The Infamous Joe 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1677) comment rss

  • On the post: Two Copywrongs Don't Make A Right, But We Still Need A Way To Combat False Takedown Notices

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2012 @ 09:36am

    Too simple?

    If you want to get rid of incorrect takedowns, do the sensible thing and make non-commercial copyright infringement legal.

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

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2012 @ 07:48am

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

    And really the sort of uses you're referring to aren't the ones that are the problem.

    Yet, the law makes no distinction.

    The uses I worry about are wholesale infringement.

    Define "wholesale infringement".

    It's not stopping innovation from preventing people from downloading the latest game, movie, or music.

    Funny, that it has been used to stop innovation. Are there new laws that make a distinction between this "wholesale" infringement and "innovative" infringement?

    That stuff is for sale, not for free, and just taking it hurts the right holder.

    Your proof that it hurts the rights holder?

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

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2012 @ 07:44am

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

    It doesn't take the right away. The exclusive rights inhere in the author.

    No, the *rights* belong to the author-- and everyone else. I have the natural right to copy anything. If I take the time to learn woodworking, I can copy a chair. If I buy a computer, I can copy a song. You can only prevent this with laws-- by taking away everyone's rights, except the author's.

    This isn't a very difficult concept, you know.

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

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2012 @ 07:40am

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

    Trespass on my lawn, pulling up weeds and making it more beautiful in the process, and you've still violated my rights and done me wrong.

    This is an excellent example! While some people may think it's wrong to go against the owner's wishes, it is easily arguable that the owner is better off. The "rights" violated did no measurable or provable harm, however, the benefits of having those rights violated is easily quantifiable.

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

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2012 @ 07:35am

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

    A baker has a monopoly over a loaf of bread, but he hasn't cornered the bread market.

    You picked an example from a very innovative industry that has no copyright protections. A baker cannot sue me if I make bread that is exactly like his bread. That is why he doesn't have a monopoly on bread. An author *can* sue me for making a book exactly like his book, and that's why he has a monopoly on that book. In fact, he can sue me for not using any of the exact text of his book, but only using similar characters. (It's been done before!)

    This illustrates the problem with current copyright law. While I will agree that it's "supposed" to only cover specific expressions, you and I both know that this is often ignored-- especially in the face of a lawsuit from a billion dollar company.

    Learn to think for yourself.

    All you ever do is parrot what you have been told. I suggest that you actually think about the things discussed here. Don't think about it from the perspective of someone who stands to gain from the status quo, like a lawyer who hopes to get paid to sort out all this mess, but instead from someone with nothing to gain either way.

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

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2012 @ 07:26am

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

    He *has* answered. You just, apparently, don't like his answer. In your answer about taking someone's like, you have *several* yes's and no's. You have been here long enough to know exactly what Mike's position on copyright infringement is. The fact that you focus so much on making it a yes or no answer makes me think that you're attempting to "trap" him in some sort of "gotcha" question, or you're planning on quoting him out of context later. There is no other reason to insist on a simple yes or no answer to a complex issue.

    So, give it up, guy. It can be either moral or immoral, depending on several factors-- many of which are subjective. That's your answer.

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

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2012 @ 06:06am

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

    Did you hear that sound, guy? That was the sound of you missing the point.

    So, you *do* acknowledge that some questions are so complex that to answer them with a simple "yes" or "no" does not adequately explain one's position. Good, good. So, when Mike says that he thinks it's not right to go against the wishes of the content "creators" and infringe on their copyrights, but also says that they may not actually be victims, as they could actually be better off by someone infringing on their copyrights-- and you insist on converting that perfectly acceptable answer into a "yes" or "no", is that you being douche, or are you so blinded by wanting to be right that you can't realize when you're being illogical?

    This is an honest question.

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

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2012 @ 05:25am

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

    AJ, do you, personally, think it's okay to take another human's life, against their wishes? I want a yes or no answer. If you don't answer, you're clearly running away from me, like you always do. If you answer other than a simple "yes" or "no", you're dodging the question.

    (Please note, I'm going to copy/paste this every single time I see you request a yes/no answer to a complicated question. You're warned.)

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

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2012 @ 05:23am

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

    Slavery is immoral. So what? Are you suggesting that giving an author a property right in his creation is immoral? I know you won't answer.

    Holy shit, guy! You said that because a law was broken, it was immoral. He pointed to a law that was moral to break! That's "so what".

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

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 10 Sep, 2012 @ 12:35pm

    Re:

    bob, is that you?

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

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 10 Sep, 2012 @ 12:23pm

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

    As one Joe to another, you need to get some perspective. You are asking for a simple, yes or no answer for a complex, shades of grey question.

    How do you like it? AJ, do you, personally, think it's okay to take another human's life, against their wishes? I want a yes or no answer. If you don't answer, you're clearly running away from me, like you always do. If you answer other than a simple "yes" or "no", you're dodging the question.

    Go.

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

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 10 Sep, 2012 @ 11:49am

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

    He knows his desired outcome, and is willing to contort reality as necessary to arrive at it.

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

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 10 Sep, 2012 @ 11:38am

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

    Copyright rights are personal property rights.

    One does not own a government granted monopoly, so it is neither personal, nor property, nor a right.

    Have you ever studied the law on knocking on someone's front door?

    You asked for an example, I gave you an example. If you have issue with the example, state it; if you don't, stfu. ;-)

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

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 10 Sep, 2012 @ 11:32am

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

    either of those examples involves violating someone's personal property rights.

    Neither does copyright infringement.

    Can you come up with a single, nonextreme example where it's moral to violate someone's property rights?

    When I walk up past your "No trespassing" sign to your front door and inform you that your house is built on a shoddy foundation and could collapse at any moment.

    Illegal? Yes.
    Violates personal property rights? Yes.
    Moral? Yes.
    Non-extreme? Yes.

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

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 10 Sep, 2012 @ 10:10am

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

    There have always been different kinds of rights. There's this thing that smart people do called "classification." They don't put all rights into one category, but instead they separate them into different types of rights. Crazy, I know.

    I feel like you're (throughout this thread) very loosely tossing around the term "right", and it would not surprise me at all to discover that you were doing so intentionally, to confuse the subject.

    Much like using the word "theft" to describe copyright infringement, you are trying to manipulate people by claiming that copyright infringement is taking away someone's "rights", not-so-subtly equating it with rights like freedom of religion and speech.

    As has been said already in these comments- if tomorrow all of congress decided to ban together and abolish copyright protections, no one's "rights" would be violated. Congress has the power, but not the mandate, to institute incentives to create. However, if tomorrow congress decided to ban together and abolish freedom of speech protections, it would violate many people's rights.

    I assume that because you're in law school, you know all of this, so why are you intentionally attempting to complicate an already complex issue with emotionally manipulative word choices?

  • On the post: HBO Go Goes Everywhere… Except Your TV Set

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 29 Aug, 2012 @ 10:14am

    Re:

    People affected by this are the minority. It would not affect their bottom line much, if everyone trying to stream HBO Go to a TV canceled at the same time. Internet rants can become Internet movements, which has a greater, albeit still small, chance of resolving the issue.

  • On the post: HBO Go Goes Everywhere… Except Your TV Set

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 29 Aug, 2012 @ 10:09am

    Re:

    Also, HBO Go works out of the box with Google TV. This smells like an Apple issue, not an HBO one. This time.

  • On the post: GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language… But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2012 @ 07:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

    According to Christian superstition, since Ghandi (presumably) knew of Jesus, but didn't worship him as the son of God, he gets to burn in hell for all eternity.

    Bummer, huh?

  • On the post: GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language… But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2012 @ 06:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

    Can you disprove the existence of a purple unicorn that turns human feces into ice cream? Do you believe in the existence of a purple unicorn that turns human feces into ice cream? Your reasons for saying no to both the first and second questions are the reasons why I do not believe in your God.

  • On the post: GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language… But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn

    The Infamous Joe ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2012 @ 11:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality

    //sigh

    In one book in your bible, the tenant of "eye for an eye" is given. In another book, the tenant of "turn the other cheek" is given. Same god, yes? So, he must have changed his mind, yes? Odd, that.

    Science is about finding the *best* answer with the data available. What is a more likely scenario: That evolution happens in spurts; or that an all powerful, all knowing being created everything in 7 days?

    You *know* the right answer, even though you'll likely type out the wrong one.

    I will point to a million senseless deaths; to the holocaust, to cancer, to rape and child abuse and say that this is sufficient data to conclude that your benevolent god is a lie. I will point to the concept original sin and of hell, and conclude that your forgiving god is a lie. (Also, you can't prove something doesn't exist-- you, saying he exists, have the burden of proof. It's science.)

    Is your mind changed, or are you going to make something up so you can stick to the concept you want to stick to?

    Oh, you still haven't answered my question about a man who says he spoke to God.

Next >>