If there's some article on Copyhype that you disagree with, that's a different matter all together. I don't see the relevance. It seems more like you're just trying to start something with me. I'm not interested.
Your argument isn't making much sense to me. The Stanford article is misleading because some of the arguments are mooted by latest version of SOPA. The problem is that people like the MythBusters might read it, think it's accurate, and then use it as the basis for their arguments. Here's the article: http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/dont-break-internet
Can you respond to the substance of what I'm saying?
Personally, I don't know what else you would call legal analysis that comes to the conclusion that parts of the bill are unconstitutional even though those parts are no longer in the bill. I understand that the print version might not be editable, but posting that analysis online AFTER the changes to the bill have been made is disingenuous. I can only assume the intent is to mislead.
LMAO! God, you're slimy. Obviously you were trying to put me down because of the school I attend. That just makes you look sad, Mike. I'm proud of the school I attend. And everyone can see what a desperate sack of shit you are for even going there.
And he argues about parts of the bill that aren't even in the bill anymore, and he points to the Lemley/Levine/Post article (ahem, hit piece) that does the same thing. Apparently he's unaware that the bill's been changed? I dunno. He should bust the myth of what the actual text of the bill says.
Oh, and Mike, I'll add this. You said: "As long as they followed the safe harbor provisions, the fact that users upload shouldn't have an impact." The facts are that they pleaded guilty to conspiracy, and some of the co-conspirators were the ones uploading the videos to NinjaVideo. So there is no safe harbor.
But you probably knew that, right? I mean, you wouldn't lie and manipulate would you? No, not Mike. He's such a stand up guy. LMAO! What a joke. You couldn't be honest if your life depended on it.
Snore. Cops shoot people when it's warranted, and they put people in jail when it's warranted. That's what they do. That's the means, not the end. If a cop won't shoot people or arrest them, then that cop is probably not good at his job. It seems obvious to me that the cop is saying he wants to put people in jail (the means) so that he can serve the public good (the ends). Just because he didn't explicitly spell that out is no reason to jump to the ridiculous conclusion (as you have) that this person shouldn't even be a cop. God, you're insufferably boring with this stuff.
Why in the world would you jump to the faith-based assumption that this cop only wants to put people in jail as an end unto itself and that this cop can't possibly view his job as being a means to an end? There is no reason to think that. People that hate authority and hate the government--people exactly like you and all of your pirate friends that you spend day in and day out defending--tend to jump to these sorts of ridiculous conclusions, unfortunately. I can't help you there...
As far as the copyright thing goes, I understand the ends-means distinction that you are arguing. I think the better view is that it's a quid pro quo. I can find Supreme Court language and law review articles that support this point of view. What's the point? We see it differently. Big deal.
Mike, you need to pay attention. This is 19 of the clearly, obviously bad sites. That isn't to say that it is an exhaustive list, just an indication of sites that are out there.
Right. There are obviously more than 19 sites, so it is an outright manipulative lie for Mike to say they "can't even find 20." What else would you expect from Techdirt?
It's evidence. While perhaps not by itself dispositive, it's certainly probative and material--it tends to make the fact that Mike is a piracy apologist more probable than it would be without this evidence. It's certainly enough to hand the question over to the jury. I mean, what would a piracy apologist say about this situation that Mike didn't say already? There's not much left. Mike is thorough in his apologies.
Besides being blatant piracy apologism, this article is intellectually dishonest: you have no proof the leak wasn't harmful in at least some way.
Welcome to Techdirt! All bias now served with a side of prejudice--FREE!
You nailed it, though. The assumption is that piracy can only help. Never mind the fact that this defendant consciously and deliberately chose to criminally violate other people's rights. Apparently it's supposed to be OK for people to deliberately take criminal actions so long as some nontrivial argument exists that the criminal was in fact helping the victim. Techdirt Logic 101.
Tell me this. Would you agree that this post of Mike's is an example of piracy apology? Mike pretends like he can't understand how anyone could possibly think he's a piracy apologist. I think posts like this make it perfectly clear that he is. Let me know if you agree, and if you don't, I'd love to hear why. Thanks.
On the post: MythBuster's Adam Savage: Why PROTECT IP & SOPA Could Destroy The Internet As We Know It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: MythBuster's Adam Savage: Why PROTECT IP & SOPA Could Destroy The Internet As We Know It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you respond to the substance of what I'm saying?
On the post: MythBuster's Adam Savage: Why PROTECT IP & SOPA Could Destroy The Internet As We Know It
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Admits That It Just Wants To 'Put People In Jail' With Operation In Our Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Admits That It Just Wants To 'Put People In Jail' With Operation In Our Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Admits That It Just Wants To 'Put People In Jail' With Operation In Our Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And what law school did you go to? Blogger University School of Law? Your cutting-edge and in-depth legal analysis says it all: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/04045017044/should-online-newspapers-comments-be-protected -journalism-shield-laws.shtml#c193
LMAO @ you and your idiotic "legal analysis," Mike.
On the post: MythBuster's Adam Savage: Why PROTECT IP & SOPA Could Destroy The Internet As We Know It
Re:
And he argues about parts of the bill that aren't even in the bill anymore, and he points to the Lemley/Levine/Post article (ahem, hit piece) that does the same thing. Apparently he's unaware that the bill's been changed? I dunno. He should bust the myth of what the actual text of the bill says.
On the post: ICE Admits That It Just Wants To 'Put People In Jail' With Operation In Our Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, you misunderstand. Pointing out what an incredible tool Mike Masnick is is fun for me.
On the post: ICE Admits That It Just Wants To 'Put People In Jail' With Operation In Our Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you probably knew that, right? I mean, you wouldn't lie and manipulate would you? No, not Mike. He's such a stand up guy. LMAO! What a joke. You couldn't be honest if your life depended on it.
On the post: ICE Admits That It Just Wants To 'Put People In Jail' With Operation In Our Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Admits That It Just Wants To 'Put People In Jail' With Operation In Our Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why in the world would you jump to the faith-based assumption that this cop only wants to put people in jail as an end unto itself and that this cop can't possibly view his job as being a means to an end? There is no reason to think that. People that hate authority and hate the government--people exactly like you and all of your pirate friends that you spend day in and day out defending--tend to jump to these sorts of ridiculous conclusions, unfortunately. I can't help you there...
As far as the copyright thing goes, I understand the ends-means distinction that you are arguing. I think the better view is that it's a quid pro quo. I can find Supreme Court language and law review articles that support this point of view. What's the point? We see it differently. Big deal.
On the post: ICE Admits That It Just Wants To 'Put People In Jail' With Operation In Our Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Admits That It Just Wants To 'Put People In Jail' With Operation In Our Sites
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ha! You're so desperate to "get" me that you've resorted to this kind of attack. Classic awesomeness, Mike. Classic. Thanks for the giggles.
On the post: USTR Puts Out Its 'Rogue Sites' List... Can't Even Find 20
Re:
Right. There are obviously more than 19 sites, so it is an outright manipulative lie for Mike to say they "can't even find 20." What else would you expect from Techdirt?
On the post: ICE Admits That It Just Wants To 'Put People In Jail' With Operation In Our Sites
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. A cop who doesn't want to put the criminals in jail is probably not a good cop. That's what cops do.
This is just more pirate apology from Capt. Mike of the U.S.S. Techdirt. Yarrrr!
On the post: Guy Who Uploaded Early Version Of Wolverine, Which Appears Not To Have Hurt Movie At All, Gets 1 Year In Jail
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's evidence. While perhaps not by itself dispositive, it's certainly probative and material--it tends to make the fact that Mike is a piracy apologist more probable than it would be without this evidence. It's certainly enough to hand the question over to the jury. I mean, what would a piracy apologist say about this situation that Mike didn't say already? There's not much left. Mike is thorough in his apologies.
On the post: Guy Who Uploaded Early Version Of Wolverine, Which Appears Not To Have Hurt Movie At All, Gets 1 Year In Jail
Re:
Welcome to Techdirt! All bias now served with a side of prejudice--FREE!
You nailed it, though. The assumption is that piracy can only help. Never mind the fact that this defendant consciously and deliberately chose to criminally violate other people's rights. Apparently it's supposed to be OK for people to deliberately take criminal actions so long as some nontrivial argument exists that the criminal was in fact helping the victim. Techdirt Logic 101.
On the post: Guy Who Uploaded Early Version Of Wolverine, Which Appears Not To Have Hurt Movie At All, Gets 1 Year In Jail
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Guy Who Uploaded Early Version Of Wolverine, Which Appears Not To Have Hurt Movie At All, Gets 1 Year In Jail
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Guy Who Uploaded Early Version Of Wolverine, Which Appears Not To Have Hurt Movie At All, Gets 1 Year In Jail
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>