Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Jan 2022 @ 7:33am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh god, I'm going to (unintentionally) be a trol
"But, champagne identifies a region, or style of wine, and not a producer."
All true. What do you want me to tell you, that it doesn't really make sense? This...is marketing.
I offer an example of when on my first job I once visited one of the plant where they made our products. The supervisor asked me if I could see the two tanks in the yard to which led exactly one pipe, splitting off in two ends.
"You see the one on the right? That's product X. High performance, high quality, high price. The one on the right? Cheap shit, we only toss it in as an extra or for customers looking to serve quantity rather than quality". "But.." Said I, "...both those tanks are filled from the same pipe...?" "Wonders of branding, kid." he replied.
It's pretty much cookie-cutter template that branding is central. A generic medication may be identical to the same product made by Merck. But one package will cost ten times more. An office chair from a reputable manufacturer will cost much more than the same chair made by some no-name company.
People pay for the name. That's always been the case.
From one point of view I see it as the madness that it is.
From the other point of view I realize that yeah, but people also want to be able to make the choice of whom they give their money. And branding serves the market well in that regard by - in the case of the Champagne example, identifying *that particular bottle as coming from the district of Champagne.
Branding is driven by two main factors; Identification and Cultural snobbery insisting the first must be supplied.
Common sense doesn't come into this. People demanding something exclusive at which to accurately hurl greenbacks, does. Thus a market is served.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Jan 2022 @ 7:19am
Re: Re: Re:
"Would you rather it be the way that only people in a region in Thailand or a city in the US could call it that way? Because that's what it's like in Europe…"
Oh I know it's that way in Europe. I wonder how much anti-EU sentiment was fed by the fact that people all over woke up one day and found their favorite foodstuffs had been rebranded as "apple drink resembling cider" or their breakfast sausage renamed as something completely different;
Bernard Woolley: "They cannot stop us eating the British sausage, can they?"
Jim Hacker: "They can stop us calling it a sausage though. Apparently it has got to be called the Emulsified High-Fat Offal Tube."
Bernard Woolley: "And you swallowed it?"
Yes Minister, "Party Games" christmas special.
The US certainly does have branding in similar or even far more draconian manner. It's just that the brand name is rarely that of the local county. I invite here the comparison to a shoemaker making running shoes and trying to sell them as "Nike's". It will not end well.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Jan 2022 @ 2:56am
Re:
Not a problem. Just...remember to offer a courtesy gift when they come calling. A few pounds of ilchester usually greases the wheels. Or palms as the case might be...
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Jan 2022 @ 2:47am
Re:
"Used to be when someone else was horning in on your schtick, you didn't really care. You made a better product & advertised that fact."
Well, yeah, but brand protection is as old as dirt. If you give your particular cheeze a weird name then you defend that one, because you don't want the shoddy asshat next door to sell his curdled milk under your name and giving you a bad rep over it.
I mean if you've put in the work to make your "Slickpoo fudge" a success in the candystores then the last thing you need is for some shitwit out of Mud Butte to sell his offers under the slickpoo label. Both of which, I have to add, are actual US city names. 😂
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Jan 2022 @ 2:37am
Re: Re: A bit late
"You enforce it, you're a troll. You don't, and you lose it. "
That's...not really how it works. There has to be a reasonable similarity between the products
If you sell the beer Podunk Yokel Dong and some other asswit decides to send a potable under that same name then you have a case to defend.
If the local adult store - the one next to "Four Seasons Total Landscaping" for instance - sells a product under the same name you probably neither have nor want a case to defend.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Jan 2022 @ 2:01am
Re: Re: Oh god, I'm going to (unintentionally) be a troll....
"So what is the consumer protection interest in claiming that identical sparkling wine made from champagne grapes isn’t champagne?"
I don't know. What consumer interests are protected if I claim my nickname is "Bergman"?
Or if GM claims their newest Fiesta is a Toyota?
Brand is an identity thing. The thing to do if you want your local vintner to have a catchy name for their sparkling wine isn't to nick the name of another, identical product, but to use their own.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Jan 2022 @ 1:50am
Re:
"Not that I would want to restrict Belgian ale to beers brewed in Belgium."
Looking at how Belgians brew ale the word "restrictions" wasn't the first word which came to my mind.
I think belgians have their own version of rule 34. I don't know for sure that there's a belgian ale brewed in a geyser on iceland using liquorice, dragonfruit seeds and swedish surströmming...but I'll bet good money that in writing this some Belgian brewer, compelled by instincts s/he couldn't name, is already packing their kettle for a long trip...
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Jan 2022 @ 1:43am
Re: Re:
"...wine made from the same variety of grapes, produced with identical recipes, every ingredient identical, from grapes grown in a place with identical climate and soil chemistry?"
No more than the difference between a person born in sowetoland, South Africa and, say, you. Why have two different names for what is essentially the exact same product?
The real thing where trademark makes sense is that it's essentially an identifier. A wine which wasn't made in the district of Champagne, France...isn't made in Champagne, France. Selling it as if it was means falsely placing a label on a bottle which implies centuries of traditional vintners stand as guarantee for the product.
"And what word would you use to distinguish that wine from other types of sparkling wine?"
Whatever name you see fit to associate with wine produced from that region?
Honestly I wish more people did exactly that - can't wait to browse shelves to spring Strumpfhosen Schnaps or a stiff glass of Podunk on unsuspecting guests...
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Jan 2022 @ 1:35am
Re:
"...every time some idiot goes, "well, actually, what you're drinking isn't champagne, it's sparking wine,"..."
It was always like that though - brand protection just wasn't as global in those old days when we first learned words.
That said, sure, I grok why the residents of Champagne, Cognac, Cologne, etc would want to make sure variants of their regional specialty manufactured elsewhere isn't just riding their coattails.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Jan 2022 @ 1:26am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Yes, this is more familiar. "
You making an obviously false claim and people flocking to correct your broken logic? Yeah, I guess that must feel pretty familiar by now.
"Techdirt posers trying their (pitiful) best to define words in a new way..."
As in "Sane people refusing to let you redefine old words in new ways that fit your narrative" you mean?
"...with arguments like "well other people said it too" and "that word doesn't mean what you think it means"."
Because an outfit acting like the dictionary-definition of a patent troll and the dictionary itself must be cast into doubt at your sole assertion. I think we'll want a bit more context and logic around why you think observable evidence and the dictionary are incorrect before taking your word for it, Baghdad Bob.
"Congratulations. The old Techdirt reappears."
The one where gormless fuckwits like you don't get a single chance to assert blithering nonsense without someone calling that bullshit? Yeah, it never went away.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Jan 2022 @ 1:11am
Re: Liquor?
"Reasonable in relation to general brand crap complaints."
I'm afraid "Monster" left the domain of "reasonable" a long time ago. Trademark, to me, is the one rational part of Intellectual Property I can respect but there are some people, like Nintendo and Monster, who partake in the sport of firing lawyers more or less at random.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Jan 2022 @ 1:07am
Re:
"As a reminder, those who use “spew” about the exercise of speech indicate that their argument is partisan rather than principled."
You were doing so well until the point where you decided to make a personal judgment and claim it was objective.
No, someone using a pejorative only means that person chose to use a pejorative. Some terms are politically loaded, to be sure, but those are fairly limited and recognizable.
"Fake News" for instance is a term which in a land of tort and lawyers essentially replaces "If I take a complaint over this to court they'll all find out the implication I object to is true enough to bother me really bad so I'll just try to dismiss the implication with a one-liner and run". See also Goebbel's Lügenpresse for the normal use of this term.
Multiculturalism is a dogwhistle word usually deployed heavily by bigots when they don't want to make with the ethnic slurs out loud. Another way of saying it's inherently dangerous for white people to be too closely associated with people from Asia, Africa or the Middle East.
And so on. I don't see how someone saying "idiots spewing nonsense" is a partisan statement. But I do see how the targets of that evaluation might do their damnedest to marginalize that evaluation. A derivative use of "Fake News".
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Jan 2022 @ 12:57am
Re: Re: Re: If Josh Hawley had been in charge of the Jan 6 putsc
"I more had in mind what Josh Hawley might do for himself, in 2024"
It will take Il Duce Arancione being literally dead for him not to run, I think.
No, I believe Hawley will kneel and bob before Trump until Dear Leader finally ceases being politically relevant. At that point, not before, is when he'll wipe his lips, stand up, and loudly deliver the narrative that as a lifelong proudly independent statesman he's the best candidate to run the nation.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 17 Jan 2022 @ 12:51am
Re: Re: Re: would love to see
"only real diff, I see is Who gets the money, and HOW they wish to regulate the corps. BOTH think the corps are the answer. IT ISNT."
THAT is the only difference you see?
I beg to differ. I don't know if americans have actually started to normalize the shit-show which is the GOP by now but when one of the parties hit every last one of Umberto Eco's 14 defining characteristics of fascism then that is most decidedly not a party playing in the same ring as ordinary politics;
1: "The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
2: "The Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
3: "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
4: "Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
5: "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
6: "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
7: "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also antisemitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
8: Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
9: "Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
10: "Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
11: "Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
12: "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality."
13: "Selective Populism" – The People, conceived monolithically, have a Common Will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the Leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the Voice of the People."
14: "Newspeak" – Fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
Many political parties and politicians hit a few of these. Some openly fascist parties don't hit all of these. The GOP? Ten-rings every last one. And in doing so may be the first truly major political western body after the nazis to do so.
There is no both sides debate here. No more so than you can put the drug-dealing murderous thug on the same page as the misbehaving child just because both break the rules.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 14 Jan 2022 @ 5:28am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...as time passes, all the pirate services will be destroyed..."
<looks at The Pirate Bay>
Seems to me the only thing destroying pirate "services", ever, is the emergence of newer and more effective pirate "services". But you do you, tp, and keep imagining that somehow your wishful thinking will make human nature change.
"...and all their millions of customers will need to move to legal services instead."
The irony of that statement is that we already have evidence that it's the reverse of that causal relationship which applies. Once legal services such as streaming came online piracy started dropping. Then when Streaming began splitting access and became inconvenient again, piracy surged.
Once again your wishful thinking will not alter established reality.
"...And once that keeps happening, all the legal services like meshpage.org will benefit from the flood of old customers of piracy services."
Not happening. Primarily because your meshpage services aren't outcompeted by piracy but by fully legitimate open source alternatives, freeware, and various models supplied by legal businesses.
What makes your argument truly pathetic, tp - as in more incoherent than that of the average five year old who doesn't understand why he can't have a pony - isn't just your fanatical devotion to copyright maximalism of an order not even Nick Valenti was deranged enough to push.
It's that your business model hasn't failed because of piracy in the first place. It's failed because your offer can't survive the legal competition. And, I'd wager, because rather than work at fixing that you waste your time barking up the wrong tree.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 14 Jan 2022 @ 2:37am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"We can take the learnings out of what happened with the DMCA and the private technologies that were built from that like ContentID to build something fairer that takes into account all of the stakeholders."
We really can't. And the reason for that is because the fundamental issue with the DMCA is that in practical terms it reverses burden of proof. Take that away and the DMCA becomes a paper construct without enforcement ability.
This is where you should spot a significant problem - of "borrowing" a methodology which in principle turns law from "innocent until proven guilty" into "presumed guilt upon accusation".
No, the thing is that we can have either an open marketplace which operates without sellers and buyers having to put up with incredible cost of verifications - or we can begin choking the marketplace completely until only major actors with the legal muscle to defend themselves can exist.
And as is we've already tried everything else and are beginning to slide into the paradigm where small enterprise can't exist anymore because the burdens of legal threat become too large for anyone without a full legal department to shoulder.
This is how you kill an entire industry with Red Flag Acts.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 14 Jan 2022 @ 2:28am
Re: If Josh Hawley had been in charge of the Jan 6 putsch...
Hawley reminds me, to an uncanny degree, of Rudolph Hess. The "reasonable" voice of fascism combined with the unswerving efforts to make Dear Leader's dream reality.
I'm not sure Hawley even puts his pants on in the morning without wondering how he can combine that with giving Trump another reacharound.
On the post: US Court To Gruyere Cheese People: No, You Can't Ban People From Calling Their Cheese Gruyere If They Aren't Your Neighbors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh god, I'm going to (unintentionally) be a trol
"But, champagne identifies a region, or style of wine, and not a producer."
All true. What do you want me to tell you, that it doesn't really make sense? This...is marketing.
I offer an example of when on my first job I once visited one of the plant where they made our products. The supervisor asked me if I could see the two tanks in the yard to which led exactly one pipe, splitting off in two ends.
"You see the one on the right? That's product X. High performance, high quality, high price. The one on the right? Cheap shit, we only toss it in as an extra or for customers looking to serve quantity rather than quality".
"But.." Said I, "...both those tanks are filled from the same pipe...?"
"Wonders of branding, kid." he replied.
It's pretty much cookie-cutter template that branding is central. A generic medication may be identical to the same product made by Merck. But one package will cost ten times more. An office chair from a reputable manufacturer will cost much more than the same chair made by some no-name company.
People pay for the name. That's always been the case.
From one point of view I see it as the madness that it is.
From the other point of view I realize that yeah, but people also want to be able to make the choice of whom they give their money. And branding serves the market well in that regard by - in the case of the Champagne example, identifying *that particular bottle as coming from the district of Champagne.
Branding is driven by two main factors; Identification and Cultural snobbery insisting the first must be supplied.
Common sense doesn't come into this. People demanding something exclusive at which to accurately hurl greenbacks, does. Thus a market is served.
On the post: US Court To Gruyere Cheese People: No, You Can't Ban People From Calling Their Cheese Gruyere If They Aren't Your Neighbors
Re: Re: Re:
"Would you rather it be the way that only people in a region in Thailand or a city in the US could call it that way? Because that's what it's like in Europe…"
Oh I know it's that way in Europe. I wonder how much anti-EU sentiment was fed by the fact that people all over woke up one day and found their favorite foodstuffs had been rebranded as "apple drink resembling cider" or their breakfast sausage renamed as something completely different;
The US certainly does have branding in similar or even far more draconian manner. It's just that the brand name is rarely that of the local county. I invite here the comparison to a shoemaker making running shoes and trying to sell them as "Nike's". It will not end well.
On the post: US Court To Gruyere Cheese People: No, You Can't Ban People From Calling Their Cheese Gruyere If They Aren't Your Neighbors
Re:
Not a problem. Just...remember to offer a courtesy gift when they come calling. A few pounds of ilchester usually greases the wheels. Or palms as the case might be...
On the post: US Court To Gruyere Cheese People: No, You Can't Ban People From Calling Their Cheese Gruyere If They Aren't Your Neighbors
Re:
"Used to be when someone else was horning in on your schtick, you didn't really care. You made a better product & advertised that fact."
Well, yeah, but brand protection is as old as dirt. If you give your particular cheeze a weird name then you defend that one, because you don't want the shoddy asshat next door to sell his curdled milk under your name and giving you a bad rep over it.
I mean if you've put in the work to make your "Slickpoo fudge" a success in the candystores then the last thing you need is for some shitwit out of Mud Butte to sell his offers under the slickpoo label. Both of which, I have to add, are actual US city names. 😂
On the post: US Court To Gruyere Cheese People: No, You Can't Ban People From Calling Their Cheese Gruyere If They Aren't Your Neighbors
Re: Re: A bit late
"You enforce it, you're a troll. You don't, and you lose it. "
That's...not really how it works. There has to be a reasonable similarity between the products
If you sell the beer Podunk Yokel Dong and some other asswit decides to send a potable under that same name then you have a case to defend.
If the local adult store - the one next to "Four Seasons Total Landscaping" for instance - sells a product under the same name you probably neither have nor want a case to defend.
On the post: US Court To Gruyere Cheese People: No, You Can't Ban People From Calling Their Cheese Gruyere If They Aren't Your Neighbors
Re: Re: Re: Well...
I have many words for the EU but fluffy and light have never been part of them.
On the post: US Court To Gruyere Cheese People: No, You Can't Ban People From Calling Their Cheese Gruyere If They Aren't Your Neighbors
Re: Re: Oh god, I'm going to (unintentionally) be a troll....
"So what is the consumer protection interest in claiming that identical sparkling wine made from champagne grapes isn’t champagne?"
I don't know. What consumer interests are protected if I claim my nickname is "Bergman"?
Or if GM claims their newest Fiesta is a Toyota?
Brand is an identity thing. The thing to do if you want your local vintner to have a catchy name for their sparkling wine isn't to nick the name of another, identical product, but to use their own.
On the post: US Court To Gruyere Cheese People: No, You Can't Ban People From Calling Their Cheese Gruyere If They Aren't Your Neighbors
Re: Re: One way to find out...
Don't dither like a big girl's blouse...just go the distance and call it something like; Champagne Gruyere Sonic Monster Mario Cheeze drink...
On the post: US Court To Gruyere Cheese People: No, You Can't Ban People From Calling Their Cheese Gruyere If They Aren't Your Neighbors
Re:
"Not that I would want to restrict Belgian ale to beers brewed in Belgium."
Looking at how Belgians brew ale the word "restrictions" wasn't the first word which came to my mind.
I think belgians have their own version of rule 34. I don't know for sure that there's a belgian ale brewed in a geyser on iceland using liquorice, dragonfruit seeds and swedish surströmming...but I'll bet good money that in writing this some Belgian brewer, compelled by instincts s/he couldn't name, is already packing their kettle for a long trip...
On the post: US Court To Gruyere Cheese People: No, You Can't Ban People From Calling Their Cheese Gruyere If They Aren't Your Neighbors
Re: Re:
"...wine made from the same variety of grapes, produced with identical recipes, every ingredient identical, from grapes grown in a place with identical climate and soil chemistry?"
No more than the difference between a person born in sowetoland, South Africa and, say, you. Why have two different names for what is essentially the exact same product?
The real thing where trademark makes sense is that it's essentially an identifier. A wine which wasn't made in the district of Champagne, France...isn't made in Champagne, France. Selling it as if it was means falsely placing a label on a bottle which implies centuries of traditional vintners stand as guarantee for the product.
"And what word would you use to distinguish that wine from other types of sparkling wine?"
Whatever name you see fit to associate with wine produced from that region?
Honestly I wish more people did exactly that - can't wait to browse shelves to spring Strumpfhosen Schnaps or a stiff glass of Podunk on unsuspecting guests...
On the post: US Court To Gruyere Cheese People: No, You Can't Ban People From Calling Their Cheese Gruyere If They Aren't Your Neighbors
Re:
"...every time some idiot goes, "well, actually, what you're drinking isn't champagne, it's sparking wine,"..."
It was always like that though - brand protection just wasn't as global in those old days when we first learned words.
That said, sure, I grok why the residents of Champagne, Cognac, Cologne, etc would want to make sure variants of their regional specialty manufactured elsewhere isn't just riding their coattails.
On the post: [UPDATE] Elizabeth Warren Is NOT Cosponsoring A Bill To Repeal 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Yes, this is more familiar. "
You making an obviously false claim and people flocking to correct your broken logic? Yeah, I guess that must feel pretty familiar by now.
"Techdirt posers trying their (pitiful) best to define words in a new way..."
As in "Sane people refusing to let you redefine old words in new ways that fit your narrative" you mean?
"...with arguments like "well other people said it too" and "that word doesn't mean what you think it means"."
Because an outfit acting like the dictionary-definition of a patent troll and the dictionary itself must be cast into doubt at your sole assertion. I think we'll want a bit more context and logic around why you think observable evidence and the dictionary are incorrect before taking your word for it, Baghdad Bob.
"Congratulations. The old Techdirt reappears."
The one where gormless fuckwits like you don't get a single chance to assert blithering nonsense without someone calling that bullshit? Yeah, it never went away.
But thanks for playing.
On the post: Monster Energy Buys A Brewery; Trademark Lawsuits Are Almost Sure To Follow
Re: Liquor?
"Reasonable in relation to general brand crap complaints."
I'm afraid "Monster" left the domain of "reasonable" a long time ago. Trademark, to me, is the one rational part of Intellectual Property I can respect but there are some people, like Nintendo and Monster, who partake in the sport of firing lawyers more or less at random.
On the post: Josh Hawley Was The Democrats' Partner In Trying To Regulate Big Tech; Then The Public Realized He Was A Fascist
Re:
"As a reminder, those who use “spew” about the exercise of speech indicate that their argument is partisan rather than principled."
You were doing so well until the point where you decided to make a personal judgment and claim it was objective.
No, someone using a pejorative only means that person chose to use a pejorative. Some terms are politically loaded, to be sure, but those are fairly limited and recognizable.
"Fake News" for instance is a term which in a land of tort and lawyers essentially replaces "If I take a complaint over this to court they'll all find out the implication I object to is true enough to bother me really bad so I'll just try to dismiss the implication with a one-liner and run". See also Goebbel's Lügenpresse for the normal use of this term.
Multiculturalism is a dogwhistle word usually deployed heavily by bigots when they don't want to make with the ethnic slurs out loud. Another way of saying it's inherently dangerous for white people to be too closely associated with people from Asia, Africa or the Middle East.
And so on. I don't see how someone saying "idiots spewing nonsense" is a partisan statement. But I do see how the targets of that evaluation might do their damnedest to marginalize that evaluation. A derivative use of "Fake News".
On the post: Josh Hawley Was The Democrats' Partner In Trying To Regulate Big Tech; Then The Public Realized He Was A Fascist
Re: Re: Re: If Josh Hawley had been in charge of the Jan 6 putsc
"I more had in mind what Josh Hawley might do for himself, in 2024"
It will take Il Duce Arancione being literally dead for him not to run, I think.
No, I believe Hawley will kneel and bob before Trump until Dear Leader finally ceases being politically relevant. At that point, not before, is when he'll wipe his lips, stand up, and loudly deliver the narrative that as a lifelong proudly independent statesman he's the best candidate to run the nation.
On the post: Josh Hawley Was The Democrats' Partner In Trying To Regulate Big Tech; Then The Public Realized He Was A Fascist
Re: Re: Re: would love to see
"only real diff, I see is Who gets the money, and HOW they wish to regulate the corps. BOTH think the corps are the answer. IT ISNT."
THAT is the only difference you see?
I beg to differ. I don't know if americans have actually started to normalize the shit-show which is the GOP by now but when one of the parties hit every last one of Umberto Eco's 14 defining characteristics of fascism then that is most decidedly not a party playing in the same ring as ordinary politics;
Many political parties and politicians hit a few of these. Some openly fascist parties don't hit all of these. The GOP? Ten-rings every last one. And in doing so may be the first truly major political western body after the nazis to do so.
There is no both sides debate here. No more so than you can put the drug-dealing murderous thug on the same page as the misbehaving child just because both break the rules.
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...as time passes, all the pirate services will be destroyed..."
<looks at The Pirate Bay>
Seems to me the only thing destroying pirate "services", ever, is the emergence of newer and more effective pirate "services". But you do you, tp, and keep imagining that somehow your wishful thinking will make human nature change.
"...and all their millions of customers will need to move to legal services instead."
The irony of that statement is that we already have evidence that it's the reverse of that causal relationship which applies. Once legal services such as streaming came online piracy started dropping. Then when Streaming began splitting access and became inconvenient again, piracy surged.
Once again your wishful thinking will not alter established reality.
"...And once that keeps happening, all the legal services like meshpage.org will benefit from the flood of old customers of piracy services."
Not happening. Primarily because your meshpage services aren't outcompeted by piracy but by fully legitimate open source alternatives, freeware, and various models supplied by legal businesses.
What makes your argument truly pathetic, tp - as in more incoherent than that of the average five year old who doesn't understand why he can't have a pony - isn't just your fanatical devotion to copyright maximalism of an order not even Nick Valenti was deranged enough to push.
It's that your business model hasn't failed because of piracy in the first place. It's failed because your offer can't survive the legal competition. And, I'd wager, because rather than work at fixing that you waste your time barking up the wrong tree.
On the post: How To Destroy Innovation And Competition: Putting SHOP SAFE Act Into Innovation And Competition Act
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Addendum]
How the heck did I manage to drop the reply to the wrong comment?
Sorry, PaulIT, meant to drop this to one tier above.
On the post: How To Destroy Innovation And Competition: Putting SHOP SAFE Act Into Innovation And Competition Act
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"We can take the learnings out of what happened with the DMCA and the private technologies that were built from that like ContentID to build something fairer that takes into account all of the stakeholders."
We really can't. And the reason for that is because the fundamental issue with the DMCA is that in practical terms it reverses burden of proof. Take that away and the DMCA becomes a paper construct without enforcement ability.
This is where you should spot a significant problem - of "borrowing" a methodology which in principle turns law from "innocent until proven guilty" into "presumed guilt upon accusation".
No, the thing is that we can have either an open marketplace which operates without sellers and buyers having to put up with incredible cost of verifications - or we can begin choking the marketplace completely until only major actors with the legal muscle to defend themselves can exist.
And as is we've already tried everything else and are beginning to slide into the paradigm where small enterprise can't exist anymore because the burdens of legal threat become too large for anyone without a full legal department to shoulder.
This is how you kill an entire industry with Red Flag Acts.
On the post: Josh Hawley Was The Democrats' Partner In Trying To Regulate Big Tech; Then The Public Realized He Was A Fascist
Re: If Josh Hawley had been in charge of the Jan 6 putsch...
Hawley reminds me, to an uncanny degree, of Rudolph Hess. The "reasonable" voice of fascism combined with the unswerving efforts to make Dear Leader's dream reality.
I'm not sure Hawley even puts his pants on in the morning without wondering how he can combine that with giving Trump another reacharound.
Next >>