support. I think you give Mike way too much credit. I think you give the readers here way too much credit. Everyone here gulps up Mike's claims wholeheartedly. Anyone who dares to challenge him is summarily "reported" for the blasphemy of thinking for himself and sharing that opinion. TD is the worst echo chamber I've ever seen. Hands down.

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

    antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 06:19pm

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

    I think you should stop perpetuating this internet pissing contest you have with ANYONE who takes even the slightest exception to what you say.

    So Dark Helmet can attempt to call me out with two completely wrong assumptions, and you don't think there's anything wrong with that? I disagree. I think he should man up and admit his mistake. I would.

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

    antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 05:37pm

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

    What a joke. You don't admit shit. You're not really in any position to make demands.

    How is it a "joke"?

    Dark Helmet claimed that I had made some claim that I refused to defend. He cited this as proof that I'm a troll. But the reality is that someone else made that claim and wouldn't defend it. Dark Helmet claimed that my question about IP rights was easily dismissed since Mike supports trademark rights to some extent. But the reality is that my question was specifically about copyright rights.

    Don't you think Dark Helmet should admit that he was wrong? I do. And it's very, very telling that he won't. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. Why isn't Dark Helmet admitting that he's wrong here? And not just wrong once, but twice. Why aren't you asking him to admit his mistake?

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

    antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 04:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You should take it up with Bloomberg Law who reported the very same quotes Mike did via a reporter in attendance. So we've got two reports of Aistars actually making those comments vs you - a confessed and admitted troll - insisting they didn't happen. Guess who's credible.

    Mike says Aistars thinks the "criminal elements are secretly leading the copyright reform effort," yet he didn't cite anything from Aistars or Bloomberg that backs that up. Mike says Aistars thinks that "there is no legitimate interest in copyright reform, but that it's really all coming from that criminal element," yet he didn't cite anything from Aistars or Bloomberg that backs that up. You appear to have read the Bloomberg piece. Can you quote us any language from it that backs up either of those two claims?

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

    antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 04:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And once again, you show us the lier that you are. You are a disgusting excuse for a human

    Can you explain why you think I'm a "lier"? (By the way, you might to learn to spell that word as proper spelling makes you seem more credible.)

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

    antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 04:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Care to retract?

    Crickets.

    Try again?

    Crickets.

    Can you really not admit a mistake, Dark Helmet?

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

    antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 04:07pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Also Techdirt is not a journalistic source. Yes it may engage in 'journalism' from time to time but it's an opinion blog. Mike is merely giving his opinion.

    I think this is nonsense. Mike expects things presented as fact to be accepted as fact. The headline and the article present the comments from Aistars as a factual account of what she said.

    and who are you to doubt their accuracy? Why should I care about whether or not you doubt their accuracy? From the things that I see coming from IP extremists alone (in the comments on this blog) I find it very likely that what was said is accurate and not out of context.

    And that's part of the problem. Mike wrote it, and lots of people take it as fact and believe it. I spoke to someone who was there, and they assure me that Aistars did not say that this criminal element is leading the reform movement and she did not say that no innovators are seeking reform. Mike presents this unsupported straw man just to knock it down. And he expects people to believe what he says. I have to wonder if he even believes it.

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

    antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 02:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Just want to point out that this is pure troll. AJ/antidirt was challenged to prove his statement with a citation.

    Um, John wasn't replying to me. He was replying to this comment: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141019/18125628883/copyright-maximalists-lobbyists-insist-criminal-elements-are-secretly-leading-copyright-reform-effort.shtml#c50 John asked that poster to back up that poster's claim that Mike smears "creators who stand up for their rights on a daily basis..."

    Care to retract?

    But, as to AJ/antidirt's stupid little challenge, Techdirt HAS positively reported on people standing up for their IP when it's done well. For instance: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130214/11232521985/how-to-resolve-trademark-issue-politely-witho ut-legal-threats.shtml

    You've moved the goalposts. I asked about copyright rights, not trademark rights, in this comment: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141019/18125628883/copyright-maximalists-lobbyists-insist-criminal-elements-are-secretly-leading-copyright-reform-effort.shtml#c223 Here's what I said: "Can you point to a single post by Mike where he (1) said that he thinks authors should have any exclusive rights in their works in the first place, or (2) spoke positively about someone enforcing their exclusive rights?"

    Try again?

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

    antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 01:31pm

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

    The thing is, it HAS been answered, just not in a concrete, pin-you-down and lock-you-into-a-label sort of way you want.

    I think he purposefully avoids taking a firm position precisely because he doesn't want to be pinned down.

    My personal answer is this:

    If empirical evidence shows that exclusive rights for creators is the best system for the creator and society as a whole - the answer is yes.

    If empirical evidence shows that exclusive rights for creators isn't the best system for the creator and society as a whole - the answer is no.

    Now, you supply all the empirical evidence required and I will give you a yes or no answer.

    As it stands now, from what I have gleaned, my answer is no. A couple of hundred years ago when the first copyright laws were written and when the length of copyright was sane and the Public Domain was being replenished regularly, my answer would have been yes.

    I appreciate you sharing your views. I guess my first question to you is how we determine what this "best system" would look like. What you think is best likely differs from what I think is best. And the problem with empiricism generally is that it's hard to measure these things, assuming you could even identify them, and it's nearly impossible to compare them, even if we could measure them. I think the empirical approach raises more questions than it answers, and as far as foundations go, it's not a very good one.

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

    antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 01:25pm

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

    see USL v. BSD where the counterclaims by University of California, Berkeley involved removal of the copyright notices, which were the normal BSD type attribution license, and their restoration in the settlement. So yes, attribution can be brought to court.

    Thanks for the link. If I understand that correctly, it's talking about a license condition. If the condition is not met, it's infringement. But that doesn't make the license condition an exclusive right. It's a condition, that if not met, means that the exclusive copyright right is violated. But the condition itself is not an exclusive right. What's enforced is the exclusive right the condition attaches to, not the condition itself. Regardless, the point is that Mike, as far as I know, has never supported any exclusive rights for authors and artists.

Next >>