I honestly can't tell if you're for real or just a high-functioning troll. You seem to always take a position that's completely at odds with all obvious evidence, and this time is no different.
I'm sure you were trying to counter Tim's argument by making Alexander look very impressive, but you have failed quite badly on two fronts. First, you've completely missed the point about why his actions and statements show his cowardice, despite it being explained quite clearly. Second, as the comments above show, its pretty easy to get many of the medals and ribbons you're so easily impressed by. The only one looking silly here is you.
By definition, there most certainly is such a thing, but you're absolutely right that kids should never be prevented from reading controversial material.
"The woman had at no point in time given the photographer permission to make the pictures public.
The pictures were made for their shared personal enjoyment, and not public consumption."
True, but completely irrelevant to this story, since nobody mentioned any intention to make the photos public.
"In this world where lots of boyfriends feel they have right to get "even" with the girlfriend, when she decides to leave him, it's no wonder she wanted them back."
No, not "lots of boyfriends", only a very small percentage of them, just like I'm sure a small percentage of girlfriends act in equally bad ways. Nothing in the story suggested this man was one of those few.
"I would suggest that the OP leave his highly theoretical ideological horse, and start to move around in the real world. Where women on a daily basis suffer from boyfriends out for revenge."
I would suggest you read articles thoroughly and engage the critical thinking part of your brain before commenting. I'd also suggest that if you really do personally encounter such acts of revenge on such a regular basis you might want to try meeting better people. I suspect though that you're more likely just a regular consumer of low-quality, sensationalist journalism.
A flood of pedophiles, corrupt and philandering politicians, career criminals, disgraced doctors and over-entitled celebrities is the best possible thing that could happen now. The more the horrible unintended consequences are highlighted, the quicker this nonsense can revealed for the stupidity it is and killed.
So Mike asks you a question based on a statement of fact (you are actually defending the RIAA exploiting artists), and your response is a childish retort without a shred of truth topped off with name-calling.
Assuming you are some part of the music world, you are your industry's own worst enemy. You stupidly accuse people of hating artists, and then behave in a manner that would make people hate artists if we believed for a second you actually represented them in some meaningful way. Your behavior is actively contributing to the rapidly declining respect for copyright.
"I fail to see why a list of items not caused by the willful actions of others would bring perspective on terrorism."
You fail to see why spending billions of dollars trying to save a statistically minute number of lives is a stupid idea compared to spending that money in ways that could save tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives, maybe millions if the benefits could spread around the globe. You fail as a human being.
So this guy implies Netflix are getting bandwidth for free and you just believe him?! It's a ridiculous assertion that anyone with half a brain would laugh at. Your critical thinking skills seem to be lacking...
I'm sure you'll happily provide links to all the people publicly stating these opinions of Mike. After all, if he's truly considered as crazy as you say, I fing it hard to believe they'd all just whisper it amongst themselves...
Wow, mocked by Congressional staffers involved in IP issues! That must keep Mike awake at night!
Are we supposed to be surprised that the people involved in pushing bad copyright laws at the behest of deep-pocketed content providers would be critical of people publicly shaming their actions?
Saddest excuse ever. Copyright maximilism and hyper-focus on anti-piracy measures are the antithesis of good reason. And trying to paint piracy as a morality issue was a stupid strategy doomed to fail, because it's so far off the mark.
It's extraordinary how the 'arguments' some of the more vocal anti-piracy, pro-copyright types devolve so quickly into childish insults and name-calling. It's like listening to an under-achieving teenager. You're trying to convince us that we shouldn't take stuff for free and should give you money instead, and this is the approach you think will work?
So in your warped worldview, illegal behavior justifies illegal behavior, right? You know these takedowns wouldn't withstand full legal scrutiny, but you don't care because you know they can probably get a way with it. These websites have committed the serious crime of jeopardizing corporate profits, so the laws be dammed!
If we wanted to sit around and call people names, we could point out that these labels can be easily applied to record labels, movie studios and book publishers, all of whom have a long and inglorious history of ripping artists and consumers off for their own monetary gain. You have no moral high ground here so stop acting like you do.
"Also rather cheap to call everyone who disagrees with your Google fanposts a troll."
Not everyone, just a few making ridiculous, unfounded claims and behaving in an entirely trollish manner. People with genuine criticism and mature attitudes don't get called trolls.
"I'm not the only one who notices a complete reporting bias in favor of Google."
Correction: "I'm not the only one who completely missed all the Techdirt articles criticizing Google over many years."
The fact is you can't and won't provide a rational explanation for these articles because they completely undermine your claims. And the fact that there's more than one person with your willful blindness doesn't strengthen your argument much.
Correction, copyright holders don't seem to mind that artists creations are protected. Nobody here hates artists.
And we already know you hate, the public domain, fair use, copyright lengths not measured in decades or lifetimes, artists being fairly paid by labels/studios/publishers, or artists being in controls of their own work, but you're too much of a weasel to admit it. So we point out the clues to your true motives.
Well if you mean a PR move that directly benefits their customers through an internet experience, while indirectly benefiting their competitors' customers by highlighting the lies being told by the big providers, then yep, damn fine PR move, wish there were all as good.
"But Google are still NSA collaborators."
Yes, companies forced to provide data by secret courts with secret laws on threat of serious punishment are "collaborators". Since Google (and others) are now massively increasing their encryption to prevent previously-unknown NSA interceptions, does that make them traitors?
On the post: Yes, Verizon Is At Fault In Netflix Dispute; It's Not Delivering What It Sold Customers
Re:
On the post: General Keith Alexander Is An Opportunistic Coward
Re:
On the post: High School Principal Cancels Entire Reading Program To Stop Students From Reading Cory Doctorow's 'Little Brother'
Re: Re: Re: Wait...
By definition, there most certainly is such a thing, but you're absolutely right that kids should never be prevented from reading controversial material.
On the post: German Court Rules Ex-Lovers Must Disappear Consensual Previously Taken Nude Pictures Of The Other
Re: The op is just plain stupid
The pictures were made for their shared personal enjoyment, and not public consumption."
True, but completely irrelevant to this story, since nobody mentioned any intention to make the photos public.
"In this world where lots of boyfriends feel they have right to get "even" with the girlfriend, when she decides to leave him, it's no wonder she wanted them back."
No, not "lots of boyfriends", only a very small percentage of them, just like I'm sure a small percentage of girlfriends act in equally bad ways. Nothing in the story suggested this man was one of those few.
"I would suggest that the OP leave his highly theoretical ideological horse, and start to move around in the real world. Where women on a daily basis suffer from boyfriends out for revenge."
I would suggest you read articles thoroughly and engage the critical thinking part of your brain before commenting. I'd also suggest that if you really do personally encounter such acts of revenge on such a regular basis you might want to try meeting better people. I suspect though that you're more likely just a regular consumer of low-quality, sensationalist journalism.
On the post: British Recording Industry Thinks 'Right To Be Forgotten' Proves Google Can Stop Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? How exactly do you think this is going to end? Clowns like you have been claiming this for years but I see no end in sight.
On the post: Germany Considers Setting Up A Special Court To Determine Who Can Demand To Have Embarassing Histories Deleted From Google
On the post: Germany Considers Setting Up A Special Court To Determine Who Can Demand To Have Embarassing Histories Deleted From Google
Re:
On the post: RESPECT Act Should Be HYPOCRISY Act After How Often Labels Screwed Over Artists
Re: Re: Re:
Assuming you are some part of the music world, you are your industry's own worst enemy. You stupidly accuse people of hating artists, and then behave in a manner that would make people hate artists if we believed for a second you actually represented them in some meaningful way. Your behavior is actively contributing to the rapidly declining respect for copyright.
On the post: How Many Terrorists Are There: Not As Many As You Might Think
Re: Re: For a little perspective:
You fail to see why spending billions of dollars trying to save a statistically minute number of lives is a stupid idea compared to spending that money in ways that could save tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives, maybe millions if the benefits could spread around the globe. You fail as a human being.
On the post: If Comcast CEO Brian Roberts Really Believes Netflix Gets Bandwidth For Free, Will He Pay Netflix's Bandwidth Bill?
Re:
On the post: Google AdSense's Idiotic And Hypocritical Morality Police Force Us To Remove Ads On News Stories
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google AdSense's Idiotic And Hypocritical Morality Police Force Us To Remove Ads On News Stories
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are we supposed to be surprised that the people involved in pushing bad copyright laws at the behest of deep-pocketed content providers would be critical of people publicly shaming their actions?
On the post: City Of London Police Keep Shutting Down Websites With No Court Order
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: City Of London Police Keep Shutting Down Websites With No Court Order
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's extraordinary how the 'arguments' some of the more vocal anti-piracy, pro-copyright types devolve so quickly into childish insults and name-calling. It's like listening to an under-achieving teenager. You're trying to convince us that we shouldn't take stuff for free and should give you money instead, and this is the approach you think will work?
On the post: City Of London Police Keep Shutting Down Websites With No Court Order
Re: Re:
On the post: City Of London Police Keep Shutting Down Websites With No Court Order
Re: Re:
If we wanted to sit around and call people names, we could point out that these labels can be easily applied to record labels, movie studios and book publishers, all of whom have a long and inglorious history of ripping artists and consumers off for their own monetary gain. You have no moral high ground here so stop acting like you do.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Google is so great, but I am not biased
Not everyone, just a few making ridiculous, unfounded claims and behaving in an entirely trollish manner. People with genuine criticism and mature attitudes don't get called trolls.
"I'm not the only one who notices a complete reporting bias in favor of Google."
Correction: "I'm not the only one who completely missed all the Techdirt articles criticizing Google over many years."
The fact is you can't and won't provide a rational explanation for these articles because they completely undermine your claims. And the fact that there's more than one person with your willful blindness doesn't strengthen your argument much.
On the post: Metropolitan Museum Of Art Claims Copyright Over Massive Trove Of Public Domain Works
Re: Re: Re: Possibly not copyrightable, but...
On the post: Vimeo Pressured Into Setting Up Its Own Content ID
Re: Re: Re:
And we already know you hate, the public domain, fair use,
copyright lengths not measured in decades or lifetimes, artists being fairly paid by labels/studios/publishers, or
artists being in controls of their own work, but you're too much of a weasel to admit it. So we point out the clues to your true motives.
On the post: Google Fiber: You Know How Comcast Is Making Netflix Pay Extra? We Don't Do That Kind Of Crap
Re: Nice PR move...
Well if you mean a PR move that directly benefits their customers through an internet experience, while indirectly benefiting their competitors' customers by highlighting the lies being told by the big providers, then yep, damn fine PR move, wish there were all as good.
"But Google are still NSA collaborators."
Yes, companies forced to provide data by secret courts with secret laws on threat of serious punishment are "collaborators". Since Google (and others) are now massively increasing their encryption to prevent previously-unknown NSA interceptions, does that make them traitors?
Next >>