vivaelamor 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1585) comment rss

  • On the post: Why Must ISPs Pay To Be The Mandatory Copyright Cops Of The Entertainment Industry?

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2010 @ 02:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: What-about

    "It would also apply if you signed up with a cable provider that didn't offer any BBC channels."

    Please cite the 20 year old case that proves this. If there is such a thing then it's news to the TV licensing authority, who are quite clear that you need to pay for any live TV, regardless of origin:

    "Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they're being shown on television without a valid TV Licence."

    In any case, I would wonder whether a 20 year old case would apply, given the new legislation in effect.

  • On the post: Canadian Music Industry Spokesperson Claims User Generated Content Supports 'Piracy'

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2010 @ 02:09pm

    They're users too.

    "They still don't realize that the internet is, primarily, a communication platform, and user-generated content is a huge part of that"

    From the perspective of the internet as a communication platform, they are as much users as anyone else. It makes me laugh that they are scared to compete with free when so many argue that it's all about big budgets. They pretty much admitted that copyright isn't an essential incentive after all.

  • On the post: School Agrees To Pay Student $33,000 After Teacher Dug Through Her Phone To Find Private Nude Photos

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2010 @ 01:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: ZOMG NAKED BOOBIES!!

    "Yes, then HE'S guilty of child porn. But the girl cannot be guilty of child porn for taking pictures of herself, otherwise she damn well better be brought up on statutory rape charges every time she has fun with herself "

    I'm not familiar with the relevant law, but as far as logic goes she could indeed be guilty, though she plainly should be exempted.

  • On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems…

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2010 @ 01:52pm

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

    "I'm sure there were arguments on both sides, or else there wouldn't have been a case."

    I'm not interested in their arguments, I'm interested in how you can judge the matter without having read the book. I do not need to read the book as the very fact that I am unable to fulfils my argument, which is that you shouldn't censor books. You can defer to the courts judgement (again), but that was not what you appeared to be doing when you made a direct claim that he had 'stolen' Salinger's expression without cause.

  • On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems…

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2010 @ 01:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: The "balance" delusion

    "I've been trying to think of an answer that included the word incentivizing, but nothing's come to mind. ;)"

    That's the last time I try a self deprecating British joke on a US site.

  • On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems…

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2010 @ 01:28pm

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

    "I agree with him there, and that was my point. If the First Amendment superseded the Copyright Clause (and any law made under it), then there wouldn't be copyright. Instead, the two must be read together, each one giving way to the other. That's what the Court in Eldred was saying."

    I don't see why there couldn't be copyright that did not infringe on the First Amendment (regardless of whether I might support such a thing). Copyright as set out in the Constitution does not automatically infringe on the First Amendment. For example, in the case of the censored book, if it were possible to publish the book without making any money from it then that would not seem to infringe on the authors right to free speech. Thus you may still have a restriction on commercial use through the Copyright Clause, but without infringing on the First Amendment.

  • On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems…

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2010 @ 01:20pm

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

    Just to make sure you know, I was agreeing with you.

    I wouldn't worry about the two distinct uses of the phrase 'moral rights' though, that seems merely to be a product of two common words being used in different contexts. The distinction between moral rights and natural rights all depends on the given definition of both, in many contexts they may be considered the same thing. In philosophy they may vary between different schools of thought; law being generally based on philosophy would then tend to differ between jurisdictions.

    I tend to consider morality in general to be a distortion of reality by perspective, as any sane choice is a moral choice from the perspective of the maker. Thus the term 'moral rights' is to me to be merely a label given to something to make it seem definitive by proclaiming that everyone should agree.

    In the case of copyright I do not agree with the moral rights as set out in the Berne Convention, as they border on narcissistic. I do agree with moral rights that only protect the truth, such as attribution, which happens to also be what I would consider a natural right.

  • On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems…

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 17 Sep, 2010 @ 12:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: rights via contracet

    "That's true, but it shouldn't be. This is one of the (many) ways that copyright holders have broken the contract."

    While I'd certainly favour your view, I don't think that the scope of copyright as set out in the Constitution is as specific as you suggest. The Constitution merely refers to an exclusive right, not an exclusive commercial right.

  • On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems…

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2010 @ 07:46am

    Re: rights via contracet

    "so that - barring commercial use - the public can use those expressions however they like."

    This is not true. You do not have to be making money out of an infringing work to be prohibited from publishing it.

  • On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems…

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2010 @ 07:39am

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

    "No one is saying that that author can't write a book that contains those same ideas, theories, or facts. He just can't do so while "stealing" Salinger's unique expression. And that's not even true. He can "steal" Salinger's expression if it's for parody, criticism, etc. But that wasn't the case here."

    How do you know that? You can't have read the book, you're relying solely on the decision of the court. Some people who did read the book testified for the defendant:

    'Finally, he relies upon the declarations of two literary experts. Martha Woodmansee, a professor of English and law at Case Western Reserve University, described 60 Years Later as a "work of meta-commentary" that "pursues critical reflection on J.D. Salinger and his masterpiece [Catcher] just as do the articles that literary scholars
    conventionally write and publish in scholarly journals, but it casts its commentary in an innovative `post modern' form, specifically, that of a novel." Woodmansee Decl. ¶ 9. Robert Spoo, a professor at the University of Tulsa College of Law, found 60 Years Later to be a "sustained commentary on and critique of Catcher, revisiting and analyzing the attitudes and assumptions of the teenaged Holden Caulfield. In this respect, [60 Years Later] is similar to a
    work of literary criticism."'

  • On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems…

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2010 @ 07:12am

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

    "Even if copyright was abolished, people still have a (natural) right not to be deceived as to a work's authorship."

    An oft quote phrase seems apt: you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

  • On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems…

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2010 @ 07:09am

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

    "Mike was saying that they don't have to be balanced, that the First Amendment trumps copyright since it came later in the Constitution. For this assertion, he has offered zero proof other than to say his friend told him so. LOL!"

    I don't think Mike considers the opinions of even his learned friends as 'proof', but then I've explained to you the difference between proof and evidence before. Your evidence has been thus far that the supreme court said so. Perfectly valid but it does not address any of the issues brought up here as the supreme court don't come by their decision in a manner by which a logical mind might follow. If you want to defer to the supreme court on authority alone then great, let's hope that they never make a decision you don't like.

  • On the post: Why Must ISPs Pay To Be The Mandatory Copyright Cops Of The Entertainment Industry?

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Sep, 2010 @ 06:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: What-about

    "Perhaps you should STFU and not pay for the licence if you don't use anything it pays for... or pay it if you do."

    Why would I shut the fuck up? As for not paying the fee, if you'd stop watching the BBC and browse the internet some more then you might know the trouble that causes. Note on your link how they also refer to computers, laptops, mobile phones and DVD/video recorders as grounds for requiring a licence. It's a criminal offence to not pay the licence fee and all you have to do to be liable is click on an internet link to a live TV stream. So, the option of paying ?145.50 a year or risk a criminal record for browsing the internet. Aside from that, why should I have to forgo non BBC TV just to satisfy your need for me to shut up.

    Enough about me, I've helped enough families in financial difficulty budget to give a broader picture. The TV licence is regarded as an essential expenditure, thus while a person may not be able to offer more than ?1 per month to their creditors (whom they actually entered into an agreement with), they will still be paying over ?12 per month for a TV licence. Before you say 'well they should give up their TV', from all reports and experience I would say that you will be pursued more ferociously for a TV licence you don't need than for a debt you actually owe.

    "...and yet you're here complaining about them and not the ad-funded Fox crap you can't choose not to support."

    Can't choose not to support? Advertisers support Fox, not me.

    Please, tell me to shut up again. It validates my position so well.

  • On the post: Would A Moron In A Hurry Confuse R2D2 With An Ad Platform? No? But George Lucas Would…

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 15 Sep, 2010 @ 03:16pm

    Re:

    "Lucas is famously litigious as regards the word "Droid" (a word that they made up themselves, albeit by shortening an existing word, to note). "

    In the original book it even still had the apostrophe: 'droid.

    Copyright: where you can take a word, shorten it and make people pay for your creative use of a process that is so common there is even a word pre dating your usage of it (apocope).

    Maybe he can also get young amputees to pay for his creative use of losing a hand because it happened to 'Vader first.

  • On the post: Why Must ISPs Pay To Be The Mandatory Copyright Cops Of The Entertainment Industry?

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 15 Sep, 2010 @ 02:59pm

    Re: Just to clarify on the whole TV Licence thing

    "And yet, the law says I must still pay the licence fee, even though I have no way of receiving programming at all"

    By all reports and experience, in the UK you'll be chased more ferociously for a licence for a TV you don't have than you will for a debt you actually owe. Especially if you're in financial difficulty because legitimate creditors have to give way for essential expenditure like the TV licence.

  • On the post: Why Must ISPs Pay To Be The Mandatory Copyright Cops Of The Entertainment Industry?

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 15 Sep, 2010 @ 02:41pm

    Re: Re: What-about

    "Are you sure you don't watch any BBC?"

    I watch plenty of BBC but I share the parent's sentiment and don't see how it harms the argument. Just because I watch BBC programmes doesn't mean I wouldn't give them up in a heartbeat if it meant I had £145.50 extra a year to spend on stuff of my own choosing. If I wanted to contribute to Jeremy Clarkson's wage that desperately then I'd buy that paper he writes for (coincidentally owned by Murdoch), instead of toilet paper.

  • On the post: Why Must ISPs Pay To Be The Mandatory Copyright Cops Of The Entertainment Industry?

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 15 Sep, 2010 @ 02:29pm

    Re: Re: What-about

    "Try watching television in a country that doesn't have the BBC - or an equivalent."

    I don't want to watch television, here or in any other country. I don't even want to own a television. I don't want to access the BBC web site. I don't want to listen to the radio. The only thing the BBC does for me is ensure that my money won't go towards something I want. I get fed up about hearing how great their programming is. If that's the best that can be done then switch off the broadcast towers because it's just not worth it any more.

    "the existence of the BBC forces the cable channels that you do watch to provide better programmes, with fewer commercials, than they otherwise would."

    On what do you base that theory? To suggest that forcing people to pay for a competing product somehow makes for a more competitive market seems absurd. If it worked then we should apply the principle everywhere and scrap the free market altogether. We could start with a cooker licence to subsidise food production. Eventually we'll find something that'll subsidise the cooker too. You'll have less choice but at least there'll be plenty of people saying how great that is.

    "Also you should ponder on the fact that your cable subscription is almost certainly funding Rupert Murdoch...."

    It is a sad irony that the biggest force the BBC has in its favour is rational distrust of the Murdoch family. They might be arseholes, but at least I can choose not to buy their crap. That's what freedom is all about.

  • On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems…

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 15 Sep, 2010 @ 11:51am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "I wouldn't rely on the dictionary to make your constitutional law arguments."

    In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it seems a sensible place to start. Regardless, have a professor of philosophy's opinion: "This is clearly because the amending power is supreme within its legal system, even if not omnipotent".

    Have another scholarly opinion: "This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment"

    The fact of how the supreme court decided to interpret amendments does not prove that is how amendments are supposed to work. Seriously, why bother with legalise if you're going to interpret it intentionally ambiguously. Just look at UK law; we don't have a set constitution but legislation is interpreted in order of newest takes precedence because that is the only sane way to do things. Of course there's always the issue of entrenchment, but you've yet to argue that.

  • On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems…

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 15 Sep, 2010 @ 11:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Personally, I'll take the word of the Supreme Court:"

    Mike headed you off here when he said: "It's true that courts have tried to balance these two, but they've done a piss poor job of it, supported by really dumb and counterfactual statements."

    "I love it when they say "balance." ;)"

    I guess you're glad that Mike said it first then.

  • On the post: When You Realize That Copyright Law Violates Free Speech Rights, You Begin To Recognize The Problems…

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 15 Sep, 2010 @ 10:55am

    Re: Re: The "balance" delusion

    "The law is all about balance, Nina. And that's a good thing. :)"

    We might conclude then that copyright is not good law.

Next >>