vivaelamor 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1585) comment rss

  • On the post: Homeland Security Decides If It Just Keeps Interchanging Counterfeiting With Copyright Infringement, Perhaps No One Will Notice

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2010 @ 09:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Category errors

    "Here's someone else's view."

    An interesting read, but not enlightening to me as their view is apparently based on your own. Still, this has given me much to think about.

  • On the post: Homeland Security Decides If It Just Keeps Interchanging Counterfeiting With Copyright Infringement, Perhaps No One Will Notice

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2010 @ 09:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Category errors

    "The Constitution cannot empower Congress to grant privileges (monopolies) because they must necessarily derogate from rights (see Paine)."

    Presumably you are still talking about Thomas Paine. While his writing was certainly influential, he does not appear to have had direct input into the Constitution. Are you presuming that the framers of the Constitution strictly adhered to his ideals as set out in the Rights of Man? If so, would they have not explicitly worded the Constitution to that end? I haven't studied the Constitution in detail, so it may explicitly say this, in which case please point me in the right direction.

  • On the post: Homeland Security Decides If It Just Keeps Interchanging Counterfeiting With Copyright Infringement, Perhaps No One Will Notice

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2010 @ 06:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Category errors

    "If you still believe that the Constitution can refer to 'rights' legally granted years later, then you've left the realms of logic."

    As an ignorant Brit, I'm forced to concede this argument because I know very little about the Constitution. I would be interested in someone's more informed view on this though, I get a sense of what you mean but it is still not clear to me.

  • On the post: Homeland Security Decides If It Just Keeps Interchanging Counterfeiting With Copyright Infringement, Perhaps No One Will Notice

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2010 @ 05:35am

    Re:

    "For those who cant be bothered to read, but yet feel able to dismiss the post out of hand, doing so means you have no argument, other than to insult the person"

    Actually, it means that we couldn't be bothered to read, so were unable to argue a point. I would suggest the fault there lies with the person trying to get their point across, but failing due to their poor presentation. I sympathise, as I tend to loathe the input capabilities on such things, but would point out the use of the preview button is an especially good idea on a long post. I cringe every time I post with an errant emphasis tag ruining the formatting. One day I hope to find, or write, a decent and foolproof input addon for such things.

  • On the post: Homeland Security Decides If It Just Keeps Interchanging Counterfeiting With Copyright Infringement, Perhaps No One Will Notice

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2010 @ 05:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Category errors

    "Mike should check the timeline of those quotes. Jefferson will seem to vacillate like a yoyo if his views of 1813 are presented as if preceding the drafting of the 'progress clause' in 1787."

    Perhaps this quote, from Jefferson to Madison in 1788 (during the drafting of the bill of rights), will help persuade you more: "I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our new constitution by nine states. It is a good canvas, on which some strokes only want re-touching. What these are, I think are sufficiently manifested by the general voice from North to South, which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty generally understood that this should go to juries, habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty in finding general modification of these suited to the habits of all the states. But if such cannot be found then it is better to establish trials by jury, the right of Habeas corpus, freedom of the press and freedom of religion in all cases, and to abolish standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies, in all cases, than not to do it in any... The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression."

    If that doesn't clear it up then I don't know what will.

    "What I do not have any natural power or right to is to give you my writing and suspend your liberty to copy or further communicate it."

    I agree.

    "It takes the grant of a privilege to do so"

    Again, why can't the constitution give congress the power to grant a privilege? I do not understand this. I believe that it shouldn't have, but why can't it?

  • On the post: Homeland Security Decides If It Just Keeps Interchanging Counterfeiting With Copyright Infringement, Perhaps No One Will Notice

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2010 @ 05:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Category errors

    "An author's exclusive right to their writings is their natural right to exclude others from them. This is a right imbued in the author by nature (not granted by statute), and is self-evident in that any author has the mortal power in their body to physically exclude others from those writings in their physical possession or in their physically secured property. It is this natural right that Congress is empowered to secure."

    Such a right is already secured by existing property legislation. Why do we need another law to stop people stealing unpublished works, when it is already illegal?

    "Copyright is a reproduction monopoly granted by statute. People are not naturally able to prevent pirates making illicit copies of published works. Congress is not empowered by the Constitution to grant such monopolies. But it did anyway. And given only a tiny few had printers in their garages, who cared?"

    Your argument is beginning to be clear. Basically, you believe copyright is bunk, but that there should be a law to protect unpublished works?

  • On the post: Homeland Security Decides If It Just Keeps Interchanging Counterfeiting With Copyright Infringement, Perhaps No One Will Notice

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2010 @ 04:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Category errors

    "The US Constitution could only refer to (natural) rights because it certainly can't refer to privileges (legally granted rights). A constitution cannot refer to future legislation."

    I'm sorry, I cannot find any definition of constitution that supports this statement. Please provide a reference.

    What you seem to be doing is trying to conclude, from its inclusion in the constitution, that something is a natural right. This is clearly fallacious as even if the document states that it only refers to natural rights, it may be wrong. Even so, I have yet to see reference to where in the constitution it states that it shall only refer to natural rights.

  • On the post: Homeland Security Decides If It Just Keeps Interchanging Counterfeiting With Copyright Infringement, Perhaps No One Will Notice

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2010 @ 04:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Category errors

    "So, a year after the Constitution when drafting the Bill of Rights, why would Jefferson be against monopolies if Congress had only just be empowered to grant them?"

    Because Jefferson was not all that sure about the copyright clause in the first place? Mike even wrote about it here.

    "Copyright and patent should be abolished, and Congress replace them with legislation that properly secures the individual's natural exclusive right to their intellectual work and property as much as their material work and property."

    Nothing you have said, or quoted, suggests that intellectual property is a natural right. How do you reach that conclusion?

  • On the post: Homeland Security Decides If It Just Keeps Interchanging Counterfeiting With Copyright Infringement, Perhaps No One Will Notice

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2010 @ 03:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Category errors

    "as opposed to the natural right the Constitution could only refer to."

    Not being American, I'm not very familiar with the Constitution. Please could you provide a reference for the Constitution only referring to natural rights?

  • On the post: Homeland Security Decides If It Just Keeps Interchanging Counterfeiting With Copyright Infringement, Perhaps No One Will Notice

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2010 @ 03:38am

    Re:

    Might I suggest that you use plain text, or use paragraph tags properly? If it helps, you can use most html tags in plain text too, it just takes care of the paragraph formatting for you.

    "I don't read that as suggesting anything, they seem to be talking about both things in one paragraph, not trying to say they are synonymous"

    Then why do they offer an example of copyright infringement but only mention counterfeiting?

    '"health and safety", is a correct statement, did you read it?'

    Yes, it was central to his point, which was that they implied that piracy was a threat to public safety: "From counterfeit pharmaceuticals and electronics, to pirated movies, music, and software, these crooks are undermining the U.S. economy and jeopardizing public safety."

    As you can see, even when read respectively it implies that piracy threatens public safety. No one is contesting that counterfeiting can be a threat to public safety, though that is not always the case either.

    I would continue, but it is hard to follow your writing as you respond to points in the article without referencing them.

  • On the post: Amanda Palmer Sells $15,000 Worth Of Music & Merch In Three Minutes

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2010 @ 03:17am

    Re: Re: Not $15k in 3 minutes, but $15k in many years of hard work.

    "And which recording company do you shill for?"

    They pay for people who can't write or argue to write and argue?

  • On the post: IP Czar: Blame China! Congress: Do Something!

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2010 @ 10:56am

    Re: Re: @1 UK digital economy says otherwise

    "Well we're hoping the new government might kill that one..."

    I'm not sure Feargal Sharkey getting a peerage is any better though.

  • On the post: Google Explains Why Making Special Copyright Laws For Newspapers Is A Mistake

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2010 @ 04:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Some quibbles with Google.

    "The only reason physical property is valuable is because there are laws protecting its value.

    (if you don't believe that, imagine what your car would be worth if there was nothing stopping anyone just taking it).

    Intellectual property is no different."

    You seem to have a strange notion of value. If people are trying to take your property then there is likely to be value in it (or they just hate you). You seem to be confusing value with peoples ability to take stuff, which is a key difference between physical and 'intellectual' property. The reason why physical property needs a law is because of the ability to deprive people of property, not to preserve its value. In contrast, intellectual property does not have the same problem with people taking stuff, because it is hard to deprive someone of an idea.

    The value of an idea is actually better protected from people taking it than with a physical item. Copyright seeks to supplement the actual value of an idea with an artificial scarcity, not to protect its value or even to protect anyone from being deprived of their idea.

  • On the post: Deutsche Bank Report Notes That It's Time To Rethink Copyright

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2010 @ 04:05am

    Re: Re: Won't someone thing of the Pie?!

    "Are you saying that since pi is a non-repeating, random number (though more precisely it's an irrational, transcendental number) then any representation of a subset of pi that happens to be the same as a binary representation of copyrighted material is therefore unenforceable?"

    No, that is not what they were saying. You seem to have a habit of putting words into other peoples' mouths.

  • On the post: Deutsche Bank Report Notes That It's Time To Rethink Copyright

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2010 @ 03:13am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Stupid artists! Always borrowing from others! They deserve it!" How about Disney, they 'borrowed' from public domain stories, but heaven forbid you borrow from the very things they borrowed for.

  • On the post: Documentary Filmmaker, Legal Spy… Or Both?

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2010 @ 03:09am

    Re: Re: Why not?

    "Troll smarter! Not harder! If you left it at the imagery of Mike being a little girl it would just seem you are a jerk! Then you went to far! Just chill man, relax. " The guy posts pictures of his guns on his website, I think he has some adequacy issues.

  • On the post: BSA Tries To Use Totally Made Up Stats In South Africa To Change Copyright Laws

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2010 @ 02:58am

    Re: detailed analysis of how the ***** stats are misleading

    Geez, make your posts easier on the eyes. Not every sentence requires a new paragraph. You even start a paragraph with 'And'.

    I'll respond to the first bit because it made my head ache to go further. You quote: "Many of the folks using the software likely would not have paid for it otherwise, or would have used cheaper or open source options instead." and then point out that those are still 'lost sales' for the cheap or open source options. I'm not even sure how you can have a lost sale for open source software. Regardless, even if they had gone for a cheaper option, the point is that the numbers quoted by the industry for losses are wrong.

  • On the post: File Sharing Is Not Pollution, And You Don't Need An ISP 'Tax' To Deal With It

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 20 Jul, 2010 @ 03:16am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "People that wanted to identify themselves before had a very simple mechanism for doing so, and chose not to. People that still want to remain truly anonymous will find ways to do so no matter what."

    In that case, what is the problem? Those who still want to be anonymous can be and everyone can follow conversations easier. The fact you post without encryption is far more of an issue for your privacy and anonymity than identicons.

  • On the post: Composer Jason Robert Brown Still Standing By His Position That Kids Sharing His Music Are Immoral

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 17 Jul, 2010 @ 10:15am

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

    Here is a quote from Lord Justice Robin Jacob that may help you understand, from a book about free speech and copyright:

    "Although we use the word ‘right’ in the phrases ‘intellectual property right’ and ‘the right of free speech’, it is used in a quite different sense in the two cases. An IPR is essentially negative and private. It is negative in that it entitles its owner to stop other people doing things, an entitlement which will, if necessary, be enforced by the courts. And it is private because it is vested in a private owner, generally, an individual (real or corporate). The ‘right of free speech’ on the other hand is neutral or positive. Traditionally, under the common law, I suppose the ‘right’ rested essentially on the absence of any law, public or private, forbidding the conduct concerned––all that is not expressly forbidden is permitted."

  • On the post: Composer Jason Robert Brown Still Standing By His Position That Kids Sharing His Music Are Immoral

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 17 Jul, 2010 @ 10:07am

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

    "So you choose to ingnore the definition of the phrase "the law" to try to bolstor your argument? That doesn't sound like logic to me. "

    My statement had nothing to do with the definition of the law! Mike asked you what gives a content creator the right to control other peoples use of his work and you answered that the law did so. As the argument is over copyright, which is a legal right, then it follows that the only reason you have that right is that the law says you do. Contrast this with many other rights, such as physical property rights or fundamental human rights, which are based on naturally occurring needs such as the distribution of scarce resources.

    Copyright in its current form is essentially an economic construct to promote the creation of works, not a representation of a creators natural right to stop people copying their work, because such a right does not exist.

Next >>