Technopolitical 's BestNetTech Comments

Latest Comments (1264) comment rss

  • On the post: How Copyright Is Denying Us Our Own History

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 01 Jul, 2010 @ 03:35pm

    Re:Copyright in the Library - Archival copies: Re: Re: Its not about stopping progress, its about what you Do with the data/content.

    thank you SL ,, very informative

  • On the post: How Copyright Is Denying Us Our Own History

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 01 Jul, 2010 @ 10:57am

    Throughout history we didn't have the technology to make copies, and culture survived.

    SL :"Throughout history we didn't have the technology to make copies, and culture survived."


    ME : EXACTLY true.

    The whole post by Mike is just a "paper tiger" rant excuse against copyright -- but as usual Mike is "all agenda" w/ no HONEST historical perspective.

    Just because there are some "archivists" that do a poor job and live in a dusty past does not mean copyright is flawed.

    "The Price of Freedom" --- sometime "free speech" sucks ( like "holocaust deniers" for exp.) -- but i still like a Country w/ free speech over one w/ censorship of every word. -- or even some of them . ( i.e. --Great Britain STILL does not have 100% free political speech. )
    -----------------------------
    Sometimes Copyright is a bit of a pain ---- but a world w/o copyrights for Artists and Writers would be worse -- much worse.

    Copyright protects more history--[ and the people who write it ]--- then it looses ,,, by far !

    Copyright is such "Common Sense" -- that it was put into the U.S. Constitution before "free speech" even.
    ----------------------------------

    Mike , you can play all the little "convoluted conniptions" you want , and find "weird" & "out of the loop" lawyers and etc who hate copyright like you do -- But NOBODY with any real government power cares about your view-- Pirates are criminals-- and the laws will just get STRONGER against them as the days pass.

    The anti-copyright gang is right in there with "holocaust deniers" and "birthers" , as foils considered more loony than sane. You just cannot reasonably debate w/ the loonies.

    SCOTUS , Congress , Law, & Human History , all "have made" Copyright a bedrock of civilized society , and ALL also "will protect" CopyRight till time ends.

    ( again patents are different -- but the principle is still immutable and embedded in the constitution.)

  • On the post: Pushing For More Stringent Copyright Laws Is The Opposite Of Allowing 'Market Forces' To Act

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 30 Jun, 2010 @ 11:30am

    Re: Re:And we were always at war with Eurasia.

    "Conspiracy theories are generally the province of people who are high on I.Q. and "low on common sense",

    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/birthers-polls-and-public-ignorance/?nl=opinion&emc=tyb1

  • On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2010 @ 07:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't recall there ever being specific rules on what does and what does not constitute civil disobedience

    RMW :"He led a group of people in a protest that shut down an entire city for days."

    Me : true .

    *but all participants accepted what the law
    WAS at the time on segregation.

    *And all participants were ready and willing to go to jail to prove and demonstrate their point -- as led by MLK

    *No physical Resistance was offered to the police .

    That is civil disobedience.

  • On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 26 Jun, 2010 @ 07:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't recall there ever being specific rules on what does and what does not constitute civil disobedience

    nice sources

  • On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2010 @ 10:34am

    Re: Re: I don't recall there ever being specific rules on what does and what does not constitute civil disobedience

    RMW: "Martin Luther King, Jr. absolutely disagrees with you."

    ME : How ? why ? where?

    cite sources

  • On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2010 @ 10:32am

    SCOTUS isn't the only portion of our government that matters, you know. Re: Re: Congrats, pro-copyright team. That's what your side of the debate always boils down to: fancy lies.

    on matters of Constitutional Law IT IS !

  • On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2010 @ 07:43am

    The big problem with piracy as civil disobedience is it isn't being done effectively enough.

    YOU :
    The big problem with piracy as civil disobedience is it isn't being done effectively enough.

    Me : Piracy is NOT C.D. by any definition

    --------------
    "civil disobedience" must be non-violent, both "physically and economically" -- meaning not take some thing for free ,

    and "civil disobedience" will always offer no resistance to arrest and accept WHATEVER civil pentalites the "state" deems.

    "Civil disobedience" is to make a statement politically-- w/o any public harm.

    Illegal File Sharing & Piracy IS NOT civil disobedience -- is is just breaking the law.

    -----------

    some links :

    "Civil disobedience no excuse for breaking laws, judge rules"


    By Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun June 2, 2010

    Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Civil+disobedience+excuse+breaking+laws+judge+rules/3103538/story.html#i xzz0rrtXVVCX

    ------------------
    "Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power, using no form of violence. It is one of the primary methods of nonviolent resistance"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

    "Thoreau's 1848 essay Civil Disobedience, originally titled "Resistance to Civil Government", the driving idea behind the essay was that of self-reliance, and also how one is in morally good standing as long as one can "get off another man's back"; so one does not necessarily have to physically fight the government, but one must not support it or have it support one (if one is against it). This essay has had a wide influence on many later practitioners of civil disobedience. In the essay, Thoreau explained his reasons for having refused to pay taxes as an act of protest against slavery and against the Mexican-American War."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

  • On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2010 @ 05:56am

    Congrats, pro-copyright team. That's what your side of the debate always boils down to: fancy lies.

    ME : No. Copyrights for Artists boils down to law, how SCOTUS interprets it.

  • On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2010 @ 05:49am

    I don't recall there ever being specific rules on what does and what does not constitute civil disobedience

    MIKE : I don't recall there ever being specific rules on what does and what does not constitute civil disobedience


    ME : VERY WRONG . I have trained people for "civil disobedience" as part of my JOB with GreenPeace ( 1986-1991), so I know the deal here .
    --------------
    "civil disobedience" must be non-violent, both "physically and economically" -- meaning not take some thing for free ,

    and "civil disobedience" will always offer no resistance to arrest and accept WHATEVER civil pentalites the "state" deems.

    "Civil disobedience" is to make a statement politically-- w/o any public harm.

    Illegal File Sharing & Piracy IS NOT civil disobedience -- is is just breaking the law.

    -----------

    some links :

    "Civil disobedience no excuse for breaking laws, judge rules"


    By Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun June 2, 2010

    Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Civil+disobedience+excuse+breaking+laws+judge+rules/3103538/story.html#ixzz0rrtXVVCX

    ------------------
    "Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power, using no form of violence. It is one of the primary methods of nonviolent resistance"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

    ================================

  • On the post: Updated Research Showing, Yet Again, That Weaker Copyright Has Benefited Culture And Society

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2010 @ 05:09am

    Re: Here's a sample of where it is all headed

    SL: "++Imagine++ if you combine this program with a lyrics generator, so that you can crank out songs automatically. Then you can tweak them by certain parameters. And if you are worried about infringing on someone else's song (which won't be a problem if you are just creating songs for private consumption anyway), you could compare your songs to a database of previously published songs to see if there are too many similarities."

    Me : When some writes a song equal to "Imagine" using computer aide ,,--- the sky will turn Green , Snow will fall in the Rainforest , and the G.W. Bush Presidency will be viewed favorable by historians.

    Lyrics , got to fit the Melody , Mood , and Rhythm of the song. that is the talent of Songwriting ,

    ," Oh darling , darling , Stand By Me ...( doe.. ray .. me,), Stand By Me,,,, Oh darling stand by Me".( doe.. ray .. me,)....

    ..... Computers never will conquer that.

    Remember: "Commander Data,, cannot whistle a tune." ( star trek)

  • On the post: Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2010 @ 05:00am

    Since the label gets a piece of everything she does, it's probably okay with the label folks if fans take her music for free as long as they still go to her shows and give her product promotions. "One way or another it's all money in the label's pockets."

    SL : "Since the label gets a piece of everything she does, it's probably okay with the label folks if fans take her music for free as long as they still go to her shows and give her product promotions. One way or another it's all money in the label's pockets."

    Me : exactly True!

  • On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2010 @ 03:14pm

    Re: Re: copyright law "addresses a substantial or important governmental interest." This is, plainly speaking, ridiculous. The argument effectively says that the government can violate the basic principles of the First Amendment any time it wants, so long

    Now I know you be trollin'

    while your rollin'

    midnite smokin'

    just a loser on the run ..

    Just a space cowboy

    But I ain't cheatin' no one !!!!
    --------------------------

    ( apologies to Steve Miller)

  • On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2010 @ 02:21pm

    Copyright Basics & Requesting Information Purpose of Copyright LawRe: Re: Re: Re: The question -- the ONLY question -- is whether or not it actually creates incentive to create.

    ~` technically we are both right in theory ,, but yhr Pratise is in the Artist control. ( "fair use" is fair ,, and never "complete use ", ---but for educational purpose)

    http://www.lib.byu.edu/departs/copyright/tutorial/module1/page3.htm

    Module 1 Copyright Basics & Requesting Information
    Purpose of Copyright Law

    The primary purpose of copyright law is not so much to protect the interests of the authors/creators, but rather to promote the progress of science and the useful arts—that is—knowledge.

    To accomplish this purpose, copyright ownership encourages authors/creators in their efforts by granting them a temporary monopoly, or ownership of exclusive rights for a specified length of time.

    However, this monopoly is somewhat limited when it conflicts with an overriding public interest, such as encouraging new creative and intellectual works, or the necessity for some members of the public to make a single copy of a work for non profit, educational purposes. You will be learning more about how this works in the next modules.

    In addition to balancing the public and individual rights, you need a basic understanding of copyright law before you can make appropriate decisions regarding any proposed use of copyrighted material.

    When thinking about the possible use of copyrighted material, keep in mind the perspectives of both the owner and the user of copyrighted material. When using another person’s material, ask yourself: “What kind of respect and observance of copyright law would I want others to follow?”

    Likewise, “If I am about to use someone else’s copyrighted works, what kind of respect and observance of copyright laws should I follow?” This approach suggests attention to the principles of respect and trust. Respect for the rights of others and trust in those who have an opportunity to use your works.

    Be aware that mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy of a copyrighted work does not automatically grant you copyright ownership.

    In summary, some important points to remember:

    * The authority to establish Copyright Law comes from the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.
    * One major purpose of Copyright Law is to “promote the progress of the sciences and useful arts”, in other words knowledge.
    * Copyright law is an attempt to balance public interest with the rights of the individual author/creator.

    http://www.lib.byu.edu/departs/copyright/tutorial/module1/page3.htm

  • On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2010 @ 01:17pm

    Re: Re: The question -- the ONLY question -- is whether or not it actually creates incentive to create.

    Fox film vs doyle(the court on copyright):
    "The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors." --+++ by granting complete artistic control to creators.++++

    Logic .

  • On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2010 @ 01:12pm

    All " Jury nullification " is says that in this case there are circumstances that warrant acquittal ,//Re: Re: First Amendment and Constitutional Responsibility

    YOU :Actually the people can, SPECIFICALLY, nullify or veto ANY law created by Congress or by the legislatures of any state. The process is called 'Jury Nullification.'


    ME : Highly nonfactual statement :

    FROM : Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "Jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case acquits a defendant despite the weight of evidence against him or her. "

    ME : All " Jury nullification " is says that in this case there are circumstances that warrant acquittal , it does not nullify a "law" -- only Judges and in the final say SCOTUS can do that .

    SEE : http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html
    --------------------------------------
    ME : Please do some research before you post on constitutional law.

  • On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2010 @ 08:56am

    What you are arguing for is that it is ok for the government to unilaterally change the deal.

    MIKE : "What you are arguing for is that it is ok for the government to unilaterally change the deal."

    ME : Yes.

    On copyrights and on most other "social contracts" too-- as long as it is a "Constitutionally Permitted Action" as determined by the Courts/ SCOTUS

  • On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2010 @ 08:10am

    this is not about Constitutional law. It is about international law. As discussed above, international treaties override the Constitution and Federal (state and local for that matter) legislation.

    YOU :"this is not about Constitutional law. It is about international law. As discussed above, international treaties override the Constitution and Federal (state and local for that matter) legislation."

    Me : Point of INFO : Treaties MUST be confirm by the US Senate. Treaties cannot diminish our constitutional rights.

    Which is why the Senate ( mostly right -wing) gets huffy on War Crimes Treaties.

  • On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2010 @ 05:01am

    I agree, very few people yell "fire" in a movie theater. But they can if they want.Re: Re: Which part of "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" does this court not understand?

    I agree, very few people yell "fire" in a movie theater.
    But they can if they want TO GET ARRESTED.

  • On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright

    Technopolitical ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2010 @ 04:59am

    copyright law are meaningless if Congress gets enough campaign contributions from the entertainment industry.

    Mike: "copyright law are meaningless if Congress gets enough campaign contributions from the entertainment industry."

    ME: "campaign contributions from the entertainment industry" is "spit in a bucket" compared to what Big OIL, Big Pharm, Big Banks , and big Auto , give in campaign contributions .

Next >>