Brontoforumus Archive

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:


This board has been fossilized.
You are reading an archive of Brontoforumus, a.k.a. The Worst Forums Ever, from 2008 to early 2014.  Registration and posting (for most members) has been disabled here to discourage spambots from taking over.  Old members can still log in to view boards, PMs, etc.

The new message board is at http://brontoforum.us.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 28

Author Topic: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law  (Read 58899 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Transportation

  • Tested
  • Karma: 2
  • Posts: 541
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #240 on: July 23, 2009, 07:48:33 AM »

Yeah that one felt strained when I was typing it.

I don't really like deleting parts from posts responded to, so  it stays. The point was negative aspect of the analogy is related to X negative perpetrated by copyright infringers.

OH WELL
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #241 on: July 25, 2009, 12:11:44 AM »

Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #242 on: August 02, 2009, 03:38:52 PM »

For those of you following along at home: things still retarded, yawns at 11.
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #243 on: August 02, 2009, 04:04:35 PM »

These dipshits are the North Korea of American economics.
Logged

Rico

  • Tested
  • Karma: 18
  • Posts: 1916
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #244 on: August 02, 2009, 05:46:36 PM »

... Well fuck, if I ever need a lawyer in the future I think Harvard Law is going to be crossed off the list.  If the quality of the education he's giving out is in any way a reflection of the quality of his legal defense, he should've been kicked to the curb years ago.
Logged

JDigital

  • Tested
  • Karma: 32
  • Posts: 2786
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #245 on: August 02, 2009, 06:41:24 PM »

Those who can't, teach?

The defendants need to start hiring these RIAA lawyers themselves. If they can convince a jury to bill half a million for a few music downloads, imagine what they can do on the other side?
Logged

Detonator

  • You made me come back for THIS?
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: 42
  • Posts: 3040
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #246 on: August 02, 2009, 07:03:34 PM »

Well, the RIAA spent over a million dollars on the case, so I don't think getting the same lawyers would benefit the defendants much.

It's terrifying that they would throw away hundreds of thousands of dollars just to ruin one person's life.  Which of course is exactly what they're going for.
Logged
"Imagine punching somebody so hard that they turned into a door. Then you found out that's where ALL doors come from, and you got initiated into a murder club that makes doors. The stronger you punch, the better the door. So there are like super strong murderers who punch people into Venetian doors and shit"

SCD

  • Tested
  • Karma: 18
  • Posts: 1856
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #247 on: August 02, 2009, 07:06:58 PM »

which is why I stopped purchasing music a long time ago..
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #248 on: August 02, 2009, 10:30:58 PM »

Which brings me to another point:

I have complained, repeatedly, over the years that DRM apologists erroneously refer to copyright infringement as "stealing".  Copying and redistributing a file that you don't have the right to redistribute is illegal, but it's not stealing.


The criminal culpability of commiting an illegal act has exactly jack and shit to do with how the victim of your crime is harmed, or if there's even a victim at all, so if you're going Semantic Fu here based on an infringer not depriving someone of physical property, I am going to throw a hearty lol in your direction, friend.

You can't seriously be suggesting that being guilty of one illegal act is equivalent to being guilty of another, significantly different illegal act, so I'm going to have to ask you precisely what your point is.

Quote
From what I hear, pro-DRM people believe that 80,000 times the sale value of a file is a suitable amount to claim for damages.

I am pro-DRM and I do not think it is reasonable, no.

However, I do think it should be treated as per the market value of the copyrighted material, with appropriate criminal sentencing.  If you've got thousands of dollars worth of pirated media, you should be treated like somebody who stole a car.

But I am guessing we part ways on this.

We part ways on being pro-DRM.  I can't imagine supporting a business model that harms customers while not deterring illegal consumers in the slightest.  (See my Blu-Ray example, above -- the copy protection has prevented third parties from developing on-the-fly decompression software, but not from developing software to rip data to a file; it has literally prevented people who use Mac or Linux from playing legally-purchased discs without stopping pirates from copying and redistributing the data on them.)

As for "treated like somebody who stole a car", you're being vague, and I'm sure deliberately so.  If we're simply talking about a monetary fine, I can get behind that.  As for prison time, no, not unless we're talking about people selling warehouses full of bootlegs.

I think DRM and piracy lawsuits are two different heads of the beast, so it's pointless to claim that pro-DRM people must advocate huge lawsuits.

I was being glib, and making a specific reference to the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case, referenced earlier in the thread.

I think DRM will not be as big of an issue, as companies are beginning to legitimately fear the backlash that comes from draconic DRM.  I cannot see anybody rationalizing the use of rootkits or system-disabling malware being installed without permission.  The producers will see how far the can push the boundries, as they will with any new technology, but I think the trend will curve more towards consumer rights as people learn more about what they face.

An RIAA spokesman was recently quoted as saying "DRM is dead" -- he's now claiming he was misquoted, but what he DID say is that the music industry is moving away from it as a business model.  The Sony rootkit fiasco did a hell of a lot of damage, and Apple's proven that DRM-free songs sell just as well as DRM'ed ones (and has pulled the neat trick of charging thirty percent more for them).

Shit like that's going to keep happening.  The blowback from this incident could damage ebook DRM just as badly as the Sony incident damaged music DRM.  More on the pending lawsuit below.

Also, they treat you like you do not own the song you just bought because you in fact do not own it, just like you don't suddenly own the entire Beatles back catalog the moment you buy a Greatest Hits album.

Oh, come the fuck on, this is some Guildenstern-level strawman bullshit you're pulling here.

If you buy a Beatles album on a traditional, physical medium, you fucking-well own the album.  You can play it on any hardware you want, you can copy it (for personal use), and you can goddamn well resell it to somebody else if you want to.

Nobody, anywhere, ever has suggested that buying a book is equivalent to buying its copyright.  That's a very very stupid strawman, and I am embarrased for both of us that you've put me in the position of even taking the time to rebut it.

ps: the penalty for infringement has been 150 grand per act of infringement for decades.  The RIAA does not make these numbers out of whole cloth.

...are you seriously citing the fact that these numbers have existed before widespread Internet usage as support FOR continuing to use them?

At any rate, I know what the definition of theft is and I know it only specifically applies to physical chattels.  I was illustrating a point: wrongs are not based on harm done, they are based on intent.  From a practical standpoint, the only reason to cry about infringement not actually being stealing because the law calls it something else is to justify it to yourself and take comfort in the fact that you didn't really steal that copy of Windows XP when you pirated it instead of paying the $300 market value.

Did you just describe price-fixing by a convicted monopoly as "market value"?  Cute.

Infringement is itself part of the market's tendency toward self-correction.  People are pirating songs because they don't want to pay $17 for a fucking CD?  Try offering them 99-cent singles.  Works pretty well, it turns out.  If the publishers had tried that approach in the first place instead of trying to fight emerging technology in the courts, things might never have gotten to this point.

Sell your product through a convenient means at at a reasonable price and people will be less inclined to seek illegal alternatives.  Even if you take ethics and morals out of the argument entirely (and I think there are PLENTY of ethical and moral arguments to be made against gouging consumers, stifling competition, and taking in huge profits while giving a pittance to the people who actually produced the product you're selling), that's the bottom line here.  Speaking from a purely pragmatic perspective, all the lawsuits and DRM in the world aren't going to curb piracy -- providing a consumer-friendly alternative is the only thing that can.

I WANTED to buy a Blu-Ray drive, God dammit.  I really did.  I'd have been happy to shell out $100 (well, a net $70, since I went with a $30 DVD burner instead) for one and then thrown down hundreds more dollars over the next few months on movies to stick in it.  But some fuckwits at the MPAA decided they didn't want me to be able to use it under OSX or Linux (or even on standard software under Windows).

That's how the market WORKS: if you ask for $100 for a product that doesn't work, you're not going to sell very many.

DRM is a means to stem the tide; it might not stop the major distributors but it will at least slow down the limewire frat boys.

Det responded to this as if it bore any kind of counterargument besides "Don't be stupid."

I am not as polite as Det.

In case you missed it, Amazon's CEO is pretty legitimately sorry about all this.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic.  He made a big public apology because he hoped it would mollify his company's victims enough to keep his ass from getting sued.

It didn't, of course.  A high school senior who lost all the notes he'd scribbled in the margins is the first to sue; he's seeking class-action status.

I'll say one thing: when he goes back to school, that kid is going to be able to give a hell of a report on 1984.





EDIT: :facepalm: to myself and a vicarious :facepalm: to everyone else in the thread for not immediately seeing what you did here:

Which brings me to another point:

I have complained, repeatedly, over the years that DRM apologists erroneously refer to copyright infringement as "stealing".  Copying and redistributing a file that you don't have the right to redistribute is illegal, but it's not stealing.


The criminal culpability of commiting an illegal act has exactly jack and shit to do with how the victim of your crime is harmed, or if there's even a victim at all, so if you're going Semantic Fu here based on an infringer not depriving someone of physical property, I am going to throw a hearty lol in your direction, friend.


Quote
From what I hear, pro-DRM people believe that 80,000 times the sale value of a file is a suitable amount to claim for damages.


The part of my post that you skipped over was this:

You know what stealing is?  It's when you take something that somebody else owns and remove it from their property.

It fucking-well does not matter if you're the person who sold it to me or if you pay me back for it.  If you remove it from my property without my permission, it is theft.

A simple "Sorry, won't happen again" from Amazon is insufficient.  They should be sued for theft.

You just spent two pages arguing with the two sentences I spent saying downloading a file illegally is not the same as stealing, while neatly sidestepping the part where I suggested that deleting a file off a user's device without permission is.

I mean, through my whole response I was aware that you were focusing on the larger issue of infringement while avoiding the specific issue of the Amazon case we're talking about, but it only just now hit me that you actually deliberately avoided the comparison that was the entire point of my post...and in fact quoted everything in my post BUT that.

A nicely subtle bit of trolling, that.  Like Guild before he got lazy and just started saying the craziest shit he could possibly come up with.  It's a welcome break from the bludgeoning, inartful trolling that SoraCross keeps cranking out.
Logged

Pacobird

  • Just fell off the AOL cart
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65482
  • Posts: 1741
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #249 on: August 03, 2009, 03:53:29 AM »

Come on now.  How do you expect me to not take the piss at anybody who says "I am taking things that don't belong to me but it's not stealing because hurf blurf technology" with a straight face?

Quote
You just spent two pages arguing with the two sentences I spent saying downloading a file illegally is not the same as stealing, while neatly sidestepping the part where I suggested that deleting a file off a user's device without permission is.

lmao
Logged

Detonator

  • You made me come back for THIS?
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: 42
  • Posts: 3040
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #250 on: August 03, 2009, 06:05:08 AM »

Still waiting for that evidence that DRM works, bird.
Logged
"Imagine punching somebody so hard that they turned into a door. Then you found out that's where ALL doors come from, and you got initiated into a murder club that makes doors. The stronger you punch, the better the door. So there are like super strong murderers who punch people into Venetian doors and shit"

Büge

  • won't give you fleaz
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65304
  • Posts: 10062
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #251 on: August 03, 2009, 07:29:30 AM »

It didn't, of course.  A high school senior who lost all the notes he'd scribbled in the margins is the first to sue; he's seeking class-action status.

Quote
after seeing a high school student sue Amazon for eating his homework,

Man, how often do you get to say "Amazon ate my homework?"
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #252 on: August 03, 2009, 10:37:51 AM »

Less often then you get to say "An Amazon ate my homework."
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #253 on: August 03, 2009, 10:57:09 AM »

You call it your "homework"?
Logged

Catloaf

  • Tested
  • Karma: 14
  • Posts: 1740
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #254 on: August 03, 2009, 10:58:38 AM »

Less often then you get to say "An Amazon ate my homework."

Wow, I considered posting that exact sentence but didn't. :ohmy:
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #255 on: August 03, 2009, 11:02:51 AM »

You call it your "homework"?

She refused unless she got to be player 1.
Logged

Büge

  • won't give you fleaz
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65304
  • Posts: 10062
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #256 on: August 04, 2009, 07:22:42 AM »

Where is Friday, anyway?
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #257 on: August 04, 2009, 07:30:17 AM »

Doing homework.
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #258 on: August 10, 2009, 08:14:57 PM »

Come on now.  How do you expect me to not take the piss at anybody who says "I am taking things that don't belong to me but it's not stealing because hurf blurf technology" with a straight face?

What am I taking?

Not very verbose when I come back and respond, are you.  Pity; I had a really great bit about how nobody ever actually pays $300 for Windows that I was all set to bust out with.
Logged

Cyan Prime

  • a little queer
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65534
  • Posts: 459
    • View Profile
Re: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law
« Reply #259 on: August 10, 2009, 10:48:50 PM »

Copying != Stealing.
Logged

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 28