I'd have to agree that this test isn't subject to copyright, though the expression they wrote up is.
Thing is, they let it float around for 25 years without doing much of anything about it. To me, that too, would damage their case if they were challenged on it.
But still, there's ridiculous and then there's beyond that into WTF territory and then beyond that...to this.
What this seems to be is a near classic illustration of the misquoted New Testament passage "money is the root of all evil." It's actually "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil." I'd ay that fits here.
Telling me to turn down the megaphone isn't restricting my right to free speech. It might make it harder to hear me at the back but it doesn't stop me from saying what I want to say. Having a regulation saying I have to register to use that part of the park at a given time in the say is not censorship it's common sense so that two different groups don't show up at the same time. So I book my time like a good lad, say my peace and go home. No censorship, narrowly or broadly defined has occurred. Even if I have to turn down my megaphone.
Of course you're right where the speech become dangerous and criminal such as yelling fire in a crowed theatre but to equate that with ANYTHING under discussion here simply doesn't hold.
Smith wants the definition "narrowed" so that he can avoid the slippery slope argument. But that's a hard definition to hold to when even the right wing, normally copyright purist Heritage Foundation disagrees with that narrow definition and agrees with Mike's "wide" definition.
It's hard to see why you'd defend Smith unless, as I already know, you agree with him. That's cool. But there is no such animal as narrow or wide "censorship". It's censorship or it's not.
Even then, how it applies to Google, Bing, Yahoo or any other search engine is beyond me. They just index what's already there. Same way you can find places that offer "massages" in your yellow pages.
And it's not just Google that operators of these sites place ads on, it's Bing (Microsoft/Doubleclick) as well. So why's Smith not whining about them?
Or does he think ALL Web advertising is tied to Google somehow? (And do you?????)
If you want to recast the discussion it's one between justifiable censorship and censorship that's unjustified. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights starts from the presumption that censorship is always unjustified.
Now then. You and Rep. Smith convince me, and others, that it is in this case and stop with the diversionary semantics.
I suggest you get on it cause that's an argument you're both losing.
Sitting on a congress bench/
eyeing little girls
with bad intent/
sopa running down his nose/
money greased fingers
smearin fancy clothes/
hey Aquasmith!
Not much point in running against someone in a district so badly gerrymandered that you could run someone who died in 1378 BCE as a republican and he'd probably win,
So perhaps you could come up with a better talking point. Then again, with thinking like that I'd rather have you in charge of Goodlatte's campaign. You're just amazing! Twerp.
Is this like the HST in Ontario where you guys got stuck with it and we out here in BC had a small revolution over it and told them to stuff it?
They tried that out here a couple of decades ago so people refused to pay the surcharge or went home, came back and counted out the entire fee plus surcharge in pennies. Lasted a couple of weeks before the surcharge was withdrawn.
The surcharge was dropped. OK, we're kinda loopy out here in Lotus Land but we can also be cranky. ;)
Evidently they don't deny recreational marjuana to Verizon execs or marketers, though.
This happens to be the same Verizon that holds the controlling interest in Canadian telco Telus who, not so long ago, gave an employee a cell with a number recently belonging to someone who sold drugs out of his home and then delivered them. Didn't take long for this guy to figure that out but THEN the wireless arm of Telus decided it wanted to charge the employee for the change of number on the cell.
Couple of grievance meetings later and the very real threat of going public with this cockup and they changed the number for free.
There's the book on how to do things and then there's intelligence. At Verizon/Telus there is no intersection point between the two at the executive, marketing or billing levels.
Actually, remaking or turning movies back into episodic things as they were during the 30s and 40s, which is a lot of what's happening now.
Sure people will roll jnto the filthy, overpriced, plastic omniplex to see LoTR or Harry Potter because there's a built in audience that wants to see them. BUT, Hollywood, overdoes this with endless remakes of their own best sellers so we end up with a round of increasingly poorly make Batmans, Xmen, Transformers (you gotta be kidding), old TV shows and on it goes.
To suggest that the movie studios are doing much that's original or might be a tad risky in the way of NEW movies as it stands is almost laughable.
I'm still surprised that Avatar ever made it onto the screen.
And no, he wouldn't have been one of the few in the room. Independents that do this sort of thing do very well. Classics weekends, Animation festivals, that sort of thing is how the independents stay in business and even take in more and make more money than chain franchisees or chain operated locations do.
Heck, even things like Anime weekends, which one theatre in Vancouver picked up on in the early 90s kept them in business, poor subtitling in Japlish and all.
Studios live on making new movies. Pity, by and large, that most of them aren't these days. THAT might be one reason that ticket sales are down, don't you think?
Child porn displayed as photographs and video is universally agreed upon to depict a horrid crime that has caused a child irreparable damage and which may cause similar damage to another child as it may well cause a true pedophile to act out with a child. Regardless of the presence of a picture of the the Bible, you go pick your own translation, the pictures are portraying the commission of an actual crime which removed them, even in the United States from the realm of protected speech and the First Amendment.
THAT said, Google, Bing or Yahoo's job is to index the Web. Unless and until the search engine is notified or discovers that the site or pages DO contain that their crawlers would continue to index that or those pages. Once they are, though, they voluntarily stop indexing them. Note carefully that there is no government coercion that they do that. They just do. And yes, very broadly speaking that IS censorship but the bulk of the site you describe (poorly) is dedicated to records of a criminal act there is no blocking or the hint of blocking protected speech.
That said you're still a twit, You just moved on to being a major league one with that.
Further you asked that question of the wrong person when you asked me. So, in the simplest language I can use let me explain why.
I am a survivor of adolescent (child legally) sexual abuse at the hands of my father. Nearly a decade of it. Now let me make something else as clear as I can, jackass, Well over 90% of the sexual abuse of children occurs in family at the hands of a parent or close relative (uncle, aunt) not some pedo in a raincoat flashing outside of a school. The rest of the majority of it happens at the hands of a trusted adult as in coach, teacher, priest, pastor etc.
To add a bit more information to your addled brain let me add that the people I've listed above were, in the vast majority of cases abused themselves by parent or trusted adult. Got it? Clear now? If it isn't then I agree with the AC you answered. You need psychiatric care for that anger of yours that you want to call scorn. At the very least.
The question itself is a trap. It cannot be answered without on one hand, people like you jumping up and down screaming that "hey, you see you agree with censorship" or that "hey, you see you are willing to to index a site that shows the commission of a heinous crime."
Even worse, you equate, as did the person who first asked it, the commission of a life altering crime on a child with the civil matter of possible, let me repeat, possible copyright infringement. Even if it is criminal infringement there is no way to equate the two in terms of impact. Clear? Or are you and the person who originally asked the question so completely heartless and ignorant that you don't see that difference? That you repeat that crap here shows that you're both heartless and ignorant.
To get back to the point of free speech when organizations like the Heritage Foundation (hope I got that right) bring that up and object to SOPA/PIPA on the basis of censorship as well as the dangers they pose to the Web and Internet themselves I'd say that argument is far from over on the basis of their probable slippery slope potentials themselves.
That objection is far from done and far from surrendered to PIPA/SOPA supporters and some of the more extreme trolls and twerps like you. You're beneath contempt, beneath scorn.
You wanted an answer, there it is. There is a massive difference between the question you ask and copyright infringement. One MAY lose someone some money. The other robs the victim of a life they may have had or life itself as more than half of sexual abuse victims will commit suicide before they're 25. How dare you.
I'd honestly be interested in, say, the RIAA being forced to come up with an acceptable calculation by accepted auditing and accounting practices for how much they DO lose on a a few songs being downloaded. I say accepted because like so many others in the "copyright industry" (read entertainment and publishing).
I say accepted because the "copyright industry" has been doing fantasy accounting for so many years that I'm not sure they'd know the real thing if it bit their leg off.
Still, I'm sure it would be far, far less than $1,
The US Navy's "stealth" subs do seem to have a problem hiding from the Royal Canadian Navy. The RCN can always find them. Mind you, we've specialized in submarine finding/hunting since we got escort duty across the Atlantic in WW2 and have kept it up ever since.
The basic rule is "if it's moving down there, we'll find it". Next step in war, of course, is "then we'll destroy it".
The USN and RCN regularly hold exercises to see how long it takes our frigates to find the subs, then the USN goes back and tries to figure out how to make it longer.
MORAL: If you're sub commander and hear a RCN frigate above you kiss your ass goodbye, if you have the time. ;-)
Canadian courts generally operate the same way. Sometimes, at the end of it all, they've even been known to award damages to the defendant if the plaintiff has been totally and completely out to lunch.
Then again, it's hard to see a case of infringement getting past the clerk of the court in Canada on the word on someone who just says "I own the copyright, dammit!" without some evidence that they, in fact, do. Civil courts here really have no time for or humour with someone wasting their time.
No offshore company is going to plead it's case in an American court for two reasons:
(1) They would be accepting that US law could be applied extra-territorially. Would likely piss off the government(s) of the country their servers etc and businesses are located.
(2) As has been said before the defendant in these cases has to prove "innocence", or at least, that no damage has been done so no liability has resulted. (That might be interesting to get RIAA or MPAA members to prove to accepted accounting principles what, if any, damage has in fact been done.)
The first point is the biggest reason some foreign company isn't going to book a plane to the States to defend themselves.
A lot of this, of course, means accepting ICE, the legislators and the A-G's word that this will never EVER be applied to domestic companies. (Which only a fool would expect.)
On the post: Doctors Discover Copyright Law: Cognitive Screening Test Killed Over Infringement Claims
Re:
Thing is, they let it float around for 25 years without doing much of anything about it. To me, that too, would damage their case if they were challenged on it.
But still, there's ridiculous and then there's beyond that into WTF territory and then beyond that...to this.
What this seems to be is a near classic illustration of the misquoted New Testament passage "money is the root of all evil." It's actually "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil." I'd ay that fits here.
On the post: Lamar Smith Out Of Touch With The Internet: Still Thinks It's Just Google That Opposes SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course you're right where the speech become dangerous and criminal such as yelling fire in a crowed theatre but to equate that with ANYTHING under discussion here simply doesn't hold.
Smith wants the definition "narrowed" so that he can avoid the slippery slope argument. But that's a hard definition to hold to when even the right wing, normally copyright purist Heritage Foundation disagrees with that narrow definition and agrees with Mike's "wide" definition.
It's hard to see why you'd defend Smith unless, as I already know, you agree with him. That's cool. But there is no such animal as narrow or wide "censorship". It's censorship or it's not.
Even then, how it applies to Google, Bing, Yahoo or any other search engine is beyond me. They just index what's already there. Same way you can find places that offer "massages" in your yellow pages.
And it's not just Google that operators of these sites place ads on, it's Bing (Microsoft/Doubleclick) as well. So why's Smith not whining about them?
Or does he think ALL Web advertising is tied to Google somehow? (And do you?????)
If you want to recast the discussion it's one between justifiable censorship and censorship that's unjustified. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights starts from the presumption that censorship is always unjustified.
Now then. You and Rep. Smith convince me, and others, that it is in this case and stop with the diversionary semantics.
I suggest you get on it cause that's an argument you're both losing.
On the post: Lamar Smith Out Of Touch With The Internet: Still Thinks It's Just Google That Opposes SOPA
Re: Re: Living In The Past
eyeing little girls
with bad intent/
sopa running down his nose/
money greased fingers
smearin fancy clothes/
hey Aquasmith!
On the post: Lamar Smith Out Of Touch With The Internet: Still Thinks It's Just Google That Opposes SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Is Lamar an AC?
Hmmm, someone check Smith's birth certificate?????
On the post: Goodwill And Hospitality Theft Continue To Drive Up The Cost Of The Holiday Season
On the post: Candidates Starting To Turn SOPA Into A Campaign Issue: Karen Kwiatkowski Goes After Bob Goodlatte
Re: Re: Re:
Do you kick puppies and kittens?
Answer:
I don't think so.
So perhaps you could come up with a better talking point. Then again, with thinking like that I'd rather have you in charge of Goodlatte's campaign. You're just amazing! Twerp.
On the post: Candidates Starting To Turn SOPA Into A Campaign Issue: Karen Kwiatkowski Goes After Bob Goodlatte
Re:
Now let's see how well THAT works out for her.
On the post: Candidates Starting To Turn SOPA Into A Campaign Issue: Karen Kwiatkowski Goes After Bob Goodlatte
Re: Re: Re: Interesting thought
Can I direct you to the FBI instead, who don't seem to mind low pay and bad PR? ;-)
On the post: Verizon Wireless: Paying Online Is More Convenient, So Now You Have To Pay $2 To Do So [Updated]
Re: Ontario has similar convenience fees
They tried that out here a couple of decades ago so people refused to pay the surcharge or went home, came back and counted out the entire fee plus surcharge in pennies. Lasted a couple of weeks before the surcharge was withdrawn.
The surcharge was dropped. OK, we're kinda loopy out here in Lotus Land but we can also be cranky. ;)
On the post: Verizon Wireless: Paying Online Is More Convenient, So Now You Have To Pay $2 To Do So [Updated]
Re: Shysters
This happens to be the same Verizon that holds the controlling interest in Canadian telco Telus who, not so long ago, gave an employee a cell with a number recently belonging to someone who sold drugs out of his home and then delivered them. Didn't take long for this guy to figure that out but THEN the wireless arm of Telus decided it wanted to charge the employee for the change of number on the cell.
Couple of grievance meetings later and the very real threat of going public with this cockup and they changed the number for free.
There's the book on how to do things and then there's intelligence. At Verizon/Telus there is no intersection point between the two at the executive, marketing or billing levels.
On the post: US Box Office Revenue Finally Drops; But Not Because Of Infringement
Re: Re: Competition from backlist
Sure people will roll jnto the filthy, overpriced, plastic omniplex to see LoTR or Harry Potter because there's a built in audience that wants to see them. BUT, Hollywood, overdoes this with endless remakes of their own best sellers so we end up with a round of increasingly poorly make Batmans, Xmen, Transformers (you gotta be kidding), old TV shows and on it goes.
To suggest that the movie studios are doing much that's original or might be a tad risky in the way of NEW movies as it stands is almost laughable.
I'm still surprised that Avatar ever made it onto the screen.
And no, he wouldn't have been one of the few in the room. Independents that do this sort of thing do very well. Classics weekends, Animation festivals, that sort of thing is how the independents stay in business and even take in more and make more money than chain franchisees or chain operated locations do.
Heck, even things like Anime weekends, which one theatre in Vancouver picked up on in the early 90s kept them in business, poor subtitling in Japlish and all.
Studios live on making new movies. Pity, by and large, that most of them aren't these days. THAT might be one reason that ticket sales are down, don't you think?
On the post: Is A Naked Danica Patrick Working To Quell GoDaddy Boycott Efforts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiot
So, let's answer your question.
Child porn displayed as photographs and video is universally agreed upon to depict a horrid crime that has caused a child irreparable damage and which may cause similar damage to another child as it may well cause a true pedophile to act out with a child. Regardless of the presence of a picture of the the Bible, you go pick your own translation, the pictures are portraying the commission of an actual crime which removed them, even in the United States from the realm of protected speech and the First Amendment.
THAT said, Google, Bing or Yahoo's job is to index the Web. Unless and until the search engine is notified or discovers that the site or pages DO contain that their crawlers would continue to index that or those pages. Once they are, though, they voluntarily stop indexing them. Note carefully that there is no government coercion that they do that. They just do. And yes, very broadly speaking that IS censorship but the bulk of the site you describe (poorly) is dedicated to records of a criminal act there is no blocking or the hint of blocking protected speech.
That said you're still a twit, You just moved on to being a major league one with that.
Further you asked that question of the wrong person when you asked me. So, in the simplest language I can use let me explain why.
I am a survivor of adolescent (child legally) sexual abuse at the hands of my father. Nearly a decade of it. Now let me make something else as clear as I can, jackass, Well over 90% of the sexual abuse of children occurs in family at the hands of a parent or close relative (uncle, aunt) not some pedo in a raincoat flashing outside of a school. The rest of the majority of it happens at the hands of a trusted adult as in coach, teacher, priest, pastor etc.
To add a bit more information to your addled brain let me add that the people I've listed above were, in the vast majority of cases abused themselves by parent or trusted adult. Got it? Clear now? If it isn't then I agree with the AC you answered. You need psychiatric care for that anger of yours that you want to call scorn. At the very least.
The question itself is a trap. It cannot be answered without on one hand, people like you jumping up and down screaming that "hey, you see you agree with censorship" or that "hey, you see you are willing to to index a site that shows the commission of a heinous crime."
Even worse, you equate, as did the person who first asked it, the commission of a life altering crime on a child with the civil matter of possible, let me repeat, possible copyright infringement. Even if it is criminal infringement there is no way to equate the two in terms of impact. Clear? Or are you and the person who originally asked the question so completely heartless and ignorant that you don't see that difference? That you repeat that crap here shows that you're both heartless and ignorant.
To get back to the point of free speech when organizations like the Heritage Foundation (hope I got that right) bring that up and object to SOPA/PIPA on the basis of censorship as well as the dangers they pose to the Web and Internet themselves I'd say that argument is far from over on the basis of their probable slippery slope potentials themselves.
That objection is far from done and far from surrendered to PIPA/SOPA supporters and some of the more extreme trolls and twerps like you. You're beneath contempt, beneath scorn.
You wanted an answer, there it is. There is a massive difference between the question you ask and copyright infringement. One MAY lose someone some money. The other robs the victim of a life they may have had or life itself as more than half of sexual abuse victims will commit suicide before they're 25. How dare you.
You're worse than my father was.
On the post: Company Caught Downloading Competitor's Software Just Has To Pay The Fee To Buy One License
Re:
I say accepted because the "copyright industry" has been doing fantasy accounting for so many years that I'm not sure they'd know the real thing if it bit their leg off.
Still, I'm sure it would be far, far less than $1,
On the post: DailyDirt: Never Get Involved In A Land War In Asia...?
Don't tell anyone BUT
The basic rule is "if it's moving down there, we'll find it". Next step in war, of course, is "then we'll destroy it".
The USN and RCN regularly hold exercises to see how long it takes our frigates to find the subs, then the USN goes back and tries to figure out how to make it longer.
MORAL: If you're sub commander and hear a RCN frigate above you kiss your ass goodbye, if you have the time. ;-)
On the post: Shouldn't There Be Significant Punishment For Bogus Copyright Claims That Kill Companies?
Re:
On the post: Shouldn't There Be Significant Punishment For Bogus Copyright Claims That Kill Companies?
Re:
On the post: Shouldn't There Be Significant Punishment For Bogus Copyright Claims That Kill Companies?
Re: Canada does the same
Then again, it's hard to see a case of infringement getting past the clerk of the court in Canada on the word on someone who just says "I own the copyright, dammit!" without some evidence that they, in fact, do. Civil courts here really have no time for or humour with someone wasting their time.
On the post: Shouldn't There Be Significant Punishment For Bogus Copyright Claims That Kill Companies?
Re: Economic Power
They just see their company listed as too-big-to-fail and go back to work.
On the post: Shouldn't There Be Significant Punishment For Bogus Copyright Claims That Kill Companies?
Re: Sounds fine to me
(1) They would be accepting that US law could be applied extra-territorially. Would likely piss off the government(s) of the country their servers etc and businesses are located.
(2) As has been said before the defendant in these cases has to prove "innocence", or at least, that no damage has been done so no liability has resulted. (That might be interesting to get RIAA or MPAA members to prove to accepted accounting principles what, if any, damage has in fact been done.)
The first point is the biggest reason some foreign company isn't going to book a plane to the States to defend themselves.
A lot of this, of course, means accepting ICE, the legislators and the A-G's word that this will never EVER be applied to domestic companies. (Which only a fool would expect.)
On the post: Is A Naked Danica Patrick Working To Quell GoDaddy Boycott Efforts?
Re: The funny thing is...
Once someone gets a taste of a REAL hosting company they'll never go back to GoDaddy.
Next >>