vivaelamor 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1585) comment rss

  • On the post: How Social Mores Can Deal With 'Unfair' Copying, Even In Absence Of Copyright

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2010 @ 06:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: But what if they don't share social mores with you?

    "They often snag photographs from major media sources and that makes it much easier to have a cool, well-illustrated blog that catches people's eyes. "

    It's a shame you could not find such an example for any of the six you posted.

  • On the post: John Mellencamp: Takes From Others, But Refuses To Give Back

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2010 @ 06:26pm

    Re:

    "no one however should try to soil mellencamp's reputation or his talent as an artist or criticize his right to speak his mind"

    You appear to contradict yourself here. Why should no one criticise his right to speak his mind if you are doing the same thing to them? Do we all have to 'earn' the right to have our own opinions in your eyes? I'd suggest opinions are a natural product of exercising independent thought.

  • On the post: John Mellencamp: Takes From Others, But Refuses To Give Back

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2010 @ 06:15pm

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

    "Authors have a natural property right in their work. It's natural to expect rewards for your labor. Common law copyright was based on natural law, and Lockean natural rights underpin U.S. constitutional and statutory law. The Berne Convention, DMCA, and CTEA show that natural law-based copyright has reemerged with a vengeance."

    If you're going to base things on Locke then I should point out first that much of his work was reliant on his interpretation of the bible and that I'm not religious.

    Under the Lockean definition of property I would argue that the rights are already fulfilled by physical property rights. This is backed up by the fact that he did not define anything approaching intellectual property in his treatise. In other words, Locke refers to a right to the fruits of ones labour, which is sufficiently afforded by ownership of physical property.

    If anything, intellectual property impedes on the Lockean idea of property rights. In his Second Treatise Of Government, Locke states: "every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his". As you copy someone their idea also becomes part of you, no less part of you than if you had come up with an idea yourself. Should you labour to create a physical manifestation of that copy then Locke's philosophy would let you claim that as your property.

    "copyright finds its roots in both natural and economic rights."

    This I agree with.

  • On the post: John Mellencamp: Takes From Others, But Refuses To Give Back

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2010 @ 04:46pm

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

    "I will say though that there must be some good arguments that the incentivizing function of copyright works."

    I'd say the same thing, except with sarcastic emphasis on "must" and without "incentivizing", which isn't a word.

    "If the system was so clearly broken I don't think the Senate would have unanimously passed the DMCA, for example."

    Why not if they passed all the other bills that made it broken in the first place?

  • On the post: John Mellencamp: Takes From Others, But Refuses To Give Back

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2010 @ 04:28pm

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

    "So far, as long as I have been on techdirt, no one has. Not a single shred of evidence has been presented, neither by you nor by all the other pro IP people arguing on techdirt."

    Didn't you get the memo about Mike censoring their comments?

  • On the post: John Mellencamp: Takes From Others, But Refuses To Give Back

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2010 @ 04:10pm

    Re: Thank You

    "I am glad you understand the English language and have some insight."

    I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be, but you made me think of all the typos or spelling errors in the parent post.

    "As Mr. Mellencamp has said before, "Downloads are killing the 'record' business." That does not mean the music business."

    Perhaps he said so elsewhere, but in the Reuters article he was quoted as saying "destroyed the music business". Oddly enough though, Mike has repeatedly made the distinction between the recording industry and music industry on this very site.

  • On the post: How Can Border Patrol Know Whether Music On Your iPod Is Infringing?

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2010 @ 10:32am

    Re: Re: similar case

    "I don't get that; I've seen waay more explicate/"obscene" media in Vancouver B.C. than U've ever seen in Prudville USA yet the Canadian customs agents were giving you a hassle? Bizarre."

    Which is why this matter is so important. A liberal country held back by a lack of accountability at the border.

  • On the post: Ancient Online Shopping Cart Patent Still Biting Retailers

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2010 @ 10:24am

    Re:

    "Apparently they did, something that is regularly eschewed here by article writers and commenters alike. As some are want to say, one should never let facts get in the way of forming an opinion."

    Why is it apparent that they followed a process by which they could come to an informed conclusion? What facts could the people involved possibly have that might convince Mike, or any other commenter, to change their opinion?

    The issue seems to be over whether shopping carts were obvious. I can't imagine what evidence they might have to suggest that shopping carts weren't obvious. Perhaps you have a better imagination, in which case I look forward to your ideas.

  • On the post: Why Is Righthaven Demanding The Domain Names Of Sites It Sues?

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2010 @ 10:02am

    Re: Re:

    "If that fails, I just nitpick on grammar or semantics until they give up."

    I take exception to that! No one gives up, they just fall asleep.

  • On the post: Evidence Shows You Can, In Fact, 'Compete' With 'Free'

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2010 @ 09:44am

    Re:

    " i.e., it's possible to turn some "pirates" into buyers


    Fixed."

    Unless it originally said all pirates then I don't see what was broken.

  • On the post: John Mellencamp: Takes From Others, But Refuses To Give Back

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 11 Sep, 2010 @ 09:23am

    Re:

    "Not once in his statement did John say he was unwilling to give back."

    Not once was it claimed that he stated such. The article was clearly comparing his words to his stance on unauthorised file sharing.

    "He stated that file sharing was ruining the music business and the article flips this to state that he claims that its ruining his own work, something he did not say."

    Are you telling me that he doesn't consider himself part of the music business? By the way, he said that it had destroyed the music business, not was ruining it.

    "Also they atricle claims the John Mellencamp refuses to give back? That is just irresponsible journalism and very untrue. Heres a bit of John Mellencamps selfishness for you. "

    How does being a 'social activist' and 'humanitarian' make him any less a hypocrite? The article was about his views on copying, not whether he's a good or bad guy. That you would write three paragraphs to tell us all the good things he's done, which have nothing to do with the issue at hand, seems a bit over defensive.

  • On the post: Even 'Free' Culture Supporters Sometimes Have Difficulty Living Up To Their Own Principles

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2010 @ 06:05pm

    Re:

    "Releasing it for commercial use is another story, however. I see no reason why I should give away freely what otherwise I can legitimately charge for? "

    Then why do you let people share your work freely at all? I don't understand your reasoning here.

    "these days is infringements are so hard to prove and enforce that the enforcement is redundant"

    This makes more sense, if the only reason you're in favour of sharing is because you can't stop it then I can see why you may not want to go any further. I don't agree that you should make people pay just because you can though, especially considering you can't guarantee that they will use your work if they have to pay. It seems better to me for them to make some money and provide you with more exposure than to hope that you'll get any meaningful amount through commercial licences.

  • On the post: Even 'Free' Culture Supporters Sometimes Have Difficulty Living Up To Their Own Principles

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2010 @ 05:53pm

    Re: free culture

    "To be perfectly honest, it would piss me off if someone else made more money off my work than I did. "

    Why should it matter whether they made more or less money than you out of your work? It's hard enough to understand why someone else making money from your work is a problem without the amount being a factor.

    "I might not be in a position to monetize my content right now, but I might have plans for the future. I can keep all my content to myself, locked away for years until I want to sell it, but I believe that harms culture far more than a 'non-commercial' license that is attached to media that gets released right now."

    Why release it as CC at all if you don't want it to be spread as widely as possible? I don't see how someone making money off the distribution might harm your future sales. If anything it should help grow your audience for future projects where you can invest more in reaching them directly.

  • On the post: Raids Across Europe Targeting File Sharing Sites

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2010 @ 04:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

    "No, you're not boring today. :)"

    I guess you're just allergic to semantics then, not logic.

  • On the post: Raids Across Europe Targeting File Sharing Sites

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2010 @ 04:21pm

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

    "We don't get to pick and choose which laws we like and which ones we don't."

    This does not make sense. The ability to choose what you like or dislike seems impossible to lose.

    "You can't just follow the laws you agree with."

    Probably not, there are a lot of unpopular laws so nearly everyone would end up in jail sooner or later. A fear of consequences hardly seems a compelling reason to agree with something, only to comply with it. I wasn't suggesting breaking the law anyway, just that the law isn't a reason to believe something is right or wrong.

    "If you don't like the law, work to change it."

    Sound advice.

    I fail to see how any of this amounts to more than 'don't infringe copyright because you might be caught', which would admittedly be better than 'don't do it because it's against the law'.

  • On the post: Raids Across Europe Targeting File Sharing Sites

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2010 @ 04:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Cookie jar syndrome...

    "By all means then, work to change the law."

    I have a feeling of deja vu. When will you stop resorting to the law as an absolute authority, do you believe it to be some sort of deity?

    If your argument were just that everyone should obey the law then fine, I can accept that and disagree. My problem is that you use that as a premise to argue that because copyright is part of law then it is a moral right. You can say that infringers are immoral for breaking the law, but the argument is over copyright and not its legal status so the point is irrelevant. Something being part of law does not make it a moral right, even if you believe following the law is a moral imperative. I fear that this is a similar distinction to the one causing problems in our previous discussion.

    I look forward to being dismissed as boring again. It is high praise from a law student.

  • On the post: Raids Across Europe Targeting File Sharing Sites

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2010 @ 03:31pm

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

    "You are still missing the point. That's OK, neither one of us is ever going to convince the other one of anything."

    If you feel that is the only point to a debate then that is a shame and seems rather arrogant. You should only need to communicate your point of view clearly enough for other people to understand it. The rest is their choice whether to agree with you.

    You seem to put all your energy into citing authority to back up your claims rather than getting to the bottom of an argument. I don't see the point in claiming that you are right if you can't be bothered to try and communicate why you believe so. If the answer is so obvious then why would you rather waste your time repeating how obvious it is instead of explaining it.

  • On the post: Raids Across Europe Targeting File Sharing Sites

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2010 @ 03:00pm

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

    "You are saying society doesn't work with people breaking the law. I gave an example of how breaking the law isn't always bad. That is all."

    This gets brought up almost every time and seems to be the key sticking point for many anti unauthorised file sharing people. To me, as well as I would presume to most people who share copyright protected files, the law is just a means to an end. Many who are against unauthorised file sharing present the law as an end in itself by citing its authority as the basis for their arguments. Because they never seem willing to explain the reasoning behind the premise I can only conclude that it is merely a crutch for their argument and a means to an end for their agenda.

    Relying on laws for moral direction is a certain spiral into 'nothing good has come of this'. It's all very Orwellian.

  • On the post: Medieval Copy Protection: I Put A Curse On You

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2010 @ 02:19pm

    Re: Stealing the actual book - not copying it.

    "As for the St Columba story I think we have had this argument before - and as far as I remember the outcome of my researches of the original sources was that the "copyright" interpretation of the tales is a later invention - orignallly based on efforts of the owners of an early manuscript to establish its link to St Columba and later embellished (possibly more than once) in order to attempt to score points in early debates about copyright."

    I remember a case where a judge had managed to wrongly attribute an apparent quote supporting copyright to the saint when the quote in fact appeared to be from the guy prosecuting the saint. It would not surprise me if the whole thing had already been distorted to further an agenda.

  • On the post: Groups Still Slamming Craigslist

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2010 @ 02:07pm

    Re: Don't impose morality on others

    "None of this is easy to say, and the morals and mores of our society mean that it isn't possible to stand up and say it, except anonymously, without incurring all kinds of other personal grief."

    I can't say that I'm much less anonymous than you but I'll put my pseudonym behind your point. I concur with your entire post (and I'm a fit young guy who abstains because he doesn't mind waiting for 'the right person', so I'm unlikely to ever want to pay for sex).

Next >>