I should also add, I don't believe (although I've never really researched this angle) we have ever held supermarkets responsible for the speech that others place on their bulletin boards, either.
I guess I must have struck pretty close to the mark in order to receive a response that's all full of insults and close to defamatory (or in your own words: NOT "within common law").
I will address a couple of items from your word salad up there:
They can take this link where you make up "natural" law to suit your pirating:
I did not make up anything concerning copying in the thread you referenced. Copying IS a natural right which has existed from the beginning of man. For example, Joe Caveman traded a fur for a newfangled spearhead made from flint and had every right to copy the design and make his own. That is how early man advanced. The restrictions on copying and building on the works of others is a relatively new concept in the history of mankind.
You rarely even comment over last year except to ad hom me.
Yes, I have not commented a lot this year because I have a life, but your special kind of stupid tends to annoy me greatly.
As a response to some of your other silliness, I will say that I am not the one who claims conspiracies where there are none. I am not the one who thinks their intelligence is so advanced that rebuttals to their arguments are dismissed out of hand. And lastly, I am not the one who thinks they are changing the world by engaging in some weird, off-the-wall PSYOP campaign against a website they detest, when the reality is that the only opinions you have actually changed are those concerning your sanity.
I've often said that the desire to be a career politician (of any non-voluntary flavour), be it Congress-critter, Senator, MP, MEP, or anything similar, should be seen as a seriously de-qualifying black mark against the individual.
I've thought the same before, but I've been rethinking that stance lately. Back when I wore a younger man's clothes, I voted for Ross Perot (twice!) because I liked his ideas and thought he could change how K Street works through his business knowledge and aptitude.
Now that we have actually voted in a businessman as President, I am realizing I might have been a bit naive in that stance. The Presidency requires diplomacy, tact, decorum and the ability to compromise in order to be effective. Leaders of large businesses are accustomed to their whims being followed without question and that is not how our government is set up, with good reason.
@Mark Atwood - I would like to apologize for our resident village idiot who thinks that if you don't comment on a regular basis you're astroturfing. I also believe he thinks the dust bunnies under his couch are a Google plot to take over his thoughts.
Dissenting views are always welcome here as long as they are respectful. Most here believe in countering speech they disagree with their own speech, but have little tolerance for ranting fools who keep repeating the same stupid stuff over and over no matter how many times they are rebutted.
Oh man. This is frickin' hilarious. Pure comedy gold.
Blue is trying to deflect away from himself by claiming the words "Blue" and "out_of_the_blue" refers to the First/Last Words. Too funny.
And by the way, I'm pretty sure it was Blue's comment up there based on the phrase "You see those only rarely because universally reviled."
He tends to leave out the common expletives that most people use trying to sound superior or something. Most people would write the sentence like this: "You see those only rarely because it is universally reviled."
Lol. I figured there are at least some people that didn't create, you know, small infants, people in vegetative states, music industry executives, etc.
It's a losing argument from losers who create nothing and who steal from those who do.
Could you please provide a venn diagram of "those who create nothing", "those who infringe copyright" and "those who create".
The way I see it, "those who create nothing" will be minuscule, "those who create" will be pretty much everyone and "those who infringe copyright" will be a small subset of both groups as long as we are talking about willful copyright infringement. If we are talking about everyday ordinary incidental copyright infringement (like using someone's else art as your Techdirt avatar) then that would encompass pretty much everyone also.
I find it very disingenuous of you to use a quote, out of context, from a very lengthy thread where Karl, I and others were discussing copyright, natural rights and property rights and how they intersect to prove.....well...I really don't know WHAT you were trying to prove.
Also, I don't believe you've ever addressed your own disconnect between your pre-1900 view of "common law" property rights and the fact that copyright violates those principles by extending rights to the original owner AFTER the transfer of ownership.
I see you quoted my words*, but failed to actually rebut them beyond "There can be no quarter given to those with THAT view...". That's not a cogent argument whatsoever.
*By the way, isn't it convenient that you can see what I've said in the past, unlike you, who attempts to hide behind various monikers as to not be accountable for your own words. Seems pretty cowardly to me.
Copyright cases (criminal or civil) should have the same "starting point." The preponderance-of-evidence standard should prevail here.
Ummm, you are comparing apples to airplanes here. The original question referred to a threat to the President in which case law enforcement would be vigorously investigating the location, and you know, have boots on the ground, asking questions and chasing leads, etc. (ie: "real police work").
Are you suggesting, that we as society, should expend those resources chasing down copyright infringement (which is mostly a civil matter between private entities) or are you suggesting that those filing infringment lawsuits should? Please clarify.
...because BitTorrent won't allow the goose to be killed (by secretly wiping those downloads out and assisting in prosecution)...
In addition to what others have pointed out concerning BitTorrent being a protocol, not a service, I would like to add that attempts to "control" file sharing via BitTorrent have already been attempted. The powers that be started attacking BitTorrent tracking sites and as a result we now have completely decentralized tracking via the DHT protocols.
Would "IP is not identity" work if someone threatened the President?
It would give the Secret Service a place to start, but they would still have to do real police work to determine the actual person, especially if this IP address was a Tim Horton's or some other open WiFi hotspot.
Personally I think it's hilarious that Blue thinks being noticed for consistently being the most incorrect, incoherent and obnoxious commenter that Techdirt has ever seen is a good thing.
This article reinforces the idea of requiring law enforcement to have professional liability insurance, in my mind.
Doctors, who also have stressful occupations and make life and death decisions, are required to have malpractice insurance, why not cops?
As long as this insurance was paid from the officer's pocket, it would create a win-win situation. If the insurance company (insurance companies are pretty good at risk management) deemed an officer to be high-risk, his insurance premium would increase until he couldn't afford it and he would become unemployable. It would also reduce the huge liability currently being placed on municipalities for officer misconduct.
The one drawback I see is the risk that policing will become dictated by the insurance companies (like health insurance is). We would have to put in measures at the ground level to prevent that.
I have already noticed something similar on my Verizon Android phone. There is an really annoying app named "Peel Remote" that was a factory install on my phone that I cannot completely remove (as far as I have determined) unless I root my phone. Every couple of days it gets automatically updated from the Play Store and starts showing annoying ads on my "swipe to unlock" screen. I have to manually go into Play Store and remove the updates to make it stop.
I certainly hope that these ads do not have sound.
I pause my DirecTV to answer the phone for two reasons: to keep where I left off in the show and to mute the sound. I don't want to be forced to hit two buttons before answering a call.
How does the claimant prove ownership of the work being claimed, other than being the first to upload the complete work.
Not really sure to be truthful. I would guess the same way that it was when copyright required registration. Don't release the work until registered.
In regards to the mess we've created between 1978 and now with automatic copyright I haven't a clue. I was thinking in terms of going forward into the future, really.
On the post: No Agreement Made On EU Copyright Directive, As Recording Industry Freaks Out About Safe Harbors Too
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I should also add, I don't believe (although I've never really researched this angle) we have ever held supermarkets responsible for the speech that others place on their bulletin boards, either.
On the post: No Agreement Made On EU Copyright Directive, As Recording Industry Freaks Out About Safe Harbors Too
Re: Re: Re:
No, not really. Supermarkets have always had the right to moderate what is put up on their "public facing" bulletin boards in their "public" lobbies.
Please explain why should be any different, just because it's online.
On the post: Arkansas Politician Introduces Bill To Make It Illegal For Social Media Companies To Block Content He Likes
Re:
I guess I must have struck pretty close to the mark in order to receive a response that's all full of insults and close to defamatory (or in your own words: NOT "within common law").
I will address a couple of items from your word salad up there:
I did not make up anything concerning copying in the thread you referenced. Copying IS a natural right which has existed from the beginning of man. For example, Joe Caveman traded a fur for a newfangled spearhead made from flint and had every right to copy the design and make his own. That is how early man advanced. The restrictions on copying and building on the works of others is a relatively new concept in the history of mankind.
Yes, I have not commented a lot this year because I have a life, but your special kind of stupid tends to annoy me greatly.
As a response to some of your other silliness, I will say that I am not the one who claims conspiracies where there are none. I am not the one who thinks their intelligence is so advanced that rebuttals to their arguments are dismissed out of hand. And lastly, I am not the one who thinks they are changing the world by engaging in some weird, off-the-wall PSYOP campaign against a website they detest, when the reality is that the only opinions you have actually changed are those concerning your sanity.
On the post: EU General Court Refuses To Allow St. Andrews Links To Trademark 'St. Andrews' For All The Things
Re: Re: Broken Inputs
I've thought the same before, but I've been rethinking that stance lately. Back when I wore a younger man's clothes, I voted for Ross Perot (twice!) because I liked his ideas and thought he could change how K Street works through his business knowledge and aptitude.
Now that we have actually voted in a businessman as President, I am realizing I might have been a bit naive in that stance. The Presidency requires diplomacy, tact, decorum and the ability to compromise in order to be effective. Leaders of large businesses are accustomed to their whims being followed without question and that is not how our government is set up, with good reason.
On the post: Arkansas Politician Introduces Bill To Make It Illegal For Social Media Companies To Block Content He Likes
Re: Re:
@Mark Atwood - I would like to apologize for our resident village idiot who thinks that if you don't comment on a regular basis you're astroturfing. I also believe he thinks the dust bunnies under his couch are a Google plot to take over his thoughts.
Dissenting views are always welcome here as long as they are respectful. Most here believe in countering speech they disagree with their own speech, but have little tolerance for ranting fools who keep repeating the same stupid stuff over and over no matter how many times they are rebutted.
On the post: The FBI Is Now Looking Into Those Bogus Net Neutrality Comments
Re: Fractally wrong
Oh man. This is frickin' hilarious. Pure comedy gold.
Blue is trying to deflect away from himself by claiming the words "Blue" and "out_of_the_blue" refers to the First/Last Words. Too funny.
And by the way, I'm pretty sure it was Blue's comment up there based on the phrase "You see those only rarely because universally reviled."
He tends to leave out the common expletives that most people use trying to sound superior or something. Most people would write the sentence like this: "You see those only rarely because it is universally reviled."
On the post: Legacy Copyright Industries Lobbying Hard For EU Copyright Directive... While Pretending That Only Google Is Lobbying
Re: Re: Re:
Lol. I figured there are at least some people that didn't create, you know, small infants, people in vegetative states, music industry executives, etc.
On the post: Legacy Copyright Industries Lobbying Hard For EU Copyright Directive... While Pretending That Only Google Is Lobbying
Re:
Could you please provide a venn diagram of "those who create nothing", "those who infringe copyright" and "those who create".
The way I see it, "those who create nothing" will be minuscule, "those who create" will be pretty much everyone and "those who infringe copyright" will be a small subset of both groups as long as we are talking about willful copyright infringement. If we are talking about everyday ordinary incidental copyright infringement (like using someone's else art as your Techdirt avatar) then that would encompass pretty much everyone also.
On the post: While Everyone's Busy, Hollywood & Record Labels Suggest Congress Bring Back SOPA
Re: Re: Re:
I find it very disingenuous of you to use a quote, out of context, from a very lengthy thread where Karl, I and others were discussing copyright, natural rights and property rights and how they intersect to prove.....well...I really don't know WHAT you were trying to prove.
Also, I don't believe you've ever addressed your own disconnect between your pre-1900 view of "common law" property rights and the fact that copyright violates those principles by extending rights to the original owner AFTER the transfer of ownership.
On the post: While Everyone's Busy, Hollywood & Record Labels Suggest Congress Bring Back SOPA
Re: Re:
On the post: While Everyone's Busy, Hollywood & Record Labels Suggest Congress Bring Back SOPA
Re: Re:
I see you quoted my words*, but failed to actually rebut them beyond "There can be no quarter given to those with THAT view...". That's not a cogent argument whatsoever.
*By the way, isn't it convenient that you can see what I've said in the past, unlike you, who attempts to hide behind various monikers as to not be accountable for your own words. Seems pretty cowardly to me.
On the post: Federal Courts Aren't ATMs, Angry Judge Reminds Copyright Troll
Re: Re: Re:
Ummm, you are comparing apples to airplanes here. The original question referred to a threat to the President in which case law enforcement would be vigorously investigating the location, and you know, have boots on the ground, asking questions and chasing leads, etc. (ie: "real police work").
Are you suggesting, that we as society, should expend those resources chasing down copyright infringement (which is mostly a civil matter between private entities) or are you suggesting that those filing infringment lawsuits should? Please clarify.
On the post: Federal Courts Aren't ATMs, Angry Judge Reminds Copyright Troll
Re:
In addition to what others have pointed out concerning BitTorrent being a protocol, not a service, I would like to add that attempts to "control" file sharing via BitTorrent have already been attempted. The powers that be started attacking BitTorrent tracking sites and as a result we now have completely decentralized tracking via the DHT protocols.
On the post: Federal Courts Aren't ATMs, Angry Judge Reminds Copyright Troll
Re:
It would give the Secret Service a place to start, but they would still have to do real police work to determine the actual person, especially if this IP address was a Tim Horton's or some other open WiFi hotspot.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
Personally I think it's hilarious that Blue thinks being noticed for consistently being the most incorrect, incoherent and obnoxious commenter that Techdirt has ever seen is a good thing.
On the post: Indiana Police Chief Promoting As Many Bad Cops As He Can To Supervisory Positions
LEO Malpractice Insurance
This article reinforces the idea of requiring law enforcement to have professional liability insurance, in my mind.
Doctors, who also have stressful occupations and make life and death decisions, are required to have malpractice insurance, why not cops?
As long as this insurance was paid from the officer's pocket, it would create a win-win situation. If the insurance company (insurance companies are pretty good at risk management) deemed an officer to be high-risk, his insurance premium would increase until he couldn't afford it and he would become unemployable. It would also reduce the huge liability currently being placed on municipalities for officer misconduct.
The one drawback I see is the risk that policing will become dictated by the insurance companies (like health insurance is). We would have to put in measures at the ground level to prevent that.
On the post: Indiana Police Chief Promoting As Many Bad Cops As He Can To Supervisory Positions
Is that a Freudian slip there?
On the post: The TV Sector's Latest Bad Idea: Ads That Play When You Press Pause
I have already noticed something similar on my Verizon Android phone. There is an really annoying app named "Peel Remote" that was a factory install on my phone that I cannot completely remove (as far as I have determined) unless I root my phone. Every couple of days it gets automatically updated from the Play Store and starts showing annoying ads on my "swipe to unlock" screen. I have to manually go into Play Store and remove the updates to make it stop.
On the post: The TV Sector's Latest Bad Idea: Ads That Play When You Press Pause
I certainly hope that these ads do not have sound.
I pause my DirecTV to answer the phone for two reasons: to keep where I left off in the show and to mute the sound. I don't want to be forced to hit two buttons before answering a call.
On the post: Latest On EU Copyright Directive: No One's Happy With Article 13, So Maybe Let's Drop It?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not really sure to be truthful. I would guess the same way that it was when copyright required registration. Don't release the work until registered.
In regards to the mess we've created between 1978 and now with automatic copyright I haven't a clue. I was thinking in terms of going forward into the future, really.
Next >>