antidirt 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (747)

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 01:11pm

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

  I do not think it would be a First Amendment problem since you comment is still viewable. If a government person deleted the comment then I would agree with you.
  
  I disagree. It's a speech restriction since it makes the speech more difficult to see. Being that it's a content-based restriction, the test would be strict scrutiny. I fail to see what compelling governmental interest could possibly justify making unpopular speech more difficult to see, so I think it would violate the First Amendment. That said, do you think Mike would approve of the government doing this? Do you think he'd think that it doesn't violate the First Amendment?

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 01:08pm

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

  The reason that I won't answer is because there's no point to it. Your responses to the answers are always the same (which is essentially to pretend that it wasn't an answer) and then continue to ask the same questions ad nauseum. It's a disingenuous, rhetorical game that there can never be an end to.
  
  So you've seen the answer many times, yet you can't repeat it and/or point to it. I'm convinced.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 12:03pm

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

  Again you ask an impossible question, as the answer requires that you read and understand what Mike has said about copyright in the various articles he has published.
  
  Why's it impossible? Mike has definitively stated that he thinks there should absolutely never be any criminal liability for infringement. Seems like he can form an opinion there. But then as to whether there should ever be civil liability for infringement, he's completely unable to form an opinion? That doesn't make sense. I have read his posts, and I've been trying to figure this out for years. I know his answer will be imperfect. Everyone's opinions are imperfect. I know he doesn't know for a fact what the absolute best system would be. Nobody does. I just want his opinion, yes or no or whatever it may be, as to whether he thinks that authors should have any exclusive rights. He simply will not answer that question. And everyone who claims that he has answered it, so far, has been unwilling/unable to explain what his answer is.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 11:56am

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

  Attribution is the exclusive right that belongs to an author, and is the only right that does not lapse, so long as the authors name is known. Also it is the only right that cannot be sold, or otherwise transferred. It is a natural right, along with the right to publish, destroy, or leave it for other to decide as to whether a work should be published. As a right, attribution, and control of first publication, are as old as the invention of writing.
  What you insist on calling rights are the artificial rights, created by law, to control copying. As such these are much more restrictions on other peoples rights, with the maximalists trying to extend these restriction to what owners of copies are allowed to do with copies.
  
  I'm talking about actual rights that can actually be enforced in an actual court of law. There are no attribution rights in the U.S., save for the limited ones in Section 106A for certain works of visual art. I don't think those rights apply to "The Oatmeal." So that's not an example of Mike supporting anyone's exclusive rights (the ones that are actually enforceable, not the natural ones that you're referring to which aren't legally cognizable).

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 11:50am

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  First, your questions have been answered repeatedly over the years and yet you pretend that they have not (because you don't like the answers, I think).
  
  Yes, you've claimed before that the answer is obvious and that it's been stated many times. I'll ask you the same question I've asked you before when you've claimed this: What's the answer? It should be easy for you to tell me the answer since you've seen it so many times. Let's have links and quotes, if you don't mind. Thanks.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 11:47am

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

  Considering how often these "dissenting views" are personal attacks and general trolling mike would be well justified in outright deleting the comments entirely.
  
  Every time I click to expand the reported stuff to see what you claim is "censored" comments I'm greeted with trollish bullshit
  
  I have seen numerous comments "reported" that aren't trollish. Look at the very first comment above (#1). There's no reason why that should have been "reported." I merely explained that Mercatus is not CPIP, and I asked whether Mike had read the article. Give me a break with the ridiculous race to hide any view that isn't popular here. It's just sad. Especially for a site that purports to value free speech and dissenting views.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 11:43am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Strictly speaking Censorship is when a government prevents you from publishing, or speaking your point of view. You like many people with extreme views scream censorship when somebody else will not let you speak in a meeting that they arranged, or carry your speech at their expense. Neither of those actions are censorship, and you come across as a petulant child who is not given exactly what they want.
  You can still logon to this site, so nobody is trying very hard to prevent you speaking on this site. Often you comments are hidden, and can be shown by a single click, because they do not contribute much to the discussion. That is not censorship, just marking them as comments that can be ignored by those people interested in a sensible discussion.
  
  You (if you're the same person) haven't answered my question, which is whether this would violate the First Amendment as censorship if the government did it. I think it clearly would. I disagree that only the government can censor. Of course, whether it's censorship when people "report" posts here that they don't like depends on what one means by censorship. I take a broad view of censorship, one that includes actions by private individuals. I believe Mike does too. Do you think this is censorship under Mike's broad use of the term?

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 11:40am

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

  So does that mean you'll not continue rational discussions with the rest of us?
  
  I'd think you'd enjoy a intelligent discussion with anyone that could provide a challenge.
  
  Of course. Check my profile. I'm happy to have substantive discussions. There's not much about this post to talk about, though, since it contains no substance.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 11:13am

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  What is with the loaded, one-sided questions, AJ? (BTW: When did you stop beating your wife?) Why would Mike answer either of those questions if he is not 100% sure that our current copyright scheme is the best way to do things? Your questions limit him to what we currently have and completely eliminate other solutions.
  
  Really? Mike states opinions all of the time even when he's not 100% sure. This post is a good example.
  
  Mike has explained (to you specifically, even) that he feels that artists should be compensated based on his personal morals and also that he's not convinced that our current copyright laws are the best way to do that or the best way to benefit our society.
  
  Mike won't answer the question as to whether he thinks authors and artists should have any exclusive rights. He has made clear that the only thing that's wrong with infringement is that the rightholder doesn't like it. He's also made clear that he thinks there should no such thing as criminal infringement. If he can form an opinion about criminal infringement, surely he can form one about civil infringement. It seems obvious that he doesn't think they should have any rights, yet he won't ever just say that. I don't buy for one minute that it's because he can't formulate an opinion on the matter. Mike clearly has lots and lots of opinions, all of them based on incomplete information. I think it's just that he doesn't want to admit it. He's really worried about being labeled as anti-copyright or pro-piracy, for some weird reason.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 11:06am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  I love the irony that in the comments to a post where Mike pretends like he's so worried about there being no "real discussion" about these issues, all the dissenting views are being quickly "reported" and hidden from view. I'd love to discuss the issues with Mike. I think we both know that'll never happen. He's not willing to have that "real discussion" he pretends to want.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 11:03am

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Yes actually. It was a few articles about the Oatmeal wanting recognition for his comics and ended up being sued. There are string of articles and I don't remember which one it was exactly but you can do a search for Oatmeal in Techdirt for the full listing.
  
  Was that about exclusive rights, or about attribution (which is not an exclusive 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 @ 11:02am

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Yes, one of Honest Mike's famous tricks is to allow your post to appear uncensored if you're reading it from the IP it was posted from.
  
  I restarted my computer, and now all the "reported" comments are showing up as such. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's Mike himself desperately trying to hide all the dissenting views.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 11:00am

  Re: Re: Re:

  I would disagree with you since he actually confirmed that information with an attendee. Something many journalist are lacking these days. Since that attendee wasn't named, he/she probably wanted to remain anonymous. If I couldn't get it right from the source then I think the attendee is a far better source than the paywalled news source.
  
  Without any information about this supposed attendee, we can't judge reliability. And what did he confirm? A couple of phrases pulled out of context? And who are these other "lobbyists" who supposedly "insist" all these terrible things? What did they actually say? This is just shoddy reporting. No real reporter would have published this.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 10:56am

  Re: Re: Re:

  Well of course he didn't link to an article behind a paywall: everyone (except inferior people like you) knows that doing so is inconsiderate and rude.
  
  Yeah, citing one's sources is so rude.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 10:55am

  Re: Re: Re:

  You clearly don't understand the word censored.
  
  If the government had a person assigned to TD whose job it is to "report" and hide from view posts that he doesn't like, would you think it's censorship then? Do you think that would be allowed by the First Amendment? If not, why not?

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 10:26am

  Re: Re:

  Lol at this being censored. This place has really gone off the rails.
  
  Was it "reported"? It's showing up regularly in my feed. But, yeah, people here don't like dissenting views. Wouldn't want the group-think to be challenged!

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 10:24am

  Re: Re:

  Please provide an example of Techdirt smearing anyone just because they're standing up for their rights. I don't remember this happening. When I see critical articles, the criticism isn't because someone is standing up for their rights, it's because they're trampling on the rights of others.
  
  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?

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 10:22am

  Re: Re: Re:

  So pay for it.
  
  Put your money where your mouth is.
  
  Pay for the article that isn't even identified in the post? What article is it? Did Mike even read the article before commenting on it? Did Mike put his money where his mouth is? I'm happy to read it, and I would have read it, as well as watched the video of the panel discussion, before publishing a post about it. But that's just me. I prefer substance to FUD.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 10:19am

  Re: Re: Re:

  Dude, you are one clear example of such group. I would appreciate dissenting opinions and people bringing into attention some inconsistency or lack of source/evidence such as you try to do it but there's plenty of comments from you that show you are just some troll and you are not looking for reasonable discussion. So far I have yet to see baseless FUD pieces from TD and even when there was such a thing TD published updates and apologies for the mistakes. When will you admit you are in the wrong?
  
  Let us see this video indeed and then watch you try to flip something out into an attack at Mike.
  
  Would any of the real journalists that Mike routinely berates have posted this piece? I sincerely doubt it. I don't know what Aistars said. I merely doubt that this post is accurate. If the video shows that Mike's portrayal of what she said is wrong, do you really think he'll post a correction and/or retraction? I seriously doubt it. And can you really not see how this is baseless FUD? Do you really think he showed that "copyright maximalists and lobbyists insist" these things? I don't. It's sensationalism, as are so many of Mike's posts. It's hilarious that he laments how "real discussion" is "nearly impossible." As far as I can tell, Mike will be the last person in the copyright debate to have a "real discussion." Instead, we get hit pieces like this. Is Mike doing anything towards a "real discussion" with this post? Of course not. It's the opposite of that.

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

  

  antidirt ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2014 @ 09:40am

  Re:

  It's hard to discuss with people that brand everybody that disagree with them as criminals. These are the types that should actually be left out of the process. But alas we live in a somewhat democratic world and they too must have the right to spew their nonsense.
  
  I think you're giving Mike too much credit. We don't really know what was said by Aistars. Mike mentioned an article behind a paywall that he didn't bother to link to and that he may or may not have read, and he also mentioned some unnamed person that supposedly was at the event. Where are these alleged quotes from Aistars coming from? And even if they're accurate, which I doubt they are, what was the context? The article appears to me to be poorly sourced and woefully incomplete, and its purpose seems to be nothing but another personal attack against someone Mike doesn't like. For a guy that frequently berates the journalistic integrity of others, I'm not seeing any actual journalism here (journalism!). It appears that the video of this panel will be posted soon, so then we can all see what Aistars really said and the context she said it in. Until then, this strikes me as another baseless TD FUD piece.

Next >>