Chosen Reject 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1263) comment rss

  • On the post: Lawrence Golan Speaks About Golan V. Holder And His Fight To Protect The Public Domain

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2011 @ 10:19am

    Re: I can hardly wait ...

    You don't even have to go back that far. Disney's Jungle Book was released one year after Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book entered the public domain.

  • On the post: Lawrence Golan Speaks About Golan V. Holder And His Fight To Protect The Public Domain

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2011 @ 10:14am

    Re: WOW! Now I know about marking up / renting sheet music!

    Why don't you go here and answer the questions posed to you?

  • On the post: New Record Label Will Give Out All Its Music For Free; Wants Fans To Subscribe To The Label

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2011 @ 09:45am

    Re: Re: Makes me sad

    No, he's right. As soon as people stopped solely reciting stories, and instead started writing them on scrolls, creativity in story telling died.

    Wait, I mean as soon as scrolls were dropped in favor of bound books, storytelling creativity went the way of the dodo.

    Hold on, I mean as soon as bound books were replaced with ebooks, storytelling stopped completely.

    Let me back up, as soon as art moved from cave walls to animal hides, art has never been the same.

    Uhm, I mean as soon as art went from animal hides to canvas, painting creativity dried up.

    No, I mean that as soon as art went from canvas to digital, art stopped being good.

    Err...Oh I know, I'll go with music. As soon as music went from paid court musicians to random people, quality dropped.

    I got it this time. I mean as soon as music stopped being about entire concertos and more about individual pieces arranged in an album, musical genius stopped dead.

    Give me one more try. I meant that as soon as music went from albums to individual songs, the artistry in the industry went on the decline.

    You know, I'm going to go lie down and think about this some more.

  • On the post: New Record Label Will Give Out All Its Music For Free; Wants Fans To Subscribe To The Label

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2011 @ 09:27am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I think (hope?) that this guy is going to find and promote songs that are really good, not what usually makes it into the top 40. That is, for every song that makes it into the top 40, there are a bunch of others that are just as good (take that how you want it to mean), but weren't promoted as such, and a bunch that were even better but didn't make it because they weren't promoted. Had they been promoted, they would have been in the top 40 easily.

    So I think (again, hope) that this guy will find the really good songs and promote them because he is relying solely on trust, whereas the current labels don't, so they can promote whatever act they want to be in the top 40.

  • On the post: Nintendo Thrilled To Have Game Copy Devices Found Illegal In France

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2011 @ 08:56am

    Re: Re: Re: At times like this

    a company with the level of market power that MIcrosoft has could have behaved a whole lot worse
    I see it differently. I think it is because Microsoft is so big that they haven't been really bad. They don't want to get roped into another anti-trust trial, so they mostly stay relatively good. Apple doesn't have to worry about that, so they are jerks. If Microsoft fell in its OS market share to say 50% and Apple rose proportionately, then we'd have two major players who could (and probably would) be jerks without fear of anti-trust litigation.

    That's why it's so important to have a healthy market. Monopolies are bad but can stay somewhat decent for fear of anti-trust laws. Oligopolies are worse, however, because they have no fear of anti-trust lawsuits.

  • On the post: Justice Department Threatening US Sports Blogs Because Commenters Linked To Streaming Content

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2011 @ 07:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where does this '"unauthorized" streaming' come from then?

    By the way, this was me. I started using another computer and forgot to log in.

  • On the post: Justice Department Threatening US Sports Blogs Because Commenters Linked To Streaming Content

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2011 @ 05:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where does this '"unauthorized" streaming' come from then?

    Who has control? The copyright owner.

    What is the control? Copyright.

    How much did they pay for that control/copyright? Nothing. It comes automatically.

    Did they pay for control? No, because there was nothing to pay.

    Deny it or don't, you were wrong. Maybe you misspoke, but if that was the case, certainly it would have been wiser to admit that at the beginning and just admit that you simply meant that they had control, no payment necessary, or whatever it was that you meant. Or were you genuinely wrong in thinking that they needed to pay in order to gain the copyright controls?

  • On the post: Justice Department Threatening US Sports Blogs Because Commenters Linked To Streaming Content

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2011 @ 04:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where does this '"unauthorized" streaming' come from then?

    Broadcast rights do not give the broadcaster any control (the WIPO broadcast treaty was never signed as far as I am aware). They simply give the broadcaster permission to broadcast the copyrighted works. Which means they pay for permission, not control.

    The copyright owner owns the broadcast rights simply because he owns the copyright which means he can control who broadcasts the content. But he didn't pay for that control. The copyright is the control and that is automatic; no payment necessary.

    The copyright owner does pay for the content creation. The broadcaster pays for permission to broadcast that content. Those are the things paid for. The thing not paid for is the copyrights, which are the controls.

    Ergo, you were wrong when you said they paid for control. Nobody paid for control. Somebody paid for creation, somebody else paid for permission. No one paid for control.

  • On the post: No, The Supreme Court Did Not Legalize Downloading

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2011 @ 03:49pm

    Mazburglar does it again with his FUD

    Once again we see Mazburglar jumping to the aid of his burglarizing buddies without giving any thought to the actual truth. You're always defending the copyright burglars, and ignore stories that don't jive with your freetardian broadbrush ideals.

    I mean, look at this article, does anyone really believe that the supreme court would legalize downloading? And yet here you are, defending this tra....

    uhm, wait. I'm going to have to rethink this. Give me a moment.

  • On the post: Justice Department Threatening US Sports Blogs Because Commenters Linked To Streaming Content

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2011 @ 03:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where does this '"unauthorized" streaming' come from then?

    Yes, I've heard of broadcast rights, and you are using them incorrectly here. Someone pays for broadcast rights, it's true. But the ones paying for broadcast rights are the broadcasters. They pay for it because the NHL (or some other entity) owns (and controls) the copyright, and by doing so they are paying the copyright owners for permission to make the broadcast of that copyrighted work.

    But here's where you are hung up for some reason: the owner of the copyrighted work did not pay for that control. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

    The owner paid to create the content.
    The owner owns the copyright of that content by default. No payment necessary.
    Broadcasters want broadcast rights (which they pay for) because the copyright owner has control (which he didn't pay for) over the content (which he did pay for). Things are getting paid for and control is had. I'm not disputing these things. You said they paid for control. I'm saying of all the things that were paid for, control is not one of them so you are wrong on that point.

    Copyright is automatic. You don't pay for it.

  • On the post: Justice Department Threatening US Sports Blogs Because Commenters Linked To Streaming Content

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2011 @ 02:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where does this '"unauthorized" streaming' come from then?

    I never said they didn't have control. Only that you were wrong in saying they paid for it.

    I never said the DOJ is wrong in thinking they have control. Only that you were wrong in saying they paid for it.

    I never said I pirated content, or tried to justify anyone else doing so. Only that you were wrong in saying they paid for control.

    I don't know why it's so hard for you to admit that what you said was wrong. Had you simply said you meant that they had legal control on the broadcast, then we'd not be having this discussion. But you didn't just say they had legal control, you said they paid for control. And they did not (pay for control that is).

    You can read into it whatever you want to, and it looks like you have, but what you read into it is not what I said. Others are saying they shouldn't have control, or that they abuse their control, or other such things. I did not. I only said you were wrong in saying that they paid for control.

  • On the post: Justice Department Threatening US Sports Blogs Because Commenters Linked To Streaming Content

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2011 @ 02:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Where does this '"unauthorized" streaming' come from then?

    No, they didn't pay for control. They might be expecting copyright controls, but they didn't pay for copyrights. They might have paid for the content, but they didn't pay for control. They might be expecting control, but they didn't pay for it. They paid for the content, they paid people to film it, to broadcast it, to edit it, to do whatever they do with it, and they might expect control. But none of that is what you said.

    You said they paid for control. I'm telling you they didn't. I'm not saying they didn't pay money. I'm not saying they have no copyright. I'm saying they didn't pay for control.

  • On the post: Justice Department Threatening US Sports Blogs Because Commenters Linked To Streaming Content

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2011 @ 01:10pm

    Re: Where does this '"unauthorized" streaming' come from then?

    , they've PAID for that control, you haven't.
    They didn't pay for control. They might have paid for the content, but they didn't pay for control. Unless you mean that they paid the lobbyists that paid the congress critters for that control. But even that would be wrong. The NHL didn't do that, and neither did the Dallas Stars. Others did. I say screw them. Let the NHL and Dallas Stars buy their own lobbyists and stop freeloading off the work of previous lobbyists.

  • On the post: Judge Makes Company Pay More For Infringement Because The CEO Complained Publicly About The Patent System

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2011 @ 11:31am

    Re: Re: Appeal?

    Can we please talk about the article at hand? This article isn't about whether the guy infringed on patents, or whether patents should exist, or most of what you just wrote. This article is about a judge increasing a penalty because the guy verbalized his disagreement with the original ruling. It doesn't matter if he did this in a patent trial, moving infraction trial, or child molestation trial. What we are talking about is a judge increasing a penalty due to someone using their constitutional guarantee to free speech.

    This is so wrong, the judge ought to be sentenced to remedial courses and removed from the bench until he does so.

    If this were turned around and an American company was violating a Chinese company's patent, I can assure you the Chinese judge would act very similarly.
    And you don't see a problem with that? In fact, I say that is the problem with this ruling.

  • On the post: Judge Makes Company Pay More For Infringement Because The CEO Complained Publicly About The Patent System

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2011 @ 11:05am

    Re: Re: "Clearly, the CEO of the company didn't take the judgement seriously..."

    So if it was decided that he already committed willful infringement, what is the point of this new ruling? Are they saying he committed willful infringement willfully? Did he commit twice as much willfulness? The judge set the amount based on willful infringement, the guy said something about over enforcement, and so the judge doubles the amount.

    This is utterly asinine. Are we going to start double sentences anytime the defendant disagrees with the ruling? Is yelling out "I'm innocent" after being sentenced going to double the sentence? Is appealing a harsh sentence going to cause that sentence to be made harsher? This is stupid.

  • On the post: Judge Makes Company Pay More For Infringement Because The CEO Complained Publicly About The Patent System

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2011 @ 10:53am

    Re:

    This judge got it so wrong that his extra increase will easily be thrown out on appeal. The guys words very well might have meant he had no respect for anything and that he'd infringe on whatever patents he could gets his grubby little hands on. The time to punish him for that is when he does it. Not when he expresses his opinion that the US over enforces patents.

    I think drug laws need to be thrown out. According to you and this judge, that means I should be locked up for twice as long as a drug offender because my words indicate I have no respect for drug laws and intend to break those laws. In reality, I don't do drugs, never have, and highly encourage anyone who does so to stop. See how words might indicate an action, but that action doesn't necessarily follow?

    Certainly this judge knows this can't stand up to first amendment scrutiny. If not, I think it's time to throw him off the bench.

  • On the post: Radio Is Killing Music

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2011 @ 09:49am

    Re:

    Should we all still be burning whale oil for lighting and listening to our music on gramophones?
    Are you crazy? Whale oil? Are you trying to kill the dairy industry?

    And gramaphones? My word. If you really wanted to support an artist, you'd hire them as your court musician! Gramaphones! Hmph!

  • On the post: EA Sues EA Over The EA Trademark

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2011 @ 09:21am

    Re:

    Let's take a look at the big three intellectual property categories:

    Copyright - prevents the public from copying stuff.
    Patents - prevents the public from making stuff.
    Trademark - protects the public from buying stuff they didn't mean to buy.

    Wait, one of those is not like the other.

  • On the post: Married Woman Sues Match.com For Using Her Photo In Ads

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2011 @ 09:09am

    Re:

    You're almost correct. The photo can be used almost willy nilly. The photographer has the copyright and can publish the image in almost any place he likes. The only time he cannot is when using it to endorse a product. He could put the photo on his blog, flickr, facebook, wikipedia, google bomb the thing if he wanted it to show up everywhere, he could put it on posters and spread it all over town, display it in art galleries, etc. But until a model release form is signed, he cannot use it in a way that makes it look like the woman is endorsing a product or service.

    The details are too boring to get into, which I did once, but I'm not a photographer so I didn't bother to remember all of them. But the gist above is correct. The photo can be used almost willy nilly, but a model release form is needed for certain narrow situations (this being one).

  • On the post: New US Postal Service Ad Campaign: Email Sucks, So Mail Stuff Instead

    Chosen Reject ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2011 @ 01:42pm

    Re: Re:

    Yeah, but the ping times are killer.

Next >>