A more beneficial analogy would be a local business owner's association or chamber of commerce meeting with police to discuss problems related to crimes in their area that negatively impact their business interests.?
No, a more beneficial analogy would be a local chamber of commerce meeting with the police to discuss problems unrelated to crimes in their area that negatively impact their business interests.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Yes. My Congressman, Tom Cole, told me that my husband - not me, even though I was calling for myself - could meet with him if he got eleven other veterans together and flew to Washington D.C. So I have to ask... Have you ever tried?
And who do you think works for EFF, CDT and PK? They didn't come from Manpower Temporary Services, you know. They are accomplished, experienced professionals. They could use more resources and I'm sure they'd appreciate a check.
A check? Really? I think they prefer the contributions that I send via their websites, but whatever. In reality, where I live, the amount that I can donate is dwarfed by the amount that a single corporation can and does donate, so your point is moot.
I understand that it's easier to criticize and find fault than to roll up your sleeves and try to make a change. With your considerable skill at the former, you might be surprised at your success in the latter.... if only you cared enough to actually try.
Vocally criticizing these issues is part and parcel of 'rolling up your sleeves' and attempting to make changes. Obviously.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Obviously, he means copyright holders who give a shit. And yeah, you're totally arguing semantics. But whatever.
Anyway, Mike Masnick is not a copyright holder by his own intention. It was foisted upon him - and Cory Doctorow, and myself, and millions of other unwitting copyright holders - by the actual people who give a shit, who are generally referred to as 'copyright holders'. Since that's how they refer to themselves.
The WKRP case is because the original producers failed to get appropriate licenses at the time (they cheaped out) and it is no longer financially viable at the sales levels of the DVDs to pay for licensing.
You can't say the same of Daria, yet there it is. It's not 'cheap' producers, but insane copyright laws that only really benefit a few corporations that are the problem here.
That is, that it is really easy for someone that doesn't need to make a living via art to criticize others that do.
No one needs to make a living from their art. The people who claim to have that need are essentially throwing tantrums because they think that they're entitled to make a living doing what they love.
News Flash: You do what you love because you love to do it. End of story. Most people work a day job, and then do what they love in their spare time and I've got zero sympathy for snivelers who cry about not making a mint from their art, or actually having to work to make money from their talent, just like everyone else does.
I'll tell you what, it takes talent and work to earn money in sales. It takes talent and work to earn money in customer service. It takes talent and work to earn money as a mechanic. It takes talent and work to earn money as a blogger. It takes talent and work to earn money in every single industry, including music and art.
You can make all the art you want without getting paid for it. A monetary exchange that benefits the artist isn't necessary for the artist to create art. Look at the countless number of artists who didn't make money from their art in their lifetimes, and only gained recognition after their deaths.
Let me be clear: The unwillingness of the public to support artists has never stopped the creation of art, and never will.
If you want to create art, create it. If you want to share your art, share it. If you want to make money, make it. You don't automatically deserve money from me just because you created art and shared it. The end. Deal with it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of ire against police officers.
As I stated above, I absolutely agree that the double standard is unacceptable. However, we seem to disagree on the application of the standard.
I don't think that officers or civilians should have to personally know every single law. That's simply not realistic. (If you disagree, come back and enumerate the laws for us. I'll even make it 'easy' and you can just give me the total number of federal laws, and not any state, county, or municipal laws.)
We need to take a step back and return to when a 'guilty mind' was required for criminal prosecution. So if an officer held a gun-toting citizen while he verified the law and then let the gentleman go with apologies, that's fine. In addition, if someone who has a license to carry a weapon enters a place with a local ordnance against carrying that it's unlikely he knew about, he shouldn't be charged, either. See? Much more realistic and closer to 'justice'.
I guess I know a bit more about police procedure than you do, which is why I very much blame this officer for the giant mistake of drawing his weapon and seriously escalating a low-risk situation. (Although I'm pleased to see someone else who is pro-officer. Usually it's me all alone defending the 'pigs'.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of ire against police officers.
Actually, that excuse is supposed to protect average citizens as well. The way it used to work is that you either had to have the provable intent to break the law or it had to be something obvious to a reasonable person. Unfortunately, that's now how it's done nowadays, which is a real failing that should be corrected. :/
...there is no excuse for them being ignorant of the law.
Yes, there is. And that excuse - reason - is simply that there are too many to remember, which is not the officer's fault. The problem here doesn't lie with the officer's failure to know tens of thousands of laws, but in his refusal to confirm the law or to treat this man with any respect whatsoever.
The cop was clearly being baited; no one goes out armed, in public, and also happens to be recording the events unless that person expects trouble.
Of course, he expected trouble. He purchased and carried the weapon after several muggings and carrying recording equipment is just standard, especially since news reports like this abound. (Personally, I carry a thumb drive sized voice recorder to take notes, as does every officer that works that my father-in-law.)
Regardless, you can't bait someone who refuses to take the bait, which this officer could have done easily by simply respecting this man's legal rights, and calling in for confirmation when the his knowledge of the law was challenged. No one expects cops to know everything, but we do expect them to check before they draw a weapon on a citizen.
There was a strong odor of marijuana, and that doesn’t suggest that there’s marijuana hermetically sealed in plastic and stored underneath the floorboards. It suggests that it’s being consumed, and thus destroyed.
If they have so little marijuana that it can be consumed in the five minutes that it takes to get a warrant, then the cops shouldn't even be there. They have more important things to worry about.
The entire world is not made up of your trusted friends, crade, and the entire world is what your child is exposed to.
In addition, even trusted friends make mistakes. You should know enough about everything to be able to assess the basic safety of any area that you're allowing your children to go, both with and without you, without relying on the knowledge of others.
Why? Because your children are your responsibility, not your friends' responsibility, and trusting everyone to know what children are like and what kind of shenanigans they can get up to with your things is simply ignorant bad parenting.
On the post: MPAA Directly Lobbies Law Enforcement To Be Its Own Private Police Force
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Like it or not, we're not discussing enforcement of criminal infringement. So my analogy is spot on.
On the post: MPAA Directly Lobbies Law Enforcement To Be Its Own Private Police Force
Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
No, a more beneficial analogy would be a local chamber of commerce meeting with the police to discuss problems unrelated to crimes in their area that negatively impact their business interests.
On the post: MPAA Directly Lobbies Law Enforcement To Be Its Own Private Police Force
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Yes. My Congressman, Tom Cole, told me that my husband - not me, even though I was calling for myself - could meet with him if he got eleven other veterans together and flew to Washington D.C. So I have to ask... Have you ever tried?
And who do you think works for EFF, CDT and PK? They didn't come from Manpower Temporary Services, you know. They are accomplished, experienced professionals. They could use more resources and I'm sure they'd appreciate a check.
A check? Really? I think they prefer the contributions that I send via their websites, but whatever. In reality, where I live, the amount that I can donate is dwarfed by the amount that a single corporation can and does donate, so your point is moot.
I understand that it's easier to criticize and find fault than to roll up your sleeves and try to make a change. With your considerable skill at the former, you might be surprised at your success in the latter.... if only you cared enough to actually try.
Vocally criticizing these issues is part and parcel of 'rolling up your sleeves' and attempting to make changes. Obviously.
On the post: MPAA Directly Lobbies Law Enforcement To Be Its Own Private Police Force
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
Anyway, Mike Masnick is not a copyright holder by his own intention. It was foisted upon him - and Cory Doctorow, and myself, and millions of other unwitting copyright holders - by the actual people who give a shit, who are generally referred to as 'copyright holders'. Since that's how they refer to themselves.
Moving on to the actual points raised...
On the post: Another Appropriation Artist Loses Copyright Lawsuit; Are We Nearing The End Of Appropriation Art?
Re: Re:
On the post: Status Quo
Re:
On the post: Copyright Reform
Re: Oh dear, its "art' again
Have you ever heard the word 'subjective'?
On the post: Copyright Reform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't say the same of Daria, yet there it is. It's not 'cheap' producers, but insane copyright laws that only really benefit a few corporations that are the problem here.
On the post: Copyright Reform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one needs to make a living from their art. The people who claim to have that need are essentially throwing tantrums because they think that they're entitled to make a living doing what they love.
News Flash: You do what you love because you love to do it. End of story. Most people work a day job, and then do what they love in their spare time and I've got zero sympathy for snivelers who cry about not making a mint from their art, or actually having to work to make money from their talent, just like everyone else does.
I'll tell you what, it takes talent and work to earn money in sales. It takes talent and work to earn money in customer service. It takes talent and work to earn money as a mechanic. It takes talent and work to earn money as a blogger. It takes talent and work to earn money in every single industry, including music and art.
You can make all the art you want without getting paid for it. A monetary exchange that benefits the artist isn't necessary for the artist to create art. Look at the countless number of artists who didn't make money from their art in their lifetimes, and only gained recognition after their deaths.
Let me be clear: The unwillingness of the public to support artists has never stopped the creation of art, and never will.
If you want to create art, create it. If you want to share your art, share it. If you want to make money, make it. You don't automatically deserve money from me just because you created art and shared it. The end. Deal with it.
On the post: Copyright Reform
Re:
On the post: How I Had To Give Permission To Quote And Paraphrase Myself
Re: Re:
I went home and ordered ten more 8x10s of the same photos over the Internet for one-hour service. They won't let me pay for them? Their loss.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of ire against police officers.
I don't think that officers or civilians should have to personally know every single law. That's simply not realistic. (If you disagree, come back and enumerate the laws for us. I'll even make it 'easy' and you can just give me the total number of federal laws, and not any state, county, or municipal laws.)
We need to take a step back and return to when a 'guilty mind' was required for criminal prosecution. So if an officer held a gun-toting citizen while he verified the law and then let the gentleman go with apologies, that's fine. In addition, if someone who has a license to carry a weapon enters a place with a local ordnance against carrying that it's unlikely he knew about, he shouldn't be charged, either. See? Much more realistic and closer to 'justice'.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Lots of ire against police officers.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of ire against police officers.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Lots of ire against police officers.
Yes, there is. And that excuse - reason - is simply that there are too many to remember, which is not the officer's fault. The problem here doesn't lie with the officer's failure to know tens of thousands of laws, but in his refusal to confirm the law or to treat this man with any respect whatsoever.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Lots of ire against police officers.
Of course, he expected trouble. He purchased and carried the weapon after several muggings and carrying recording equipment is just standard, especially since news reports like this abound. (Personally, I carry a thumb drive sized voice recorder to take notes, as does every officer that works that my father-in-law.)
Regardless, you can't bait someone who refuses to take the bait, which this officer could have done easily by simply respecting this man's legal rights, and calling in for confirmation when the his knowledge of the law was challenged. No one expects cops to know everything, but we do expect them to check before they draw a weapon on a citizen.
On the post: 4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment? Supremes Say Police Can Create Conditions To Enter Home Without A Warrant
Re:
If they have so little marijuana that it can be consumed in the five minutes that it takes to get a warrant, then the cops shouldn't even be there. They have more important things to worry about.
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The entire world is not made up of your trusted friends, crade, and the entire world is what your child is exposed to.
In addition, even trusted friends make mistakes. You should know enough about everything to be able to assess the basic safety of any area that you're allowing your children to go, both with and without you, without relying on the knowledge of others.
Why? Because your children are your responsibility, not your friends' responsibility, and trusting everyone to know what children are like and what kind of shenanigans they can get up to with your things is simply ignorant bad parenting.
Next >>