"What Aereo is doing is nothing more than your neighbor stealing your car out of your driveway, using it for their personal use, and not compensating you for their use of your car."
I can't believe there are still people out there stupid enough to compare removal of a physical object to any form of copyright infringement, let alone a case like this which multiple courts have said is not infringement. You get my funny vote.
"If the police and school administrators would start adopting a zero tolerance policy..."
Any use of the words "zero tolerance" should set off alarm bells. These policies always claim to have the best intentions, but produce horrific results when rigidly obeying poorly considered policies becomes more important than applying common sense and appropriate responses.
And it says a lot about you that you're offended by the idea that other important and relevant aspects of this girls life should be ignored while hyper-focusing on your pet concern. God help us if you're ever responsible for enforcing one of your suggested zero-tolerance policies.
Re: Snowden is a traitor and his supporters are misguided.
"With all due respect, those that support Snowden are those that oppose the United States."
With all due respect, that's an extraordinarily stupid accusation. According to recent polls, half the US population is against what the NSA is doing, and most of them wouldn't have had a clue about the sheer scale and over-reach of their actions if it weren't for Snowden.
"They know nothing of the classification system, the consequences of not following it, nor have any credibility to speak on matters of national security."
Sorry, but the average intelligence of the readers here is too high for an "I know more than you so shut up!" appeal to authority to carry much weight in an argument.
"These supporters only care about secrets if they're used to harm the United States, as repeatedly done through Snowden's misappropriated information, Greenwald's acceptance of stolen property, as well as other misdeeds against the US."
We'd love it if you could provide any evidence whatsoever of the harm and misdeeds you refer to. You sound just like plenty of other blowhards claiming all sorts of shocking consequences, but can't actually point to any real proof. Y'know who else would like to see this evidence? The USG, coz they can't find any either.
I think it should've been made clearer that this doesn't in anyway reduce the awfulness of the current notice-and-takedown system, it merely points out that the content industry's proposed alternative is far worse. A notice-and-notice system would provide the same (probably more) incentive to make works available, while reducing the crazy levels of abuse of the notice-and-takedown system.
"You survived the last terrorist attack. Thousands of your fellow citizens did not."
Wow, really? You sound like a typical politician trying to get elected with blatant fear-mongering.
"Meanwhile, you and your cohorts post hyperbolic claims about living in a police state..."
Meanwhile, you and your cohorts post hyperbolic claims about living in a state of imminent terrorism. This despite the fact that the chances of being directly affected by a terrorist attack are statistically minute, particularly one of foreign origin. The government has been given (or just taken) far more power than it needs to combat the problem, and is massively abusing that power.
"I support the rule of law and will abide by the Court's decision, even if I don't like it. This is what the "Founding Fathers" also had in mind."
The law is supposed to be a reflection of the public's will, the kind of society they want to live in. When the law is extended, twisted and abused to the point where it no longer reflects the public will, it should be changed, not supported. I'm pretty damn sure the Founding Fathers didn't have total acquiescence to government power in mind.
"I think you presume a lot with very little support for your presumptions."
You're either unbelievably ignorant in claiming there's no support for these "presumptions", or you're trying to convince us there is no such support despite the massive amount of published info providing quite solid support. So are you dumb or deceitful?
"U.K. intelligence has stated that known terrorist methods of operation and communication have changed (improved)."
So the people who have been proven to be lying to the public on a massive scale offer one of the easiest and most obvious defenses, and you just believe them? Are you one of these people or just a bit naive and gullible?
"Make him your hero if you like, but more and more observers are waking up to one of the most massive media deceptions in American history."
Who are these people exactly? Seriously, this is a pretty easy claim to make, but you're going to have to provide at least some proof, because it sounds quite overblown and without any merit whatsoever.
"...incredibly naive of him to think of Russian press as free and Putin's Q&A sessions as non-scripted..."
What on Earth makes you think Snowden thinks that? Absolutely nothing he's done could make anyone who's followed his public statements leap to that conclusion. Your comment almost seems like a weak attempt to lead people to believe something you know to be false...
Actually I think it's dangerous not because of what they could do to me personally as you describe, but what they can do to other more important people that who may be working in my interests. What if some in the government decided they were sick of the actions of groups like Wikileaks, EFF or the ACLU, or up-and-coming politicians who start getting popular with voters because they challenge current government positions or actions. What if what you describe above is done to them? To me that's far scarier.
What you've just described would be the result of a law suit that many people simply can't afford. The problem will not be solved unless the victim is someone who can afford to win.
"The assumptions made in this story are completely stupid."
Be careful throwing that word around...
"First off, you wouldn't get cable to watch a single show."
Well done, you've actually hit on the main point without even realising it. People won't pay just to watch GoT, they'll get it elsewhere instead. An entire section of the market is being ignored and not earning anybody any money. How is that a good business decision? And if it turns out that keeping it exclusive does actually maximise their profit, why the hell are they complaining about it?!
There's nothing misleading here, you're just not understanding the argument. If you want to watch GoT legally, that is what you have to pay. The fact that you get access to other stuff is not relevant, because the discussion is about being able to watch this particular show.
Actually she had the looks and just enough talent to do alright in Hollywood, but it turns out being a complete bitch to everyone is a bit of a career handbrake.
On the post: RIAA Claims That It Is 'Standing Up For' Older Musicians That It Actually Left To Rot
Re: Yes, the RIAA are scum...
On the post: Why Do So Many People Describe Aereo 'Complying' With Copyright Law As The Company 'Circumventing' Copyright Law?
Re:
I can't believe there are still people out there stupid enough to compare removal of a physical object to any form of copyright infringement, let alone a case like this which multiple courts have said is not infringement. You get my funny vote.
On the post: UK Filters And The Slippery Slope Of Mass Censorship
Re: Re: Re:
Who exactly determined this "need" you speak of? You? A vocal minority of moral crusaders? The government?
On the post: Police File On Student 'Bullied Into Committing Suicide' Strangely Lacking In Evidence Of Bullying
Re:
Any use of the words "zero tolerance" should set off alarm bells. These policies always claim to have the best intentions, but produce horrific results when rigidly obeying poorly considered policies becomes more important than applying common sense and appropriate responses.
And it says a lot about you that you're offended by the idea that other important and relevant aspects of this girls life should be ignored while hyper-focusing on your pet concern. God help us if you're ever responsible for enforcing one of your suggested zero-tolerance policies.
On the post: James Clapper Giving Speeches To Students, Begging Them To Stop Thinking Of Ed Snowden As A Hero
Re: Snowden is a traitor and his supporters are misguided.
With all due respect, that's an extraordinarily stupid accusation. According to recent polls, half the US population is against what the NSA is doing, and most of them wouldn't have had a clue about the sheer scale and over-reach of their actions if it weren't for Snowden.
"They know nothing of the classification system, the consequences of not following it, nor have any credibility to speak on matters of national security."
Sorry, but the average intelligence of the readers here is too high for an "I know more than you so shut up!" appeal to authority to carry much weight in an argument.
"These supporters only care about secrets if they're used to harm the United States, as repeatedly done through Snowden's misappropriated information, Greenwald's acceptance of stolen property, as well as other misdeeds against the US."
We'd love it if you could provide any evidence whatsoever of the harm and misdeeds you refer to. You sound just like plenty of other blowhards claiming all sorts of shocking consequences, but can't actually point to any real proof. Y'know who else would like to see this evidence? The USG, coz they can't find any either.
On the post: Study Shows How Notice-And-Takedown Reduces Transaction Costs In Making Works Legally Available
Still not the best solution
On the post: Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden
Re:
Wow, really? You sound like a typical politician trying to get elected with blatant fear-mongering.
"Meanwhile, you and your cohorts post hyperbolic claims about living in a police state..."
Meanwhile, you and your cohorts post hyperbolic claims about living in a state of imminent terrorism. This despite the fact that the chances of being directly affected by a terrorist attack are statistically minute, particularly one of foreign origin. The government has been given (or just taken) far more power than it needs to combat the problem, and is massively abusing that power.
"I support the rule of law and will abide by the Court's decision, even if I don't like it. This is what the "Founding Fathers" also had in mind."
The law is supposed to be a reflection of the public's will, the kind of society they want to live in. When the law is extended, twisted and abused to the point where it no longer reflects the public will, it should be changed, not supported. I'm pretty damn sure the Founding Fathers didn't have total acquiescence to government power in mind.
On the post: Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
You're either unbelievably ignorant in claiming there's no support for these "presumptions", or you're trying to convince us there is no such support despite the massive amount of published info providing quite solid support. So are you dumb or deceitful?
On the post: Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden
Re: Martyr Syndrome
So the people who have been proven to be lying to the public on a massive scale offer one of the easiest and most obvious defenses, and you just believe them? Are you one of these people or just a bit naive and gullible?
On the post: Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden
Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome
Who are these people exactly? Seriously, this is a pretty easy claim to make, but you're going to have to provide at least some proof, because it sounds quite overblown and without any merit whatsoever.
On the post: Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden
Re: note Snowden wants Kremlin critics investigated
Why are you claiming something that is provably and commonly known to be false? Kinda undermines everything else you say...
On the post: Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden
Re:
What on Earth makes you think Snowden thinks that? Absolutely nothing he's done could make anyone who's followed his public statements leap to that conclusion. Your comment almost seems like a weak attempt to lead people to believe something you know to be false...
On the post: Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden
Re: Re: Re: Excellent analysis
On the post: Why Didn't The MPAA Weigh In On Garcia v. Google?
Re:
Feel free to offer some sort of intelligent, constructive rebuttal if you can. We won't hold our breath...
On the post: General Mills Says If You 'Like' Cheerios On Facebook, You Can No Longer Sue
Re: Re:
On the post: Would You Pay $50 Per Episode To See Game Of Thrones?
Re: Cool Story But Stupid
Be careful throwing that word around...
"First off, you wouldn't get cable to watch a single show."
Well done, you've actually hit on the main point without even realising it. People won't pay just to watch GoT, they'll get it elsewhere instead. An entire section of the market is being ignored and not earning anybody any money. How is that a good business decision? And if it turns out that keeping it exclusive does actually maximise their profit, why the hell are they complaining about it?!
On the post: Would You Pay $50 Per Episode To See Game Of Thrones?
Re:
On the post: FBI Abruptly Walks Out On Senate Briefing After Being Asked How 'Insider Threat' Program Avoids Whistleblowers
Re: directly to journalists
On the post: Katherine Heigl Wants Six Mil-Do After Drugstore Tweets Picture Of Her Shopping There
Re:
On the post: YouTube Video Taken Down Because Of Background Street Performer Impersonating Michael Jackson
Re: Re: Re: Headline
Next >>