They just send your debt to a collection agency and call it a a day.
In my state, unpaid municipal bills (water bills, fees incurred if the city has to mow your property, etc.) are added to the property taxes. If the property taxes go unpaid then that results in a lien on the property and then eventually foreclosure.
The only time law enforcement is involved is when the property is actually foreclosed on and the occupants have to be physically removed from the property. By that time the property owner has already had ample opportunities to resolve the issue.
Drugs are a very serious problem in the US, much more so than terrorism. Why not treat it as a more serious problem?
I agree. Shift the majority of the money wasted on this "War on Drugs" into actually getting and keeping people off of drugs. Throwing drug abusers into jail isn't working. Punishment as a deterrent against drug use has failed miserably.
Nope. Nice way to start a comment with an ad hom, though.
Read his responses again. He got caught lying.
I have read through this thread. Like I stated above, I don't believe anything has been proven. You have compared a boilerplate TOS with a contract you are not party to and claim they are the same. That only makes you look foolish to me.
Stop wasting your life defending this douchebag simply because he defends your addiction to stealing content.
Too funny. Once again, anyone who disagrees with you is a slimy pirate whose opinions are to be disregarded. That's the debate playbook of someone arguing from very weak position, you know. I'm guessing when you debate in real life you also think you win if you yell the loudest too.
For record, I don't pirate content because I believe that creators should be compensated, but I also don't think that current copyright laws are benefiting society as they should and in some cases are eroding the inalienable rights I hold dearly. Those are not mutually exclusive philosophies.
If you are even slightly interested as to why I comment on Techdirt, I have stated it here for all to read:
You really can't admit when you've been caught lying. Says everything.
But nothing has been proven with this silly line of questioning.
Only a moron would compare Google's AdSense boilerplate TOS, which is mainly for low traffic, soccer Mom blogs, with an advertising contract for a site that consistently gets over a million pageviews a month.
This entire Public Service Thread has been brought to you through a generous donation from the Preservation of Epigrams, Dictums & Adages Notably Thought to be Incorrect in Culture Symposium (PEDANTICS), a 501(c)(3) organization.
Not wanting to put the horse before the tipped apple cart, I'd have to say that one good turn of phrase deserves another, so you don't end up a tree without a paddle.
In the meantime, I need to say good-bye to this very strange group of people.
Ummm, you are one the giving armchair psychiatric diagnoses to someone you've never met across the internet, yet we are the "strange" ones. OK, whatever.
There are now even more odd fellows taking me on as if I were attacking Abraham Lincoln or motherhood!
Nope, not taking you on, just correcting your ill-conceived misconceptions.
The problem is that you are all so myopic in your perception of things, you do not comprehend what you are reading.
You the one who thinks this entire article and all the comments are about the TV show, when in reality it's not at all and we are ones with reading comprehension problems? Okie dokey, Bill, got it.
I actually do have a real life and I will get back to it.
So do I, Bill, I have a wife, kids, grandkids, a house and a job. Not really sure what that has to do with anything though.
What is the obsession you guys have about correcting other people's views about this article? Like it or not, IT IS ABOUT THE TV SHOW! If it weren't for the TV show no one would be reading this article in the first place.
That is simply not true, Bill. Techdirt ran a couple of articles about a guy who makes the claim he invented email and that guy doesn't have a TV show.
As has been repeated, ad nauseam, in the article itself and in the comment sections - it's not about the show, it's about a real life person lying about their real life credentials and the achievements of a real life company.
I'm someone that thinks Masnick's lies and the notion that they are then promoted on Google is disgusting. These are horrible people you're defending. All because they back your piracy habits? Fix your life, dude.
Ahhh, I'm guessing you must be Lowery or one of his sycophants.
Still freaking out about the big, scary Google-man, I see. And still claiming that anyone who holds an opposing view to yours is nothing but a slimy pirate to boot.
At least Techdirt isn't so afraid of dissenting comments that they delete them and ban users like that silly Trichordist site does.
Oh, by the way, Karl has put up a blog to counter the bullshit spewed on the Trichordist since any dissenting argument isn't allowed over there:
I wonder if hidden comments aren't picked up by search engines.
Google's crawlers pick them up. I know this from personal experience when searching for something OOTB said and pretty much all of his comments got reported at the time.
Seriously, given the values many here purport to have, you should be ashamed at what you're doing to the dissenters. Stop making excuses. If you disagree with someone, address the merits of what they're saying. Use more words, don't hide words you don't like.
I actually agree with you on this point.
Personally, I rarely use the report button, except for obvious spam or extremely offensive, non-productive comments.
The notable exceptions to this personal rule have been for out-of-the-blue, who wasn't really here to engage in discussions, but to simply disrupt and for you, AJ, when all you could seem to post was stupid barnyard noises.
I just want his opinion, yes or no or whatever it may be, as to whether he thinks that authors should have any exclusive rights.
The thing is, it HAS been answered, just not in a concrete, pin-you-down and lock-you-into-a-label sort of way you want.
My personal answer is this:
If empirical evidence shows that exclusive rights for creators is the best system for the creator and society as a whole - the answer is yes.
If empirical evidence shows that exclusive rights for creators isn't the best system for the creator and society as a whole - the answer is no.
Now, you supply all the empirical evidence required and I will give you a yes or no answer.
As it stands now, from what I have gleaned, my answer is no. A couple of hundred years ago when the first copyright laws were written and when the length of copyright was sane and the Public Domain was being replenished regularly, my answer would have been yes.
I think it's just that he doesn't want to admit it. He's really worried about being labeled as anti-copyright or pro-piracy, for some weird reason.
This is where your disconnect happens AJ. You keep trying to pigeonhole Mike into narrow labels.
I also happen to believe that artists should be compensated for their work, but am not sure our current copyright system is the best way to do so. That doesn't make me "anti-copyright" nor "pro-piracy" whatsoever, it makes me "pro-artist" more than anything else.
If our current system isn't benefiting society as it should, then we should scrap it (including the exclusive rights you keep yapping about) and start over. Or we should revise the current system to make it better. That also is not "anti-copyright" nor "pro-piracy", it's "pro-societal benefits".
Can you point to a single post by Mike where he (1) said that he thinks authors should have any exclusive rights in their works in the first place, or (2) spoke positively about someone enforcing their exclusive rights?
What is with the loaded, one-sided questions, AJ? (BTW: When did you stop beating your wife?) Why would Mike answer either of those questions if he is not 100% sure that our current copyright scheme is the *best* way to do things? Your questions limit him to what we currently have and completely eliminate other solutions.
Mike has explained (to you specifically, even) that he feels that artists should be compensated based on his personal morals and also that he's not convinced that our current copyright laws are the *best* way to do that or the *best* way to benefit our society.
On the post: Wisconsin Town Sends In The BearCat Tank To Collect Civil Fine From Seventy-Year-Old
Re: Re:
In my state, unpaid municipal bills (water bills, fees incurred if the city has to mow your property, etc.) are added to the property taxes. If the property taxes go unpaid then that results in a lien on the property and then eventually foreclosure.
The only time law enforcement is involved is when the property is actually foreclosed on and the occupants have to be physically removed from the property. By that time the property owner has already had ample opportunities to resolve the issue.
On the post: FBI's Use Of 'Sneak And Peek' Warrants Still Steadily Increasing, Still Has Nearly Nothing To Do With Fighting Terrorism
Re:
I agree. Shift the majority of the money wasted on this "War on Drugs" into actually getting and keeping people off of drugs. Throwing drug abusers into jail isn't working. Punishment as a deterrent against drug use has failed miserably.
Britain is now realizing this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29824764
On the post: Stupid WiFi Hotspot Name Gets American Airlines Flight Grounded
Re:
Which would make it a "stupid wifi hotspot name" in my book.
Who is the idiot here again?
On the post: Cable Astroturfing Effort Comes Off Like When Your Dad Tries To Sound Like A Teenager
Re: Yet another red flag word
Yep, it's the exact the same way the dancers at the strip club look at the men in the audience.
On the post: This Post Is Not About GamerGate
Re: Should Have Included A Link
Me either. The only exposure I've had to this GamerGate thing is the bit of conversation that occurred in the Insiders Chat Box the other day.
Although, unlike you, I really don't care enough about it to waste my time trying to find out why I should care about it.
On the post: Google Continues To Try To Appease Hollywood, Though It Is Unlikely To Ever Be Enough
Re: Re: Re:
Nope. Nice way to start a comment with an ad hom, though.
Read his responses again. He got caught lying.
I have read through this thread. Like I stated above, I don't believe anything has been proven. You have compared a boilerplate TOS with a contract you are not party to and claim they are the same. That only makes you look foolish to me.
Stop wasting your life defending this douchebag simply because he defends your addiction to stealing content.
Too funny. Once again, anyone who disagrees with you is a slimy pirate whose opinions are to be disregarded. That's the debate playbook of someone arguing from very weak position, you know. I'm guessing when you debate in real life you also think you win if you yell the loudest too.
For record, I don't pirate content because I believe that creators should be compensated, but I also don't think that current copyright laws are benefiting society as they should and in some cases are eroding the inalienable rights I hold dearly. Those are not mutually exclusive philosophies.
If you are even slightly interested as to why I comment on Techdirt, I have stated it here for all to read:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110603/21143914551/gwizs-favorite-techdirt-posts-week.shtml
On the post: Google Continues To Try To Appease Hollywood, Though It Is Unlikely To Ever Be Enough
Re:
But nothing has been proven with this silly line of questioning.
Only a moron would compare Google's AdSense boilerplate TOS, which is mainly for low traffic, soccer Mom blogs, with an advertising contract for a site that consistently gets over a million pageviews a month.
On the post: New Blog Details The Unfortunate Experience Of Being On Homeland Security's Terrorist Watchlist
Re: His past activity may explain this
Maybe they are just trying to prevent the children from hearing Samuel L. swear at the minks.
On the post: Rep. Mike Rogers Now Claims Ed Snowden Should Be Charged With Murder, Because Someone Might Die
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How serendipitous
On the post: Rep. Mike Rogers Now Claims Ed Snowden Should Be Charged With Murder, Because Someone Might Die
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How serendipitous
Wait. Perhaps I am unclear on this whole concept.
On the post: Another Story Of A 'Fake' Brilliant Inventor? Is 'Scorpion Walter O'Brien' A Real Computer Security Genius?
Re: Re: Apologies
Ummm, you are one the giving armchair psychiatric diagnoses to someone you've never met across the internet, yet we are the "strange" ones. OK, whatever.
There are now even more odd fellows taking me on as if I were attacking Abraham Lincoln or motherhood!
Nope, not taking you on, just correcting your ill-conceived misconceptions.
The problem is that you are all so myopic in your perception of things, you do not comprehend what you are reading.
You the one who thinks this entire article and all the comments are about the TV show, when in reality it's not at all and we are ones with reading comprehension problems? Okie dokey, Bill, got it.
I actually do have a real life and I will get back to it.
So do I, Bill, I have a wife, kids, grandkids, a house and a job. Not really sure what that has to do with anything though.
It's been a hoot!
Not really, but have a nice life anyways. :)
On the post: Google Continues To Try To Appease Hollywood, Though It Is Unlikely To Ever Be Enough
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just in this thread, those are words you have used. Then you have the audacity to call someone else "sociopathic".
Hilarious. Simply hilarious.
On the post: Another Story Of A 'Fake' Brilliant Inventor? Is 'Scorpion Walter O'Brien' A Real Computer Security Genius?
Re: Re: Re: scorpion
That is simply not true, Bill. Techdirt ran a couple of articles about a guy who makes the claim he invented email and that guy doesn't have a TV show.
As has been repeated, ad nauseam, in the article itself and in the comment sections - it's not about the show, it's about a real life person lying about their real life credentials and the achievements of a real life company.
On the post: Google Continues To Try To Appease Hollywood, Though It Is Unlikely To Ever Be Enough
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ahhh, I'm guessing you must be Lowery or one of his sycophants.
Still freaking out about the big, scary Google-man, I see. And still claiming that anyone who holds an opposing view to yours is nothing but a slimy pirate to boot.
At least Techdirt isn't so afraid of dissenting comments that they delete them and ban users like that silly Trichordist site does.
Oh, by the way, Karl has put up a blog to counter the bullshit spewed on the Trichordist since any dissenting argument isn't allowed over there:
http://tritonester.wordpress.com/
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Google's crawlers pick them up. I know this from personal experience when searching for something OOTB said and pretty much all of his comments got reported at the time.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re:
I actually agree with you on this point.
Personally, I rarely use the report button, except for obvious spam or extremely offensive, non-productive comments.
The notable exceptions to this personal rule have been for out-of-the-blue, who wasn't really here to engage in discussions, but to simply disrupt and for you, AJ, when all you could seem to post was stupid barnyard noises.
On the post: California Highway Patrol Seizes Medical Records Of Woman An Officer Was Caught On Tape Beating
Re: Re: HI
lol. I noticed this weird thread a week ago or so myself.
This other article from 2000 keeps getting comments begging for money and loan offers all the time:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/000324/1149204.shtml
There's another article (I don't remember the url) that keeps getting comments from people who want to sell their own organs for money.
Apparently, there is a weird, dark, sub-culture that lives in the comment sections of old articles here at Techdirt.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The thing is, it HAS been answered, just not in a concrete, pin-you-down and lock-you-into-a-label sort of way you want.
My personal answer is this:
If empirical evidence shows that exclusive rights for creators is the best system for the creator and society as a whole - the answer is yes.
If empirical evidence shows that exclusive rights for creators isn't the best system for the creator and society as a whole - the answer is no.
Now, you supply all the empirical evidence required and I will give you a yes or no answer.
As it stands now, from what I have gleaned, my answer is no. A couple of hundred years ago when the first copyright laws were written and when the length of copyright was sane and the Public Domain was being replenished regularly, my answer would have been yes.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is where your disconnect happens AJ. You keep trying to pigeonhole Mike into narrow labels.
I also happen to believe that artists should be compensated for their work, but am not sure our current copyright system is the best way to do so. That doesn't make me "anti-copyright" nor "pro-piracy" whatsoever, it makes me "pro-artist" more than anything else.
If our current system isn't benefiting society as it should, then we should scrap it (including the exclusive rights you keep yapping about) and start over. Or we should revise the current system to make it better. That also is not "anti-copyright" nor "pro-piracy", it's "pro-societal benefits".
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: Re: Re:
What is with the loaded, one-sided questions, AJ? (BTW: When did you stop beating your wife?) Why would Mike answer either of those questions if he is not 100% sure that our current copyright scheme is the *best* way to do things? Your questions limit him to what we currently have and completely eliminate other solutions.
Mike has explained (to you specifically, even) that he feels that artists should be compensated based on his personal morals and also that he's not convinced that our current copyright laws are the *best* way to do that or the *best* way to benefit our society.
Next >>