I use Mog.com, so I spend at least $10/month on music. Yet, I am still against this bill.
So, Fat blue throwing star AC, any other theories on why I wouldn't like the US government (my government) to be able to indiscriminately censor the internet for media companies?
Clearly, I am no lawyer (or law student, etc) so I am a bit confused.
If they have probable cause, why can't they get a warrant? I have no beef with the police GPSing a car, as long as it is not solely based on the judgement of the police officer and there is probable cause.
You know, Blue-fifties-era-diner-dingy-floor-tiles AC, I was worried that this would happen. I said to myself, "Joe, this sarcasm might be too subtle for the casual reader, maybe you should make it more obvious." but then I thought to myself, "No, I started with a statement saying that prostitution has only been around since circa 1995, no one would miss the sarcasm there!"
Exactly! Illegal prostitution is a fairly recent problem, dating back only to circa 1995, when online classifieds began to appear on the scene. It is only logical to assume, then, that if we shut down the adult sections on these sites, we would be cutting off the life lines of illegal prostitution and it would no longer be a problem.
My only fear is that there are slightly more intelligent pimps out there posting coded messages in other sections. How do I know that the futon
This solid piece of craftsmanship is 18 years old, but can take a beating. Not much to look at, but can take on three at once comfortably. $25 OBO
I'm thinking of buying isn't *really* advertising prostitution?? That's why I'm definitely on board with shutting down sites like these all together. It's good for the newspapers, too!
Maybe Lady Gaga could write a song about it. Otherwise, we'd need a school system that teaches people to think instead of regurgitate facts on standardized tests. (aka, it's too late)
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"-- Mario Savio's Sproul Hall speech December 3, 1964.
It's odd: I thought when you pointed out that when I called you names it served no purpose (and I even apologized) it meant that you were going to hold yourself to the same standards. The gloves are off then?
You really can't think of one single example of a copyrighted work that promoted the progress?
I read Mike's post and didn't see where he said that. I believe it states: I have yet to see evidence of where copyright "promotes the progress." I, too, see no evidence that copyright law, in general, promotes the progress. I see example after example of how it is used to silence free speech, eliminate competition and siphon funds from actual R&D into a legal department to defend against lawsuits in East Texas. Furthermore, the few markets in the world that still have reasonable IP laws show booming innovation as opposed to the stagnant markets in countries with harsher IP laws. I can only speak for myself, but this "morally bankrupt follower" (which hurts, from a future IP lawyer!) understands what Mike is saying.
The Founding Fathers added the Copyright Clause to the Constitution because they saw how it promotes the progress.
They also added rules for slavery. Times change.
You offered no evidence to back up your assertion that they aren't.
The temporary monopoly on so-called intellectual property is an *exemption* to the public domain. The public domain is the right, and as a trade off, the idea of the temporary monopoly was devised.
You don't want them to have the rights in the first place.
I never once have seen Mike say this. To suggest it would be intellectually dishonest. There is a difference between saying it would be unwise to do something, versus saying you shouldn't be able to do something. To elaborate: Mike has never said copyright holders shouldn't be allow to sue 80 year old grandmothers, he has only suggested that doing so may not make sense economically.
What kind of an idiot wants to do away with laws that protect his own business models?
The type of idiot that understand economics, apparently. As has been said on Techdirt before, merely copying an innovator only catches you up to where they were, not where they are. Furthermore, if a competitor copying your business model is all that it takes to break your business model, then your business model was broken to begin with.
You are the most intellectually idiotic person I've ever seen. I have zero respect for you. You have zero credibility. I know people know your views are fringe, but I bet they don't know just how fringe they are. I can't even believe it myself. OMG, Mike, you take the cake. King of the idiots.
I fail to see why you're here. If you are here to debate, you are failing. No one wants to debate with someone who acts like a spoiled child. (someone spared the rod!)
If you are here to educate, you are failing. You come off as condescending and arrogant-- no one will learn anything from you.
If you are here because you want to troll, you can leave, we are on to you.
If you are here because you are paid to be here, well, actually, that makes sense. Carry on.
Don't get me started on how I feel about lawyers who see the legal system being misused and, instead of attempting to rectify the situation, cream their slacks at the thought of all the money they could make.
The exclusive right to copy is supposed to be an incentive to spur creators to create. A transferred copyright does not spur the person or company to whom it has been transferred to create, as he has never created, and may not even be capable. Also, a temporary monopoly is clearly not what motivated the creator, as he was willing to give it up.
Since a transferred copyright is not performing the task it was designed to perform, it makes no sense to protect it, least of all at the detriment of Free Speech.
I think the aspect you are missing is that copyright law requires a trial before the potentially infringing content is suppressed. With the DMCA, it only requires an allegation and further, it encourages the ISP to take down the content as quickly as possible to avoid liability.
The takedown policy of the DMCA has never made any sense, unless you are Big Media or an aspiring dictator.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not knowing what is on your laptop ? really, that is a worry.
According to the Supreme Court, border searches aren't unreasonable.
Yet, the very topic of this post is that some citizens of this country disagree. I am one of them. Too many of my fellow Americans would gladly trade their freedoms for perceived safety without a thought to the consequences of said actions.
Every bad guy that gets caught is a victory for our safety, IMO. I think every little bit helps.
So, perhaps we should allow the government to search our homes without probable cause or a warrant? Surely that would catch quite a few criminals, right? Every little bit helps, after all!
I want you to know that I say the following, not to insult or bait you, but simply because it is my honest opinion:
People like you are 100% what is wrong with this country. Not only because of your views on this subject, but also all the other views you have expressed here on techdirt. I don't think you're a bad person, you're just a horrible American. You blindly accept the rules because they are the rules. You would rather be coddled like a child with no privacy from the government to be "safe". You, when presented with a system that harms just as many innocent as it does guilty, and think to yourself, "Maybe I should get in on that" instead of "I should try to fix this clearly broken system."
I am calling this thread dead (It is nearly unreadable in threaded view!) but something tells me we'll have another chance to discuss similar topics soon.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not knowing what is on your laptop ? really, that is a worry.
The simple fact that to re-enter my country I have to allow some random government worker to view my private files without suspicion or court warrant is nefarious! This is made even worse by the fact that such a search does not actually make anyone in the country safer!
I would rather hold on to my privacy and run the risk that some terrorist is sneaking in evil plans on a laptop instead of the (literally) thousands of faster, more secure, more convenient, cheaper and more effective ways to do so.
On the post: How Many Logical Fallacies Can You Make In A Single Column Defending A Paywall?
Q & A
On the post: COICA Censorship Bill Shelved... For Now
Re:
So, Fat blue throwing star AC, any other theories on why I wouldn't like the US government (my government) to be able to indiscriminately censor the internet for media companies?
On the post: COICA Censorship Bill Shelved... For Now
Re:
On the post: Justice Department Insists It Should Be Able To Secretly Stick GPS Devices On Cars Without Warrants
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they have probable cause, why can't they get a warrant? I have no beef with the police GPSing a car, as long as it is not solely based on the judgement of the police officer and there is probable cause.
On the post: Backpage Tells Attorneys General That They Won't Give In To Censorship Demand
Re: Dumb people...
On the post: Backpage Tells Attorneys General That They Won't Give In To Censorship Demand
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, here we are. This is awkward.
On the post: Backpage Tells Attorneys General That They Won't Give In To Censorship Demand
Re: Re:
My only fear is that there are slightly more intelligent pimps out there posting coded messages in other sections. How do I know that the futon I'm thinking of buying isn't *really* advertising prostitution?? That's why I'm definitely on board with shutting down sites like these all together. It's good for the newspapers, too!
On the post: Backpage Tells Attorneys General That They Won't Give In To Censorship Demand
Re: But how...
On the post: European Parliament Approves Gallo Report: Opens The Door To More Bad IP Laws & Enforcement
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Fox News Sues Senate Candidate For Using Clip In Commercial
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You really can't think of one single example of a copyrighted work that promoted the progress?
I read Mike's post and didn't see where he said that. I believe it states: I have yet to see evidence of where copyright "promotes the progress." I, too, see no evidence that copyright law, in general, promotes the progress. I see example after example of how it is used to silence free speech, eliminate competition and siphon funds from actual R&D into a legal department to defend against lawsuits in East Texas. Furthermore, the few markets in the world that still have reasonable IP laws show booming innovation as opposed to the stagnant markets in countries with harsher IP laws. I can only speak for myself, but this "morally bankrupt follower" (which hurts, from a future IP lawyer!) understands what Mike is saying.
The Founding Fathers added the Copyright Clause to the Constitution because they saw how it promotes the progress.
They also added rules for slavery. Times change.
You offered no evidence to back up your assertion that they aren't.
The temporary monopoly on so-called intellectual property is an *exemption* to the public domain. The public domain is the right, and as a trade off, the idea of the temporary monopoly was devised.
You don't want them to have the rights in the first place.
I never once have seen Mike say this. To suggest it would be intellectually dishonest. There is a difference between saying it would be unwise to do something, versus saying you shouldn't be able to do something. To elaborate: Mike has never said copyright holders shouldn't be allow to sue 80 year old grandmothers, he has only suggested that doing so may not make sense economically.
What kind of an idiot wants to do away with laws that protect his own business models?
The type of idiot that understand economics, apparently. As has been said on Techdirt before, merely copying an innovator only catches you up to where they were, not where they are. Furthermore, if a competitor copying your business model is all that it takes to break your business model, then your business model was broken to begin with.
You are the most intellectually idiotic person I've ever seen. I have zero respect for you. You have zero credibility. I know people know your views are fringe, but I bet they don't know just how fringe they are. I can't even believe it myself. OMG, Mike, you take the cake. King of the idiots.
I fail to see why you're here. If you are here to debate, you are failing. No one wants to debate with someone who acts like a spoiled child. (someone spared the rod!)
If you are here to educate, you are failing. You come off as condescending and arrogant-- no one will learn anything from you.
If you are here because you want to troll, you can leave, we are on to you.
If you are here because you are paid to be here, well, actually, that makes sense. Carry on.
On the post: Intel Threatens To Use The DMCA Against Anyone Who Uses The HDCP Crack
Of course.
On the post: Fox News Sues Senate Candidate For Using Clip In Commercial
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Fox News Sues Senate Candidate For Using Clip In Commercial
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since a transferred copyright is not performing the task it was designed to perform, it makes no sense to protect it, least of all at the detriment of Free Speech.
On the post: Fox News Sues Senate Candidate For Using Clip In Commercial
Re:
The takedown policy of the DMCA has never made any sense, unless you are Big Media or an aspiring dictator.
On the post: Fox News Sues Senate Candidate For Using Clip In Commercial
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Filmmaker Insists That Only People Whose Livelihood Depends On Copyright Really Understand It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Is Righthaven Demanding The Domain Names Of Sites It Sues?
Re: Re: Righthaven - Domain Name Transfer Demand
On the post: ACLU Suing Homeland Security Over Laptop Searches... Even Though Other Cases Have All Failed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not knowing what is on your laptop ? really, that is a worry.
Yet, the very topic of this post is that some citizens of this country disagree. I am one of them. Too many of my fellow Americans would gladly trade their freedoms for perceived safety without a thought to the consequences of said actions.
Every bad guy that gets caught is a victory for our safety, IMO. I think every little bit helps.
So, perhaps we should allow the government to search our homes without probable cause or a warrant? Surely that would catch quite a few criminals, right? Every little bit helps, after all!
I want you to know that I say the following, not to insult or bait you, but simply because it is my honest opinion:
People like you are 100% what is wrong with this country. Not only because of your views on this subject, but also all the other views you have expressed here on techdirt. I don't think you're a bad person, you're just a horrible American. You blindly accept the rules because they are the rules. You would rather be coddled like a child with no privacy from the government to be "safe". You, when presented with a system that harms just as many innocent as it does guilty, and think to yourself, "Maybe I should get in on that" instead of "I should try to fix this clearly broken system."
I am calling this thread dead (It is nearly unreadable in threaded view!) but something tells me we'll have another chance to discuss similar topics soon.
On the post: ACLU Suing Homeland Security Over Laptop Searches... Even Though Other Cases Have All Failed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not knowing what is on your laptop ? really, that is a worry.
I would rather hold on to my privacy and run the risk that some terrorist is sneaking in evil plans on a laptop instead of the (literally) thousands of faster, more secure, more convenient, cheaper and more effective ways to do so.
On the post: ACLU Suing Homeland Security Over Laptop Searches... Even Though Other Cases Have All Failed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not "law", it's tyranny.
2. Their right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Next >>