Paul’s Techdirt Profile

phyltre

About Paul




Paul’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 1st, 2012 @ 2:42pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Are you familiar with the concept of prior restraint?

  • Oct 17th, 2011 @ 12:01pm

    Re: Maybe it's something else...

    So they genuinely ARE afraid of collaboration?

  • Aug 30th, 2011 @ 6:37am

    Partially Subverted

    Without tax law--

    Oh, wait...

  • Jun 11th, 2010 @ 11:13am

    Re: Re:

    I don't have a blog where I post content meant to "analyze and offer insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues that affect companies ability to innovate and grow".

    Mike Masnick does, though, which is why I thought this feedback might be useful to him. But thanks for the snark!

  • Jun 11th, 2010 @ 11:00am

    (untitled comment)

    "It doesn't take into account all of the other aspects of the music business -- nearly every single one of which has been growing during this same period."

    While I agree with you completely here, it's a little odd to see a statement like this made without any kind of citation or link to more information/proof. I think a chart like the one you presented loses much of its power and context without another chart that shows the rest of the music industry. Numbers and data from the non-RIAA industry would make this post much more relevant to mainstream thought, which I'm hoping is your endgame.

  • Feb 8th, 2010 @ 11:01am

    Re: Re: Re: (by Ima Fish)

    I, for one, am not compelled by "centuries of law." In fact, one of the central problems with the legal system is, in fact, that the sheer volume of context it enshrines REQUIRES the presence of a person trained specifically and at length to handle legal matters. Which is to say, the layman is assumed not to understand the laws he is expected to follow. At its core, this premise is nonsensical.

    If jurors can't be trusted to research information, they can't be trusted to make meaningful decisions. Those bars are set equally high.

  • Jul 28th, 2009 @ 5:28am

    @ Doctor Strange

    The point is that he cannot enter the text of the works he seeks to site into a published work of his own, in what virtually anyone would consider to be a perfectly acceptable way.

    If we do not know if the law is suppressing Gann's expressions, and Gann doesn't either, the law has failed totally and become useless. For there to be a question concerning such a basic point is laughable. And if the only way to find out is to initiate a suit, at the cost of one's self or the opposing party...this is even less acceptable.