No, what's really stupid is that Google wasn't even the one commissioning the study that got Techdirt listed on this filing. It's a tangential relationship at best.
Oh well, I'm sure once this leaves Crystal Ball territory all the trolls in the world will want to put their stupdity on display for all of us to see.
Sadly, I have yet to receive a check from Google, despite writing for the site. And, given that I, like Mike, have been critical of Google in the past, this is all much to do about nothing....
What's stupid about all this is that the broad order from the Judge, after Google said they had paid nobody to comment on the case, caused them to simply sweep a bunch of people they had unrelated business with and throw them at the judge to shut them up.
First of all, thank you for being one of the folks around here who can disagree with portions of articles while being level-headed, reasonable, and on point. A couple of quick notes, however:
"You're right that the "ultimate" goal (or purpose) of copyright law is the dissemination of works of knowledge and culture. However, the manner in which it is supposed to do that is by securing rights for a limited time in those works encouraging authors to create them. The "ultimate" goal of copyright is exactly as you say; but the operational goal (the goal immediately in the cross hairs of copyright for achieving that ultimate goal) is to see that as many works as possible be created in the first place."
Perhaps, but we've seen an explosion of content creation in the same age as the explosion of piracy, so I'm not sure this is a point in favor of Copyright or Copyright enforcement....
" I disagree as to the argument that, if anything, the first amendment should "repeal" the copyright clause because it came after. This is false. When a law is repealed, it is done so expressly. You don't enact a conflicting law as a tool to repeal an old one. The only reasonable statutory interpretation is that these legal principles must coexist and it falls on courts of law to interpret the often jagged boundaries of these principles."
I had no intention of seriously suggesting that the 1st amendment repealed copyright law. It may LIMIT it, or limit its enforcement, but not repeal.
Instead, I was pointing out that the quoted source's claim to some importance of copyright over the 1st Amendment because it came first could cut both ways, depending on how you assign privelage to both clauses. The truth is that no such assignment should exist, so the whole point is moot.
Coincidentally, I'm fairly certain that fifteen years ago this day, I was fifteen years old and saw my very first real life, in-person booby. In other words, it's nice and rather synergistic that this is a meaningful day for the both of us.
Kidding aside, congrats Techdirt and Techdirt-ers. I couldn't be prouder to be a small part of it....
"While the proposed method might qualify under a broad definition of eugenics, it is a particularly prejudicial term that predisposes the reader toward faulty assumptions."
Yup, which I mentioned in the article to combat those faulty assumptions :)
Well, not definitive, but from Wikipedia: "Eugenics is the "applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population", usually a human population"
It would appear the definition for Eugenics isn't as narrow as you make it sound...
"Honestly, in the end, I think this could be a boon to evolution; a shot in the arm, so to speak. These new screened humans would still compete with the home-grown kind, and could very well lead to selective sweeps much faster and with less suffering than "traditional" evolution."
As I said, I don't have a fully formed opinion yet, but here's where the problem might lie. Whether we're talking about disease, as you were, or behavioral gene selection, as the article discussed, some of the same genes that put you at risk for one disease also ward off another. I'll have to go hunting for the link I was reading when writing this if you want a citation (if you really want me to, I'll go find it), but that was one of the biologists' problems: unintended consequences.
Sure, we could eradicate every genetic marker for Alzheimer's through unnatural selection, but what if that same gene protects against some far WORSE disease that then runs rampant across the entire population?
Maybe something more like a "revise" button, that would allow you to strike through statements and replace them with other words, but would always show the strike throughs?
"In fact, you're just making it sound like you're covering up something."
Riiiiiiight. You're on totally solid footing there, soldier. I'm part of the vast Techdirt/Google conspiracy. We also have weekly conference calls with the Illuminati....
Neither does the question about Obama's birth certificate. The point is that, since we've clearly demonstrated that editorial commentary does not shy away from critisizing Google, your question is entirely irrelevant.
Keep asking it, though. It's good for a laugh, if nothing else....
"I think "douchebag" would be more appropriate anyway."
That I happen to have no issue with whatsoever. If you think I'm a douchebag, label me away. That's your opinion. Your assertion that this website somehow "serves" Google, however, remains unsubstantiated and simply incorrect....
"And you may be working against your own longterm best interests by speaking against your paymasters."
I like how this article is the antithesis of your own accusation, and yet you ignore it completely and pretend as though this site is under some strict orders not to do a negative post about Google.
As someone who writes for the site, I can ASSURE you that is not the case. Care to simply label me a liar? Because that would be fucking hysterical....
I'll have all of you know that I keep in tip top physical shape with a daily workout regimine featuring nightly athletic endeavors of football, baseball, and sometimes basketball (all on a Playstation 3), the lifting of decreasing weight, starting at 12 ounces and working down to cut up my arms, and frequent aerobic face-palming sessions.
As such, I am 165 lbs. of rippling, hardcore muscle. Now, I happen to weigh 190 lbs., but I'm still 165 lbs. of rippling muscle....
Yeah, Masnick! Plus, you STILL haven't engaged me on my question about why we don't have a Dark Helmet Techdirt Nudie Calendar! RAWR!!!! eNGAge mE HumAN!!!!
On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
Re: Re: Re: What's stupid...
Oh well, I'm sure once this leaves Crystal Ball territory all the trolls in the world will want to put their stupdity on display for all of us to see.
Sadly, I have yet to receive a check from Google, despite writing for the site. And, given that I, like Mike, have been critical of Google in the past, this is all much to do about nothing....
On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
What's stupid...
"You didn't try hard enough, Google". WTF????
On the post: Apparently The Purpose Of Copyright: Keeping Our Ancestors' Promise To Noah Webster
Re: The nature of copyright
"You're right that the "ultimate" goal (or purpose) of copyright law is the dissemination of works of knowledge and culture. However, the manner in which it is supposed to do that is by securing rights for a limited time in those works encouraging authors to create them. The "ultimate" goal of copyright is exactly as you say; but the operational goal (the goal immediately in the cross hairs of copyright for achieving that ultimate goal) is to see that as many works as possible be created in the first place."
Perhaps, but we've seen an explosion of content creation in the same age as the explosion of piracy, so I'm not sure this is a point in favor of Copyright or Copyright enforcement....
" I disagree as to the argument that, if anything, the first amendment should "repeal" the copyright clause because it came after. This is false. When a law is repealed, it is done so expressly. You don't enact a conflicting law as a tool to repeal an old one. The only reasonable statutory interpretation is that these legal principles must coexist and it falls on courts of law to interpret the often jagged boundaries of these principles."
I had no intention of seriously suggesting that the 1st amendment repealed copyright law. It may LIMIT it, or limit its enforcement, but not repeal.
Instead, I was pointing out that the quoted source's claim to some importance of copyright over the 1st Amendment because it came first could cut both ways, depending on how you assign privelage to both clauses. The truth is that no such assignment should exist, so the whole point is moot.
On the post: Fifteen Years Ago Today, Techdirt Was Born
Re: monumental waste of 15 years
15 years of WINGING?!??! But we only JUST released motha fucking eagles on all yer asses, yo!
On the post: Fifteen Years Ago Today, Techdirt Was Born
Re: Re:
On the post: Rep. Nadler Proposes The RIAA Bailout Act Of 2012
Re:
I likewise await the Bourne Music Tax. We all have to pay it, but none of us can remember what it was for, yet it continues to kick our ass....
On the post: Fifteen Years Ago Today, Techdirt Was Born
Hmm, let's see
Kidding aside, congrats Techdirt and Techdirt-ers. I couldn't be prouder to be a small part of it....
On the post: The DVD Is Dying. Hollywood's Plan? Do Nothing And Cede Ground To File Sharing
Re:
Motherfucking Eagle trumps Marble Cake.
On the post: Oxford Professor Says Mankind Is Ethically Obligated To Create Genetically Engineered Babies
Re: Re: Re: Also
Yup, which I mentioned in the article to combat those faulty assumptions :)
On the post: Oxford Professor Says Mankind Is Ethically Obligated To Create Genetically Engineered Babies
Re: Also
It would appear the definition for Eugenics isn't as narrow as you make it sound...
On the post: Oxford Professor Says Mankind Is Ethically Obligated To Create Genetically Engineered Babies
Re: Not yet slippery
As I said, I don't have a fully formed opinion yet, but here's where the problem might lie. Whether we're talking about disease, as you were, or behavioral gene selection, as the article discussed, some of the same genes that put you at risk for one disease also ward off another. I'll have to go hunting for the link I was reading when writing this if you want a citation (if you really want me to, I'll go find it), but that was one of the biologists' problems: unintended consequences.
Sure, we could eradicate every genetic marker for Alzheimer's through unnatural selection, but what if that same gene protects against some far WORSE disease that then runs rampant across the entire population?
On the post: The Stupidity Of The 'Just Go Without' Argument
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Launches Patent Attack On Apple In A Disappointing First For The Company
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Riiiiiiight. You're on totally solid footing there, soldier. I'm part of the vast Techdirt/Google conspiracy. We also have weekly conference calls with the Illuminati....
On the post: Google Launches Patent Attack On Apple In A Disappointing First For The Company
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither does the question about Obama's birth certificate. The point is that, since we've clearly demonstrated that editorial commentary does not shy away from critisizing Google, your question is entirely irrelevant.
Keep asking it, though. It's good for a laugh, if nothing else....
On the post: Google Launches Patent Attack On Apple In A Disappointing First For The Company
Re: Re: Re:
That I happen to have no issue with whatsoever. If you think I'm a douchebag, label me away. That's your opinion. Your assertion that this website somehow "serves" Google, however, remains unsubstantiated and simply incorrect....
On the post: So Many Similarities Between Copyright Law And Prohibition
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's what she said.
ZING!!!!!
On the post: Google Launches Patent Attack On Apple In A Disappointing First For The Company
Re:
I like how this article is the antithesis of your own accusation, and yet you ignore it completely and pretend as though this site is under some strict orders not to do a negative post about Google.
As someone who writes for the site, I can ASSURE you that is not the case. Care to simply label me a liar? Because that would be fucking hysterical....
On the post: So Many Similarities Between Copyright Law And Prohibition
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As such, I am 165 lbs. of rippling, hardcore muscle. Now, I happen to weigh 190 lbs., but I'm still 165 lbs. of rippling muscle....
On the post: So Many Similarities Between Copyright Law And Prohibition
Re:
On the post: Band Calls 1st Amendment A 'Buzzword' In (Plagiarized) C&D To Mitt Romney Over (Licensed) Use Of Song
Re:
FACEPALM!!!!
Next >>