No one has to defend piracy to understand it's inevitable.
Illiteracy, hunger, and homelessness are inevitable too. As are theft, embezzlement, and fraud. So what? That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about it.
There are times when the law shouldn't be obeyed. This isn't one of them. Infringing whatever you want under some guise of proper civil disobedience is idiotic. Infringers are no better than shoplifters. But, yeah. Keep defending your lawbreaker friends. God forbid you actually stand up for the victims.
I think you're painting me with a broad brush. I couldn't care less if you get the votes and get the laws taken off the books. Good for you if you believe in something and you can make it happen in the appropriate way, i.e., the democratic, legislative process. I'm not at all threatened by the thought of less or even no copyright. In fact, if I had my way copyright rights wouldn't be nearly as broad as they are today.
But until you do actually change the law, respect the law as it exists and stop violating other people's rights. Otherwise you're just another selfish sociopath.
Um, pretty much every nation on earth has laws protecting intellectual property. That's the "tide" you're swimming against. If you want to change the law, then by all means work to that end. Until then, just accept that yours is the minority view. I don't like lots of laws. But you won't see me whining about them and breaking them like I'm above it all. That's what sociopaths do.
I can't imagine why someone would think of you as a lying, disingenuous slimy sociopath, Masnick. It's not like you run a blog that willfully ignores all the negative aspects of piracy or something...
LOL! Exactly. There's no balance. No honesty. No objectivity.
You respect that but you have no problem disrespecting everyone here, assuming (falsely) that we infringe and calling us all sorts of insulting names? I think you've called me a "fucking idiot" more times than I can remember.
And when we have the gall to suggest to people ways in which they might be *better* off and make *more* money by using these things to their advantage, you claim that *we're* disrespectful?
Wow. Just wow.
Your punches just aren't landing, Mike. The point I was making is that you have no respect for people who chose to do anything other than embrace piracy with open arms. That's a stupid, narrow view of things. I respect those who choose to embrace piracy as well as those who choose to vindicate their rights. Unlike you, I don't hold it against people who fight back when their rights are trampled. But we all know you love piracy and hate copyright, Mike. No need to remind us of that.
If by the "tide" you mean a bunch of infringers who put themselves above others and take whatever they want without paying for it while consciously breaking the law, then yeah, I have no problem with people swimming against that tide. They can also choose to do what this photographer has done. I really don't care what people choose to do (that's their decision to make), but unlike you guys who think you know what's best for everyone I respect people's decisions either way.
Good for him. Seriously. It's the insinuation that anyone not doing the same must be stupid ("from the why-can't-everyone-be-this-sensible? dept") that bothers me.
Huh? Let's look at the actual bills. I'm looking at SOPA 2.0 (the Manager's Amendment).
It says that the Attorney General or a qualifying plaintiff must first attempt to commence an action in personam. Sections 102(b)(1) and 103(b)(1). Of course, that procedure follows the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) for service of process, and in fact SOPA contains detailed rules about serving notice. Sections 102(b)(3) and 103(b)(3). Those procedures clearly do not violate the Due Process Clause. They afford the defendant adequate notice and a meaningful hearing to take place BEFORE an injunction issues.
Next, only if after due diligence the defendant cannot be found, then an in rem action against the property is commenced. Sections 102(b)(2) and 103(b)(2). The in rem action is similarly governed by the FRCP and the Supplemental Rules (plus the rules in SOPA about notice). And those rules clearly satisfy the Due Process Clause by affording the defendant adequate notice and a meaningful hearing BEFORE the injunction issues.
If the defendant does not show up and defend the case, that's certainly not because there is a lack of process. It's because that defendant chooses not to defend themselves. And when defendants don't show up to defend themselves, the court will still enter a judgment against them. So long as the notice and procedures were adequate--which they are when the FRCP govern as they do here--then that judgment comports with the Due Process Clause.
I'm sorry, but a defaulting under SOPA is not a Due Process violation.
Now, I know that every time we compare SOPA/PIPA to the Great Firewall, the defenders of those bills twist themselves into contortions to explain why it's totally different because US censorship is about "intellectual property" and Chinese censorship is about "political repression." Yeah. Ok. But if you look at what China says, of course they don't say it's about political repression -- they say it's about "harmful information." Kinda like SOPA/PIPA's focus on "rogue sites," right? It's all in how you define it, but the fact is that they're both forms of censorship, and when you open the door to that in the US, you don't want to see where it ends.
Sigh. Can you really not see the difference between the government blocking speech because of the idea being expressed and the government shutting down a few websites that are devoted to infringement, i.e., devoted to violating other people's rights? Trying to FUD this out like this just makes you look bad, desperate, and crazy, IMO. You're lucky enough to live in a place that allows you to so publicly hate your government, Mike.
But when you sit here to say that procedures are more important than certain inalienable rights, that is where I draw the line.
Inalienable as they may be, they are not absolute. They never have been since that Amendment was ratified. If it's not absolute, it has limits. It has to make way when it bumps into other people's rights. And where those limits are drawn--where one looks to find out the contours of the First Amendment--is to jurisprudence and doctrine. That's what I'm doing. The idea that enough procedure makes it constitutionally adequate is not mine. My argument is descriptive--meaning I'm simply explaining the law as it currently and actually exists. That's all I ever usually argue. If me explaining Supreme Court doctrine makes me "morally bankrupt," then I can only surmise that you're just clueless. Sorry, dude. Your beef is with two centuries of jurisprudence and doctrine, not with me.
I'll address the merits of your posts and soon as you drop this copycat persona. Until then, I won't even bother to read your posts. Find someone else to play with.
What's disgusting is that people are having their rights violated all over the internet and you guys think that's perfectly OK. I for one don't think it's OK for people to violate other people's rights without an repercussions.
What exactly is the "lack of due process" in these bills? There's notice, there's opportunity for a hearing. That's due process. And that process makes it not a violation of the First Amendment as well. Obviously the government can take down websites devoted to piracy. That's not even debatable. The issue is how much process is necessary to comport with the Due Process Clause and the First Amendment. I think these bills have enough process to do just that. If you disagree, then please explain what other process would be necessary.
Oh, did you not say we're building the Great Firewall of China? Give me a break, Mike. Nobody's more ready in the SOPA/PROTECT IP debate to compare the United States to China than you.
Spare me the rhetoric. I know it works on your pirate friends, but I'm immune. Being on that list doesn't mean a thing if we're on the list for a different purpose. Unlike you, I realize that context matters.
Sigh. I know you can't post unless it's teeming with rhetoric--that's just your silly nature. I care about the First Amendment very much, Mike. So spare me the nonsense.
If there are enough procedural protections in place, then these copyright laws do not violate the First Amendment. Pretending that anything we do to minimize piracy presents a First Amendment violation makes you look silly.
I am ONLY for a solution that completely takes the First Amendment into consideration. Unlike you, I don't pretend that no such solution exists.
Rojadirecta admits that 1/3 of their traffic was lost after their two domain names were taken, even though their websites were put right back up. Looks like it works to me.
What recourse do you think rights holders who are having their rights trampled should have? Apparently you think they should have none and that's it OK to violate other people's rights without penalty. I don't agree.
Nothing particulary rhetorical or nonsensical about it. DNS filtering based on a complaint only without due process IS censorship.
Censorship is not a function of due process. It's censorship whether there's due process or not (under the broad definition of the word). Comparing this to China or North Korea is ridiculous because the kind of censorship that goes on there is different. Pretending for even one second that SOPA brings about that kind of censorship undermines the problems of actual censorship. It's intentional, over-the-top rhetoric from Mike. Apparently he feels he can't get his message across without sounding like a conspiracy theorist or a writer for the National Enquirer.
I hope you're enjoying your time off from law school, AJ, and I definitely hope you write papers with better arguments in them than your posts here.
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:
On the post: Top Photographer On Why He Doesn't Care If His Stuff Is Pirated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Illiteracy, hunger, and homelessness are inevitable too. As are theft, embezzlement, and fraud. So what? That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about it.
On the post: Top Photographer On Why He Doesn't Care If His Stuff Is Pirated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Top Photographer On Why He Doesn't Care If His Stuff Is Pirated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But until you do actually change the law, respect the law as it exists and stop violating other people's rights. Otherwise you're just another selfish sociopath.
On the post: Top Photographer On Why He Doesn't Care If His Stuff Is Pirated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Top Photographer On Why He Doesn't Care If His Stuff Is Pirated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL! Exactly. There's no balance. No honesty. No objectivity.
Techdirt: It's bias-and-prejudice for all!
On the post: Top Photographer On Why He Doesn't Care If His Stuff Is Pirated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And when we have the gall to suggest to people ways in which they might be *better* off and make *more* money by using these things to their advantage, you claim that *we're* disrespectful?
Wow. Just wow.
Your punches just aren't landing, Mike. The point I was making is that you have no respect for people who chose to do anything other than embrace piracy with open arms. That's a stupid, narrow view of things. I respect those who choose to embrace piracy as well as those who choose to vindicate their rights. Unlike you, I don't hold it against people who fight back when their rights are trampled. But we all know you love piracy and hate copyright, Mike. No need to remind us of that.
On the post: Top Photographer On Why He Doesn't Care If His Stuff Is Pirated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Top Photographer On Why He Doesn't Care If His Stuff Is Pirated
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Top Photographer On Why He Doesn't Care If His Stuff Is Pirated
Re:
It's a total pirate-apology puff piece. But you knew that already, right? :)
On the post: The List Of Internet Censoring Countries The MPAA Thinks Provide A Good Example For The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It says that the Attorney General or a qualifying plaintiff must first attempt to commence an action in personam. Sections 102(b)(1) and 103(b)(1). Of course, that procedure follows the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) for service of process, and in fact SOPA contains detailed rules about serving notice. Sections 102(b)(3) and 103(b)(3). Those procedures clearly do not violate the Due Process Clause. They afford the defendant adequate notice and a meaningful hearing to take place BEFORE an injunction issues.
Next, only if after due diligence the defendant cannot be found, then an in rem action against the property is commenced. Sections 102(b)(2) and 103(b)(2). The in rem action is similarly governed by the FRCP and the Supplemental Rules (plus the rules in SOPA about notice). And those rules clearly satisfy the Due Process Clause by affording the defendant adequate notice and a meaningful hearing BEFORE the injunction issues.
If the defendant does not show up and defend the case, that's certainly not because there is a lack of process. It's because that defendant chooses not to defend themselves. And when defendants don't show up to defend themselves, the court will still enter a judgment against them. So long as the notice and procedures were adequate--which they are when the FRCP govern as they do here--then that judgment comports with the Due Process Clause.
I'm sorry, but a defaulting under SOPA is not a Due Process violation.
On the post: China Ramps Up Online Censorship Efforts As US Congress Gives Them Perfect Cover
Sigh. Can you really not see the difference between the government blocking speech because of the idea being expressed and the government shutting down a few websites that are devoted to infringement, i.e., devoted to violating other people's rights? Trying to FUD this out like this just makes you look bad, desperate, and crazy, IMO. You're lucky enough to live in a place that allows you to so publicly hate your government, Mike.
On the post: The List Of Internet Censoring Countries The MPAA Thinks Provide A Good Example For The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Inalienable as they may be, they are not absolute. They never have been since that Amendment was ratified. If it's not absolute, it has limits. It has to make way when it bumps into other people's rights. And where those limits are drawn--where one looks to find out the contours of the First Amendment--is to jurisprudence and doctrine. That's what I'm doing. The idea that enough procedure makes it constitutionally adequate is not mine. My argument is descriptive--meaning I'm simply explaining the law as it currently and actually exists. That's all I ever usually argue. If me explaining Supreme Court doctrine makes me "morally bankrupt," then I can only surmise that you're just clueless. Sorry, dude. Your beef is with two centuries of jurisprudence and doctrine, not with me.
On the post: The List Of Internet Censoring Countries The MPAA Thinks Provide A Good Example For The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The List Of Internet Censoring Countries The MPAA Thinks Provide A Good Example For The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What exactly is the "lack of due process" in these bills? There's notice, there's opportunity for a hearing. That's due process. And that process makes it not a violation of the First Amendment as well. Obviously the government can take down websites devoted to piracy. That's not even debatable. The issue is how much process is necessary to comport with the Due Process Clause and the First Amendment. I think these bills have enough process to do just that. If you disagree, then please explain what other process would be necessary.
On the post: The List Of Internet Censoring Countries The MPAA Thinks Provide A Good Example For The US
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Spare me the rhetoric. I know it works on your pirate friends, but I'm immune. Being on that list doesn't mean a thing if we're on the list for a different purpose. Unlike you, I realize that context matters.
On the post: The List Of Internet Censoring Countries The MPAA Thinks Provide A Good Example For The US
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If there are enough procedural protections in place, then these copyright laws do not violate the First Amendment. Pretending that anything we do to minimize piracy presents a First Amendment violation makes you look silly.
I am ONLY for a solution that completely takes the First Amendment into consideration. Unlike you, I don't pretend that no such solution exists.
On the post: The List Of Internet Censoring Countries The MPAA Thinks Provide A Good Example For The US
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What recourse do you think rights holders who are having their rights trampled should have? Apparently you think they should have none and that's it OK to violate other people's rights without penalty. I don't agree.
On the post: The List Of Internet Censoring Countries The MPAA Thinks Provide A Good Example For The US
Re: Re:
Censorship is not a function of due process. It's censorship whether there's due process or not (under the broad definition of the word). Comparing this to China or North Korea is ridiculous because the kind of censorship that goes on there is different. Pretending for even one second that SOPA brings about that kind of censorship undermines the problems of actual censorship. It's intentional, over-the-top rhetoric from Mike. Apparently he feels he can't get his message across without sounding like a conspiracy theorist or a writer for the National Enquirer.
I hope you're enjoying your time off from law school, AJ, and I definitely hope you write papers with better arguments in them than your posts here.
Snore.
On the post: How SOPA Will Be (Ab)Used
Re: Re:
Next >>