Gin Blossoms and Copyright Questions
I’d like to tell you more about that Gin Blossoms concert I went to over the weekend, in part because it relates to Justin’s copyright/Pauly Shore post from yesterday.
Early in the concert, the Gin Blossoms’ lead singer, Robin Wilson, saw someone with a cell phone, and took it from the person. While Scott Johnson was doing a guitar solo, Wilson was scrutinizing the cell phone closely. We guessed that he was scrolling through the recently dialed numbers. By the time it was time for him to start singing again, he had the phone to his ear, and was holding the microphone in the other hand. He was singing to someone at the other end of the phone.
It was around 11 p.m. (2 a.m. on the East Coast), so the people on the other end of the line may not have been pleased. Then again, it may have been a great experience for them, if they were 1) awake, 2) Gin Blossoms fans, and 3) aware of what was happening.
Pretty soon, several other people were handing him their cell phones so that he’d sing to their friends. Most of them did the dialing themselves and then gave him the phone, so that there were willing participants on the other end.
I was close enough to do this myself, but didn’t. My daughter loves the band, and if it had been early enough, it would have been fun to do. But she was asleep, and I couldn’t think of anyone I wanted to call.
Copyright questions:
1) Let’s say, hypothetically, that in that first phone call, Robin Wilson didn’t reach a live person, but rather an answering machine. Would it violate copyright to retain the song on the answering machine? Would it violate copyright to post the song on the Internet? What about sharing it with others? What about selling it — assuming someone would want to buy such a low-quality version? Remember: Robin Wilson dialed the number himself, and left the message himself.
2) Does the answer change if someone else dialed the number and gave him the phone? What if they deliberately dialed a number that went to voice mail, for the purpose of recording the song — but he voluntarily sang into the phone?
3) What if someone simply dialed a number with voice mail from in front of the stage, and recorded the song that way? In other words, does it make a difference if Wilson didn’t sing directly into the phone? What if he wasn’t doing this schtick at all, with anyone’s phone — but an audience member still dialed voice mail to record the song?
4) If someone had cameraphone pictures of Robin Wilson doing this, would they violate some law by posting them on the Internet? Would such a person have violated some law by taking the pictures to begin with? If the venue had a rule against cameras, would that change the answer as to the legality of posting the pictures on the Internet? What about video from the phone? After all, the venue presumably doesn’t even arguably own any copyright.
Comments are open.
P.S. I didn’t get a chance to go on about this at the concert, but the first opening band was excellent. They are called “Let Go” and their web site is here. I bought their CD and I love it. It’s what Green Day might sound like if they wrote better and more interesting songs. If you do the iTunes thing, their download page is here. I recommend track #10, titled “Somewhere.”
I have no legal opinions but I do love the Gin Blossoms. Now if only Toad the Wet Sprocket would return, all would be well!
Peg C. (836973) — 12/13/2006 @ 8:23 ammessages left on my voicemail are my property, to be shared and sold as i see fit. the band might have a copyright argument if it was done surreptitiously without its knowledge, but it would be better for it in the long run to just make a modest payment to recapture its rights in the song.
assistant devil's advocate (6106ab) — 12/13/2006 @ 10:19 amcamera phones don’t present any copyright issues, if they did, one could never use a camera phone in public, or indeed, any kind of camera. one of my pet peeves is flashbulbs going off at nearby tables at restaurants throughout the meal, give me a copyright stick to beat on them and i will singlehandedly change the culture at the restaurants i patronize.
The relevant statute is 17 U.S.C. § 106, which prohibits (subject to a number of exceptions) the reproduction or public performance of a copyrighted work without permission.
Stephen C. Carlson (4990a1) — 12/13/2006 @ 10:25 amThe RIAA is going to sue you for even thinking about this! 😉
htom (412a17) — 12/13/2006 @ 12:51 pmDoesn’t the copyright belong to the author? Who do you think is the author?
actus (bb04e2) — 12/13/2006 @ 4:39 pmActus, #5. Always keep in mind the Constitutional purpose behind protecting inventions and works of authorship. To promote advances in the sciences and the arts. Do we really care to protect messages left on ada’s voice mail 😉
nk (4d4a9d) — 12/13/2006 @ 5:26 pmI believe that if the owner of the copyright is the label itself – say Sony – rather than the band “author” or “creator”, then the band itself would be liable, as would the person who did any subsequent copying/disseminating without the label’s OK. There are obvious parallels one can draw – “What if” scenarios such as “What if an AMPAS member left a screener copy of an Oscar-contending movie in your DVD player, would you then be legally within your rights to disseminate it?” Obviously not, because Intellectual Property is not a fungible commodity. It is Property (hence its name) as much as is Real Property and has a set market value.
A little off-topic: Funny thing about the Berne Convention – the U.S. holds that the creator or author of the work in question (audio-visual) is more likely than not considered NOT the copyright holder. The Studios and Labels operate under work for hire contracts, and all intellectual property generated for a specific project (an album, say – or a movie) come under sole corporate ownership of the business entity. Not so in Europe with “Droit Moral”, but even there, artists rights are sketchily upheld.
Abraxas (2f586f) — 12/13/2006 @ 5:37 pmThe quality would be so poor that I don’t see why anyone would care.
I see it as promotion for the band. Anything that makes you a fan for life!
zan (53a1ba) — 12/13/2006 @ 6:04 pm“What if an AMPAS member left a screener copy of an Oscar-contending movie in your DVD player, would you then be legally within your rights to disseminate it?” Obviously not, because Intellectual Property is not a fungible commodity. It is Property (hence its name) as much as is Real Property and has a set market value.
Abraxas – Sorry, but you seem a bit confused about one aspect of this debate. So-called ‘intellectual property’ is MOST DEFINITELY a “fungible commodity”. In fact, it is hard to think of much else in the world that is MORE fungible (other than natural elements such as air, etc.).
Despite its name, “intellectual property” is not “property” the same way that Real Property is. Copyright maximalists always like to say that it is – but saying it does not make it so. If that were true, then you would have to deny any vestige of fair use or limited terms for intellectual property since I presume you wouldn’t want such concepts applied to your personal real property possessions. Nobody has a “fair use” right to your car or bedroom. The mere fact that such concepts exist for intellectual property shows how false the real vs. intelecutal property analogy is.
Furthermore, intellectual property does not have a “set market value”. It has an artificial value grafted on to it because the government creates a monopoly for it (to be used by the holder of the copyright). The holder of the copyright is free to set whatever price he/she wants for the work. “Supply and demand” do not play any part here (unlike real property). In the current digital world, there is an unlimited supply of copyrighted works for all practical purposes. Thus there is no “scarcity”. Thus there is no value (until the scarcity is artificially created by the government and copyright holder).
If an AMPAS member mistakenly left a DVD of movie in your player, and you gave the DVD to a third party without the member’s permission, there would be no copyright violation (since you obviously haven’t “copied” anything). The only claim against you would be from the member himself who would have a claim to get the physical DVD itself back. But he wouldn’t have any claim to the underlying intellectual property that is embedded on the DVD (nor would the AMPAS, since once again, no copy has been made). You can naturally have a contract with someone not to give the physical DVD to somebody else. But you would first have to be a party to the contract (“in privity”) – and even then, the only recourse would be a claim for breach of contract (not copyright infringement).
So says the less-than-great (but still correct in this instance) wisdom of Justin.
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 12/13/2006 @ 6:29 pmRight. The message is a work of authorship.
actus (bb04e2) — 12/13/2006 @ 8:52 pmNo. Ever since my first exchange with Justin here I have been studying up on it. Utterances, or performances if you wish, are seldom if ever works of authorship (term of art). They must qualify as to content and they must be recorded into a tangible survivable medium. And there is still the question whether the utterer or the recorder has the superior copyright.
For example, I doubt very that this comment is copyrightable. There is simply not sufficient substance in it. Secondly, if it were, Patterico would have the copyright and not I.
nk (d7a872) — 12/13/2006 @ 9:09 pmFor example, I doubt very that this comment is copyrightable. There is simply not sufficient substance in it. Secondly, if it were, Patterico would have the copyright and not I.
Well, that’s nonsense.
If your comment is copyrightable, the copyright is yours, not mine.
That’s not me being generous; that’s me stating what I think is obviously the law.
Patterico (de0616) — 12/13/2006 @ 9:31 pmSure, a voicemail message can certainly contain the minimal creativity necessary.
“substance” isn’t the way you do it. Also, you’re the author. But you probably have given Patterico an implied license to host this and use it in his blog. And he’ll have a lot of fair use he can make of it.
actus (bb04e2) — 12/13/2006 @ 9:36 pmPatterico, #12:
I don’t think so. I am a contributor at best (kidding myself). You are the owner of the opus. Whatever rights I have are whatever you and I may have contracted (nada). There is also the issue that I did not give notice of copyright by typing a copyright notice under it. Someone could say that by publishing it this way I gifted it to the public domain. I believe, however, the fairer interpretation is that I gifted it to you and that it is protected by your blanket copyright notice on this site.
Actus, by “substance” I meant of sufficient literary, scientific, intellectual, useful … whatever worth. What did you mean by “substance isn’t the way you do it”?
nk (47858f) — 12/13/2006 @ 9:57 pmnk,
Copyright protections are independent of contract and do not depend on a copyright notice.
Patterico (de0616) — 12/13/2006 @ 10:04 pmUnlike Dennis Prager, I am neve ashamed to admit when I am wrong: If we go by Section 201(c) of the Copyright Act
(c) Contributions to Collective Works.— Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series.
then I guess I have a copyright in the comment.
I was also wrong about the copyright notice. Its absence is only a defense to infringement. It’s not a surrender of copyright.
I guess I’ll have to study a little bit more.
nk (47858f) — 12/13/2006 @ 10:16 pmYou’re the author of your comment. What else could matter?
I mean you dont need ‘substance.’ You just need a modicum of creativity. You don’t need worth. You dont need intellectual or literary value. And you probably don’t want it to be too useful.
17 usc 1101(a) gives musical performers a right against unathorized fixation of their performances or the transmission or tother communication to the public of the live performance.
actus (bb04e2) — 12/13/2006 @ 10:17 pmActus, we cross-posted. I need to study a little bit more. You have, however, contributed to the discussion by citing Section 1101(a).
nk (47858f) — 12/13/2006 @ 10:21 pmMr. Levine,
No.
*You* are confused.
You also communicate like an arrogant Sophomore who just took his first Intro to Philosophy course. You should try to condescend with a little more subtlety; you won’t get called on your jackassery nearly as often.
You want to have a discussion about this? Fine, I’ll play.
But your sneer quotes around “So-called ‘intellectual property’” rather give your POV away early in the match, I’m afraid. It’s not “so-called” – it IS Intellectual Property. It has a legal definition, and its been around a long time. It’s not some mythical demi-ethical principle someone like Deb Frisch came up with after a long night wrestling the worm. Deal with it, as it is, honestly.
“… since I presume you wouldn’t want such concepts applied to your personal real property possessions.”
Justin, ever heard of “Eminent Domain”? The state (and developers!) take away from citizens all the time without paying market value. Limited, unrecompensed use of property, indeed. Game over on that point.
“Furthermore, intellectual property does not have a ‘set market value’. It has an artificial value grafted on to it…” and (here’s a keeper) ““Supply and demand” do not play any part here (unlike real property).”
Holy moley. You CANNOT be serious.
You CANNOT.
That’s written like someone who’s still secretly wishing Napster will come back and stick it to the greedy record companies execs. Intellectual property *does* have a set value, just as any other commodity has a set value; the IPs that’re for sale, that is. Some IP isn’t. Grandma’s secret oatmeal raisin cookie recipe, for example. If you try to pirate that, she will kill you. Jack Bauer style.
But for those IPs that are for sale; there is a price. If you don’t like the price, don’t watch the movie, don’t buy the DVD, don’t come to the concert. Supply and demand VERY MUCH have everything to do with the salability of IP. If I’m not getting paid for my work, I lower my price. If my CD sells out, I raise my price. And the IP owner – the studio, or ever more rarely; the artist – makes those decisions.
“In the current digital world, there is an unlimited supply of copyrighted works for all practical purposes. Thus there is no “scarcity”. Thus there is no value (until the scarcity is artificially created by the government and copyright holder).”
Um, yes. Those copies THAT WERE STOLEN from their rightful owners – their IP holders. I can have a CD of Celine Dion’s Greatest Hits. I cannot (Legally) upload them to my computer, turn on BearShare, shrug my shoulders and walk away. It’s a quaint notion called THEFT. It deprives the IP holder of just compensation AND the right of association (what if Celine Dion would rather Justin not have a copy of her Greatest Hits?) Just because theft is easy doesn’t make it right. Or legal. But especially right.
It is *still* theft.
If I’m not willing to part with something for free and you take it anyway … that’s not an artificial distinction, that’s robbery. I’m surprised a keen mind like yours fails to make that connection. Or were you too busy being a condescending ass? (that’s not a serious question, I think we both know the answer)
I see that you either a) misread my AMPAS example, or b) constructed a straw man. I’ll go with “a” since you seem not to be dishonest, only patronizing. I wrote “Disseminate” in the sense of copying, not just handing the disk around. But even that may be basis for copyright infringement. I never said the *member* had a copyright claim. It’s *not* the member’s property to dispose of as he or she chooses; nor does that member have any copyright stake in the IP. If I rob a bank, leave the bag of loot at your house, are you entitled then to spend the money or give it to some one else free of legal responsibility? Obviously not. What’s the parallel? Each dollar taken away from the pile lessens the value of the bag of loot. Each copy made of the IP lessens the value of the IP.
If a copy of “Dukes of Hazzard” is all over the internet, why *would* anyone pay for a DVD? It doesn’t make any sense. Follow the results to the obvious conclusion: No economic incentive to create? No creation. An entire industry dies while desperately trying to find a way to protect its product from theft. And there is your real-world argument why you cannot let consumers dictate what they will pay for something *after* it’s already in their grubby mitts. That dictation takes place *before* the use of product – hence supply and DEMAND. If there is a demand for something, then there is a value attached to it.
Nowhere else in value exchanges in a market economy does the buyer think they have a right to possession of another’s property at whatever price (or none at all) the buyer alone thinks fair. It’s a shame that so many people think they have a right to do so with IP simply because they can click a mouse.
One more example. If I steal a car, am I liable for the value of a lump of metal and rubber?That’s the argument you seem to be making. Added value does exactly that – *adds value*. The beauty of the electronic age is: Artists are creating value out of practically *nothing* – just strands of information sent from one computer to another. With that added value comes added price. Either pay it, or do without seeing “American Pie 3”; Legally, you have no other option.
Either you understand by now, or you are dead set in finding a justification for your eventual theft of “An Inconvenient Truth” when someone uploads it to BitTorrent.
Let’s see *you* spend millions of dollars to make a movie, and then *you* give it away for free. See how long you stay in business.
I apologize for getting back late to the debate; I had to work.
Cordially,
Abraxas.
Abraxas (52f32e) — 12/13/2006 @ 11:33 pmnk, your characterization of Dennis Prager is unfair.
Desert Rat (ee9fe2) — 12/14/2006 @ 12:07 amOn his radio program, if someone tells the screener that Dennis has stated an incorrect fact, Dennis always puts those “correction” phone calls on the air right away.
Desert rat, #20: I seem to have my foot in my fouth all the time on this thread. I had no business bringing Dennis Prager into the discussion at all. I know that Patterico listens to him too.
nk (4d4a9d) — 12/14/2006 @ 4:58 amA bit of trivia from the BBC that is somewhat on topic: “Musical instrument shops [in the UK, at least] must pay an annual royalty to cover shoppers who perform a recognisable riff before they buy, thereby making a “public performance”.”
pigilito (0be124) — 12/14/2006 @ 5:14 amWhat’s a Gin Blossom?
rightwingprof (5649f5) — 12/14/2006 @ 9:41 amAbraxas –
I’ll try and cull your substantive points from your lenghty post.
The difference between calling something “so-called” intellectual property and emphatically stating that is “IS intellectual property” is nothing more than a word game on your part. It does not matter what something is named. What matters is its core nature. I’m sure that the readers recognzie that, so I’ll let that go. And likewise, I won’t take the bait to explain why the word “theft” is ianpt to use when describing copyright infringment since it will likely devolve into a similar word game. I think everyone understands the underlying concepts here, regardless of the labels you insist on using.
I should say though that if you believe that I must get Celine Dion’s permission to possess a copy of her musical work as a way of preserving her right of “association”, then I still must conclude that you don’t believe in any concept of fair use rights.
Unlike fair use, Eminent Domain can only be initiated and performed by the state (even if its at the behest of a private owner). So your analogy is inapt. You also failed to respond to my argument that the limited times principle that applies to copyright should not apply to real property. Care to respond to that one?
I never suggested that intellectual property doesn’t have “price”. Of course it does. But my point is that such proces are not set by the MARKET (which you originally argued) since there is no genuine competition. It is set by the copyright monopoly. If a music label offers song X to download at $0.99, can I make unauthorzied copies of it in order to sell at cheaper price? Nope. You can’t say that there is a “limited supply” of these songs. The set price of $0.99 thus remains in effect regardless if 10-million people download it, or just 2 people. There can be no market forces without competition. And there can be no competition with monopolies. Easy enough. Saying that there is competition because song Y is also being offered is a false analogy because it compares apples and oranges. You need to have different producers and suppliers able to deliver a product that is substantially the same in order to have competition.
I’ll take your word that I simply misinterpreted your AMPAS DVD scenario. Obviously copying the underlying work embedded in the DVD is different that passing around the DVD itself. I assumed that you were talking about the latter scenario. If you re-read you original post, I hope that you will agree that it is ambiguous at best on that point. But now that you have clarified it, fine.
I didn’t see any rebuttal to my claim that intellectual property is indeed “fungible”, so perhaps you are at least conceding that point? If not, how are you defining “fungible”?
I suspect the problem isn’t my tone, but the fact that I made some points in poking holes in argument that other might recognize, and you have a hard time accepting that. Whatever.
As always, I’m content to simply have everyone read both of our comments and decide for themselves. I trust that you will be similarly content as well.
Justin Levine (965646) — 12/14/2006 @ 11:11 amnk, you missed my point in #20/#21.
It’s not that you brought up Prager in a discussion about copyrights, it’s that your characterization of him is inaccurate.
Desert Rat (ee9fe2) — 12/14/2006 @ 11:55 amPrager is always very humble about being corrected on air when he states an incorrect fact.
*********************
To answer RightWingProf’s question about what a gin blossom is, singer Robin Wilson explained once that gin blossoms are the inflamed capillaries on the end of the nose of a heavy drinker. He gave the name of W.C. Fields, as an example of someone with obvious “gin blossoms” on the end of his nose.
Mr. Levine,
“I’ll try and cull your substantive points from your lenghty post.”
Seriously, is “arrogant dialectic” your default mode? (The following response, by the way, is rather lengthy, so if you plan to read, be prepared to cull.)
“The difference between calling something “so-called” intellectual property and emphatically stating that is “IS intellectual property” is nothing more than a word game on your part.”
Well, Mr. “So-called” Levine, let me tackle your “so-called” point. By the way, who are you channeling to make that point – Noam Chomsky?
“It does not matter what something is named.”
Of course. Terrorist – Freedom Fighter. Intellectual Property – Free download on KaZaa. What’s the dif, right?
“What matters is its core nature. I’m sure that the readers recognzie that, so I’ll let that go.”
That translates to me as: “I’m really shaky on this point, so I’ll just say everyone agrees with me and move quickly onward.”
“And likewise, I won’t take the bait to explain why the word “theft” is inapt to use when describing copyright infringment since it will likely devolve into a similar word game. I think everyone understands the underlying concepts here, regardless of the labels you insist on using.”
Another Translation: “Should’ve moved farther on, I’m shaky on this point as well.” But seriously, the concept of “Theft” is a word game?!? You are either legally entitled to the fruits of someone else’s hard work or you are not. It’s a fairly Manichean proposition. No Games. Just legal and illegal – or, if one prefers, right and wrong. But that’s me – using those “right” and “wrong” labels again.
“I should say though that if you believe that I must get Celine Dion’s permission to possess a copy of her musical work as a way of preserving her right of “association”, then I still must conclude that you don’t believe in any concept of fair use rights.”
First intelligent thing you wrote. You’re still wrong, but intelligently written. Well done. The whole “Celine” thing was a joke. Admittedly I don’t do humor as well as you do condescension, but I try. By “Celine”, I simply meant “The Copyright Holder”. And yes, the Copyright Holder does have a choice about whether or not to sell to you. You are *not* entitled to Ms. Dion’s greatest hits just because you have a high-speed connection in your mom’s basement.
Fair use only permits you to use a *portion* of Ms. Dion’s work – and what “portion” means has been hammered out by the courts. It does *not* mean “The Entirety of her Greatest Hits” – which if you’ll read back, was the actual point I made. If you want, you can Google the actual court decisions. Me, I’m too busy battling your truly dizzying intellect (fair use warning – quick, name the movie and book it comes from!).
Not to mention your sarcasm.
“Unlike fair use, Eminent Domain can only be initiated and performed by the state (even if its at the behest of a private owner). So your analogy is inapt.”
I fail to see its “inaptness” and you have failed to make the case that it is so. The fact that some private property infringers may have state imprimatur is a distinction without a difference when discussing property rights.
“You also failed to respond to my argument that the limited times principle that applies to copyright should not apply to real property. Care to respond to that one?”
I didn’t see that you made an argument. You made a claim.
“I never suggested that intellectual property doesn’t have “price”. Of course it does. But my point is that such proces are not set by the MARKET (which you originally argued) since there is no genuine competition.”
The prices ARE set by the market: The market consists of buyers and sellers. If one of these two don’t show up, you don’t have a “market”. A buyer buys, a seller sells. The price is what they agree upon. I’ve never heard of a seller who doesn’t want to sell. If he didn’t he wouldn’t be a “seller”, he’d be a “keeper of the thing I want but won’t sell to me”. Or something like that; but not “seller”.
In order to sell, he has to negotiate a price, through the market, with the buyer; just like any other commodity. See below for an answer to your competition claim.**
“It is set by the copyright monopoly.”
Not if they want to make money. Name me *one* instance where a set price for an Intellectual Property has been set so high that no one has bought it, and I’ll show you an ex-CEO. Sony is *not* in business to *not* make money.
“If a music label offers song X to download at $0.99, can I make unauthorzied copies of it in order to sell at cheaper price? Nope.”
Excellent. We finally agree. You also can’t make unauthorized copies of Corvettes or F-35s and sell those at a lower price, either. But wait …
“You can’t say that there is a “limited supply” of these songs. The set price of $0.99 thus remains in effect regardless if 10-million people download it, or just 2 people.”
Technically I *can* say that – there will always be a finite number of copies of these songs. Look up “Finite” and “Infinite” and get back to me. But without being cute – market forces demand, at some point, an end widget – the final widget made (or burned, ripped, copied, etc.) is the one that cannot be sold at any price, meaning the market is saturated. *That* is what happens when the aforementioned Ms. Dion’s warblings escape the confines of Grokster into every 14-year-old suburban girl’s hard drive. And sales plummet. And the record industry goes out of business.
“There can be no market forces without competition.”
**Ah, but there *is* competition: Backstreet Boys or N’Sync? Dean Martin or Sinatra? MC Hammer or Vanilla Ice? “Armeggedon” or “Deep Impact”?
It’s the same with cars and other goods: Tahoe or Explorer? Mustang or Camar – er, um, never mind that one. The Big Mac or Whopper? They are *not* the same things – they are similar things – alike enough that one can reasonably choose one over the other in the class of things that one wants. You cannot, however, copy a hamburger and call it “the Big McJustin” and sell it or give it away.
“And there can be no competition with monopolies.”
Well, Ford has a monopoly on building Mustangs, in the same way that Celine has a monopoly on singing “My Heart Will Go On”. Are you now prepared to stipulate there is “no competition” in the auto market?
“Easy enough. Saying that there is competition because song Y is also being offered is a false analogy because it compares apples and oranges.”
Is the Mustang-Camaro comparison apples and oranges, too? Of course not, nor are any of my other examples.
“You need to have different producers and suppliers able to deliver a product that is substantially the same in order to have competition.”
I believe I’ve made the case that there are and there is. But “competition” in the context with which you use it is a Trojan Horse, I think. Whether or not something is “Competing” with another product is irrelevant to the fact that the consumer does not have a claim to that product until it is paid for by that consumer.
There is no “competitive” alternative to oil in this country. Are we then justified in looting the corner BP station and paying them what we think their product *should* be worth?
“I’ll take your word that I simply misinterpreted your AMPAS DVD scenario.”
Mighty White of you. Thanks.
“I didn’t see any rebuttal to my claim that intellectual property is indeed ‘fungible’, so perhaps you are at least conceding that point? If not, how are you defining ‘fungible’?”
Conceding the point? You gave no reasons to back up your bald assertion as to the nature of someone else’s property. Would it help you for me to say “No, you’re wrong.”? Since you didn’t actually back your claim up with anything other than simple assertion, there wasn’t much to argue with, was there? Your quote was –
“So-called ‘intellectual property’ is MOST DEFINITELY a “fungible commodity”. In fact, it is hard to think of much else in the world that is MORE fungible (other than natural elements such as air, etc.).”
There’s no proof in there, just an assertion. You’ve not made your case. I should take your word on the matter … why, exactly?
“I suspect the problem isn’t my tone, but the fact that I made some points in poking holes in argument that other might recognize, and you have a hard time accepting that.”
The problem isn’t *primarily* your tone. The fact that your writing style mimics that of a fanatical 3rd-rate conspiracy theorist cum community college adjunct professor is secondary to the fact that you are wrong about the issue of Intellectual Property.
“Whatever.”
Case in point about your writing style. Give respect, get respect.
“As always, I’m content to simply have everyone read both of our comments and decide for themselves. I trust that you will be similarly content as well.”
I thought that would go without saying. The fact that you felt you had to write it speaks volumes, I think.
Nevertheless, I’m happy to continue the discussion with you. Although, you might not want to start off a dialog with other folks with language such as “You seem … confused …” or (although you didn’t write this, it certainly came across this way) “You don’t understand …” I’m *not* confused and I *do* understand. I just happen to disagree with you, and I believe the facts bear me out.
Abraxas (2f586f) — 12/14/2006 @ 5:01 pmNK & Desert Rat, I agree that a thread about copyright and the Gin Blossoms is a sub-optimal venue for discussing Dennis Prager, but Desert Rat, I’m not sure why you think NK’s characterization of Prager is so unfair. Radio manners aside, his handling of the Keith Ellison matter was positively disgraceful, not to mention constitutionally and historically illiterate. Then, in his next column, rather than admitting to his boner and apologizing, he doubled down with a response that would make Glenn Greenwald proud.
Xrlq (f52b4f) — 12/15/2006 @ 8:20 am