When will the media and public's love affair with the iPhone end?

[nrm5110]

I wasn't insulting anyone. Johnly was posting things that were incorrect wrt intellectual property and I called him on it.

The way you were posting was an assumption on his level of knowledge clearly meant to be an insult.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

 

[xlDeMoNiClx]

I apologize miss. Again though one should not get so worked up. I understand your passion on this particular subject but that should be used in a much more positive manner. Instead of insults you would be perfect for giving real life examples. Help to educate not attack. When you start getting heated step back for a moment.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

Plus if someone who acts like a professional resorts to insults and starts getting too arrogant about their opinions their opinion loses all credibility.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Android Central Forums

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

I wasn't insulting anyone. Johnly was posting things that were incorrect wrt intellectual property and I called him on it.

Are you an IP Attorney?

 

[WannaBeYou]

You ARE flaming, though, and that needs to stop.

What was flaming? Saying someone didn't understand intellectual property law when they posted things that were wrong wrt intellectual property law?

So any time someone posts something that is incorrect and you tell them they are wrong and don't understand what they are posting about that is flaming?

 

[nrm5110]

What was flaming? Saying someone didn't understand intellectual property law when they posted things that were wrong wrt intellectual property law?

So any time someone posts something that is incorrect and you tell them they are wrong and don't understand what they are posting about that is flaming?

No you correct them in a less condescending tone. Use examples not just saying they are wrong.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

 

[xlDeMoNiClx]

What was flaming? Saying someone didn't understand intellectual property law when they posted things that were wrong wrt intellectual property law?

So any time someone posts something that is incorrect and you tell them they are wrong and don't understand what they are posting about that is flaming?

Like I said, it's not your call whether or not someone knows anything about a subject. Nuff' said.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Android Central Forums

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

What was flaming? Saying someone didn't understand intellectual property law when they posted things that were wrong wrt intellectual property law?

So any time someone posts something that is incorrect and you tell them they are wrong and don't understand what they are posting about that is flaming?

POSTING IN CAPS DENOTES ANGER/HOSTILITY/ETC so yes, the way you were saying what you were saying was flaming. Also, judging by the responses you got you were flaming. It worked, you wanted a response and an argument and you got one. Not all Mods respond to situations in exactly the same way. That's the great thing about being individuals.

- - - Updated - - -

And to everyone else. Stop going back and forth please. Allow me, the Super Moderator, to do the moderating.

Thanks.

 

[WannaBeYou]

Are you an IP Attorney?

Actually, I am. But more importantly, I am an intellectual property owner. If I were only an IP attorney, I would love that others steal IP because it would drum up more work for me, LOL. Seriously, IP attorneys don't look at IP theft as a bad thing; they look at it as a revenue stream.

It is the intellectual property OWNERs who look at IP theft as a bad thing. I can't understand why the rest of you don't realize that this is my property that I created just the same as if I built a house and you thought you should be able to squat in it.

 

[nrm5110]

Kevin are you a moderator? Sorry taptalk doesn't show that info

Edit
Nevermind

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

 

[WannaBeYou]

Like I said, it's not your call whether or not someone knows anything about a subject. Nuff' said.

When I actually know something about a subject, um, yeah, it IS my call.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

Actually, I am. But more importantly, I am an intellectual property owner. If I were only an IP attorney, I would love that others steal IP because it would drum up more work for me, LOL. Seriously, IP attorneys don't look at IP theft as a bad thing; they look at it as a revenue stream.

It is the intellectual property OWNERs who look at IP theft as a bad thing. I can't understand why the rest of you don't realize that this is my property that I created just the same as if I built a house and you thought you should be able to squat in it.

People DO understand that. I understand that. But that doesn't mean that parts of the law don't make sense at all. I'm curious to know your thoughts on Fair Use.

 

[WannaBeYou]

No you correct them in a less condescending tone. Use examples not just saying they are wrong.

I DID use examples. I analogized intangible property to tangible property and went into the distinction between bands that consented to the free distribution of their music and those who didn't.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

You also generalized IP Attorney's in a way that I'm sure some of them wouldn't appreciate. Being a member of the group that you generalize doesn't make it any better.

 

[WannaBeYou]

People DO understand that. I understand that. But that doesn't mean that parts of the law don't make sense at all. I'm curious to know your thoughts on Fair Use.

Just to clarify - the intellectual property I own is patented, not copyright, so fair use doesn't enter into the picture with the kinds of intellectual property I own.

In general, I think the fair use copyright doctrine should be expanded, but the original napster was about the in toto copying of music without any remuneration at all going to the artists. Now if an artist was OK with that because it led to fame and fame led to the ability to sell out concerts and selling out concerts led to money in their pocket, well good for them. But that doesn't mean that other artists should not be able to profit from the distribution of their own work.

The real problem with napster was the large scale and ease of the theft and how until the lawsuits started, to the average Joe, it seemed like there was nothing wrong with what they were doing. It was on the internet, and if it was on the internet, it had to be OK, right?

 

[WannaBeYou]

You also generalized IP Attorney's in a way that I'm sure some of them wouldn't appreciate. Being a member of the group that you generalize doesn't make it any better.

I know a lot of IP attorneys, it really isn't a large group of people if you are limiting it to IP attorneys who actually have enough clients to sustain a purely IP practice and exclude the wannabes who say they are IP attorneys but practice general business law and only do IP cases when a client is so naive that they can't tell the difference, and they aren't that sensitive. Most are just doing a job and not at all passionate about what they do. And happy for there to be more work for them.

Seriously, if there wasn't patent infringement, how would patent litigators pay their bills?

Sorry to have burst your bubble about IP attorneys if I have, but I am about the most passionate IP attorney out there.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

Just to clarify - the intellectual property I own is patented, not copyright, so fair use doesn't enter into the picture with the kinds of intellectual property I own.

In general, I think the fair use copyright doctrine should be expanded, but the original napster was about the in toto copying of music without any remuneration at all going to the artists. Now if an artist was OK with that because it led to fame and fame led to the ability to sell out concerts and selling out concerts led to money in their pocket, well good for them. But that doesn't mean that other artists should not be able to profit from the distribution of their own work.

The real problem with napster was the large scale and ease of the theft and how until the lawsuits started, to the average Joe, it seemed like there was nothing wrong with what they were doing. It was on the internet, and if it was on the internet, it had to be OK, right?

So, is it fair to say that you think that the lawsuits educated people about piracy? And if so, do you think that maybe there was a better way to do that besides going after people trying to get thousands of dollars from them per song they downloaded? Yes, they tried to focus on the largest and most egregious offenders, but the fact is they made the point that they could go after anyone that downloaded any song without permission for the exact same thing. I call that a scare tactic, not education. Seems like there would be a more common sense way to deal with these things.

Fair use should be simple. If I own a copy of a movie or song I should be able to play it on any device I own, without needing to repurchase the rights to that work. I'm anti-DRM and anti-piracy. Those two things can coexist.

 

[badbrad17]

The original Napster was about the organized, large scale, stealing of intellectual property made easy by electronic means. It really wasn't controversial at all. It was theft, pure and simple. The fact that some bands consented to the free distribution of their music doesn't mean that those bands who didn't weren't the victims of theft.

I agree but there are many things that bring about change. Following laws that don't protect the interests of the people it was created for is wrong. If the artists were actually paid for their work and not actually limited by the control of a distribution monopoly then you may get more sympathy, but because this is not the case many honest people are stepping outside of the boundaries in order to bring about change. You have to admit the the system is flawed and needs to be overhauled.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums

 

[badbrad17]

This thread has officially gone down the drain. ABORT ABORT. Snore fest. And it was going so well for so long. Such a shame.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums

 

[WannaBeYou]

So, is it fair to say that you think that the lawsuits educated people about piracy? And if so, do you think that maybe there was a better way to do that besides going after people trying to get thousands of dollars from them per song they downloaded?

yes, the lawsuits educated people but if there were no penalties for violating the law, then no one would care. In the morning when I am not so tired I will try to find what this concept is called, but the basic premise is that laws in which it is hard to detect violators, you have to make examples out of the few cases you catch in order to deter the masses. Universities employ this with their honor codes - it is hard to detect a lot of the cheating that goes on, so when they do catch someone cheating they punish them hard so that the vast majority of students will fear the repercussions of cheating and not do it.

Yes, they tried to focus on the largest and most egregious offenders, but the fact is they made the point that they could go after anyone that downloaded any song without permission for the exact same thing. I call that a scare tactic, not education. Seems like there would be a more common sense way to deal with these things.

It definitely was a scare tactic, but that was the whole point. It is really hard to catch this kind of theft, so when you do, you have to punish it hard so that people will think, hey, I can probably get away with it, but if I am one of the unlucky ones who doesn't, it is going to be so painful that I think I would rather pay for my music than risk it.

Fair use should be simple. If I own a copy of a movie or song I should be able to play it on any device I own, without needing to repurchase the rights to that work. I'm anti-DRM and anti-piracy. Those two things can coexist.

I actually agree with that, but the problem is how do you make sure that the device belongs to the person who owns the copy of the movie or the song and isn't a device owned by someone else they want to share the copy with?

 

[WannaBeYou]

This thread has officially gone down the drain. ABORT ABORT. Snore fest. And it was going so well for so long. Such a shame.

I didn't change the topic. I was happy talking about my $200 pink iPod gift that sucked a$$.