vivaelamor 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1585) comment rss

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 06:26pm

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

    "I'm waiting to hear your great plans. Seriously. I'm not convinced you actually have any answers. It's easy to criticize."

    You can wait all you want, I don't claim to have any 'great plans'.

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 06:07pm

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

    "Infringing copyright is exercising control over property, by definition."

    Which definition?

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 05:47pm

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

    "I didn't say that I have no rights in all of my stuff. Misstating my argument makes you look stupid."

    Ah, so conveniently the rights only appear when copyright isn't around.

    "Copyright was not needed until the ability to mass produce copies was invented. Your argument smells of rationalization."

    Actually, as it originated as a form of censorship copyright was around long before mass production. Plus, you ignore the natural right distinction.

    "Enough about me, tell me your great plans for intellectual property. I'm all ears."

    Your sarcasm is noted.

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 05:39pm

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

    "Insulting my intelligence makes you look stupid."

    That makes no sense. Insulting your intelligence makes you look stupid, it makes me look impolite (to put it politely). Frankly, I figured that you were taking the piss yourself.

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 05:34pm

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

    "You don't think society gets anything back in return? I see lots of reciprocity with copyright. That's the whole point."

    No, I don't. Besides which, my point was to do with the concept of 'Do to no one what you yourself dislike', to quote the Bible.

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 05:30pm

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

    "I do not have certain rights in the CD that I purchase. The rights weren't taken away from me since I never had them in the first place."

    Really? Can I have all your stuff then, as you have no right to it?

    Physical property - natural right, immeasurably old concept. Copyright - lawful construct, barely 300 years old in its current form.

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 05:26pm

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

    "I know you are perfectly aware that the law of the land trumps all deals."

    No, it doesn't.

    "Ultimately the answer to the question you posed is the law."

    Not you too. Were you and average guy absent when they taught logic? If the ultimate answer is the law and the argument is over the law, then the law is going to lose the argument because it has no 'higher authority' to appeal to. It's the epitome of circular reasoning to use the conclusion as the premise for your argument.

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 05:17pm

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

    "You know the answer: copyright gives the author certain exclusive rights."

    Seriously? You are still begging the question. There's so much circular here that I'm getting dizzy.

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 05:07pm

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

    'I prefer Black's Law Dictionary:

    "appropriation, n. 1. The exercise of control over property; a taking of possession."'

    Odd that you would quote a definition that does not apply to your use of the word. In terms of copyright the right itself could be considered property, but infringing it exercises no control over it.

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 04:52pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Copyright covers the DISTRIBUTION of copy, not as some posit the act of either copying or creation."

    Actually, US copyright law does not only cover distribution.

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 04:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Of course infringing on someone's rights is immoral."

    Only if you accept those rights. Generally such things are considered in terms of reciprocity.

    "Are you saying that since you never agreed to Brown having his rights, you can infringe on them and that's OK?"

    That is part of the reason, yes.

    "Can I infringe on your rights? Would you like that? Immoral in my book just means it's wrong."

    Depends which rights you are talking about. If you're talking about copyright, then sure, knock yourself out.

    "It's not inherently immoral to break the law, but it usually works out that way since laws are based on morals."

    Then breaking copyright must be OK, because it isn't based on any moral code that I adhere to.

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 04:06pm

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

    "I know what appropriation means. Don't be silly.

    Copyright appropriates and copyright infringement does not? Try telling that one to a judge and jury. LOL!"

    Actually, I'll apologise here. I hadn't known that 'appropriate' has a colloquialism that actually made it into Webster's dictionary. I'll snobbishly point out that Webster's third edition isn't fit to wipe your arse with, but concede that your use of the word may have some foundation (even if it isn't in the Queen's English).

    Having said that, the most generous colloquial definition (to take or make use of without authority or right), is essentially the same as the colloquial use of the word 'theft' in the same context. It's all well and good for expressing your feelings, but trying to make an argument out of it is a bit silly. The only thing taken is a copy and the only authority is the law, which is the very thing at question.

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 02:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Just because the bootlegs weren't stolen property under § 2314 doesn't mean the copyrighted work that was used to create them wasn't stolen to begin with."

    Stealing a copyright means to appropriate someones copyright, to rob them of the use of it, to literally take it. Stealing a copyright is analogous with identity theft. Only one person can claim an identity at the same time, thus it is taken, thus they lose the use of it. Ditto for copyright. However much you may think copyright infringement has in common with theft, the word already has a literal application in relation to copyright.

    "Note that he does in fact say they were "stolen," at least in one sense."

    Which is insufficient reason to use the word as if it means something else. I could say I stole a kiss, but I could not include a kiss in a list of stolen items. The two uses of the word are different.

    You originally said: "Appropriating something for yourself that you have no right to appropriate is theft in my book."

    Copying something is not appropriating it. If you denied everyone else the right to copy something then you would be appropriating it. Copyright appropriates, copyright infringement does not. Actual appropriation would be as in my analogy of identity theft.

    "I understand the differences and similarities between theft and infringement, as does Justice Blackmun. I never said theft and infringement were exactly the same thing."

    You don't even understand what appropriation means.

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 02:12pm

    Re: Re: It's simple: Don't dis your fans

    "There are no starving vegetarians."

    It can be argued that the meat industry is not doing starving people much good when plants tend to be a much more efficient source of food. Plus, it isn't necessarily true that copying a chicken solves world hunger unless you defy physics. There is the cost of the 'ink' to consider, as well as the efficiency of the process.

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 02:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Cool?"

    Way to ruin my contrary stance. Uh, I mean yes.

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 02:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Hah. This is like saying, I'm not saying "women should get raped", I'm just saying that they "will get raped." It's very different but it allows me to toss up my shoulders and say, "Let's stop enforcing all laws against rape because it 'will' happen." I'm just the messenger, not the rapist."

    Thankfully, copyright infringement is nothing like rape. With that in mind, what is your point?

    The only thing copyright infringement and rape have in common is that they are unlawful. In substituting one for the other I might assume that your point is that copyright infringement is unlawful. As no one here is arguing that copyright infringement is lawful, I ask again, what is your point?

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 01:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: The chicken may not be copyritten but.....

    "Tell that to Monsanto. The argument would be that all living things have a fixed genetic code."

    Ah, but Monsanto relied on patents rather than copyright.

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 01:35pm

    Re: Re:

    "WE'RE NOT MAKING A MORAL FUCKING ARGUMENT!"

    I'ma contradict you cuz you called me a bitch. Copyright is immoral.

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 01:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Beat you bitch ;)"

    Mine had a link and pretty formatting. Bite me!

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

    vivaelamor ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 01:23pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "I'm not saying it's immoral because it's illegal. I'm saying it's immoral and illegal. I see nothing immoral about Brown wanting to enforce his exclusive rights, and I do see that it's immoral for somebody else to infringe on his rights."

    You are begging the question. You base your argument on the premise that infringing someone's legally granted right is immoral. To deny that is to deny your argument.

    "You can sell a chair and retain certain rights in the chair contractually. I can sell you the chair with the restriction that anyone who sits in it owes me $100. If you agree to those terms and buy the chair, I can enforce my rights."

    Copyright has little in common with a mutually agreed contract. One of the most basic things about a contract is that someone makes an offer and someone else accepts. If someone is infringing a copyright then they are unlikely to have accepted anything.

    "Don't confuse possession of a thing with total control of the thing. Ever rent or lease something? If people don't like the legal restrictions of copyright, they should change the law. That would be moral. Deciding that somebody else's rights are wrong and then unilaterally deciding not to respect those rights is immoral and illegal."

    Again, you are begging the question. Why is it immoral to break the law? I do not believe it is inherently immoral to break the law and you have not offered an explanation as to why you believe it is. Until you do, your argument is incomplete.

Next >>