You don't understand. If the film industry earns less than $45 trillion every year, that's clearly due to piracy. Why, the whole top twenty list from 2013 didn't even earn $5 billion.
Greedy? Why we allowed the world the round-off $730 billion for other budgets...so why would you think $45 trillion is greedy?
"Incompatible format" is shorthand for, "We just don't want to do it." Yes, it would take work, but it's only worth it if you consider the documents important. I've been part of a number of conversions for other systems, and it's not unusual for a decision to be made to abandon the junk in the old system.
But just who is it here that considers those documents unimportant, and why? Is it PACER development? No, they're an "employee", not the "owner" of the documents.
So it's the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, which manages the system, that made this decision.
Perhaps I could understand these being ruled unimportant if it were just the local court cases; the number of people who would need those is low-per-document, giving a low return for storage; and the local court is supposed to have copies.
But Appeals Court decisions?
It sounds to me like the Administrative Office of the United States Courts decided, due to stupidity or deliberate malfeasance, to eradicate Appeals Court case law. I hope it's not malfeasance, because that would be really scary.
Requestor: Oh. Too hard to get it off the backup. That makes sense I guess. But that's no problem. Just give us the whole backup and we'll get it off.
Gov: Wahh wah wahh wah wah!
Requestor: But the NSA grabs everything and promises it will only look at relevant stuff. We're just doing the same. We promise we'll only look at Lerner's emails. Trust us.
Gov: Wah wahh wah wahh wahh wah!
Requestor: But our promise is as good as the NSA's. You accept promises from the NSA. Look, we didn't even have our fingers crossed. You can trust us.
They cannot afford a disc drive for public records, but can pay for Bluffdale [...]
Of course. Public records are used against the government; therefore, they must be locked up so the government can abuse its citizens in peace. Or if not abuse, well, public records are very not a priority.
But records on all those potential terro...*ahem*...all those awesome citizens, well, those are a priority, because those help us control the citizens.
I don't agree that copyright violations on an individual case basis are worse than child abuse, that is daft to think that.
Good, we agree after all!
The scale of punishment in each case is related to it's ability to sufficiently punish and at the same time potentially change the attitudes of the criminal.
And, again, we agree. I have no problem with stacking a copyright violator's crimes for his multiple offenses, or with him ultimately winding up with more time than a person who commits one child abuse might get. Do the crime, do the time.
But the two crimes do not relate as a moral issue.
Now, if we could just get decent stacking going for the crimes of companies, the world would be a much better place. (I.e., a company that steals billions from victims should actually have to pay more than $150,000 as a penalty.)
The original statement was: Mike, surely you must realize that copyright infringement is much worse, morally and otherwise, than any form of child abuse could ever be.
I don't see any mention in that statement of "stacking" of charges which, by the by, could also occur for multiple incidents of child abuse. What I saw and what I see a flat statement that "copyright is much worse, morally [...] than any form of child abuse could be." I emphasize: Morally!
So just where would you draw the line there? Would copyright violation be more immoral than rape? Murder? Serial murder? Grinding people up for the meatballs? Killing millions in an ethnic cleansing?
It takes a bitter cold heart to weigh living, breathing, suffering humans on one scale against profit on the other and say the humans are wanting.
I tried hard to find a charitable way to read that request, but I find myself unable to to be sure it is anything other than serious in intent; not in context, not as satire.
The only way any person could regard copyright infringement (simple theft) as being worse than child abuse (physical harm to a human being) is if that person holds humans (other than themselves) to be simple chattel; having value only to be used for scientific experiments, slave labor, fighting wars, turning over their mean income for stingy copyright licences, and once dead, as fodder for the soylent green tanks.
A person who places *their* *money* above every other human value has a shattered iceberg in their chest, where most people have a heart.
Surely the query was merely ill thought and you aren't one of those people?
I agree with Glen. I think the law should make the officer responsible for violations of rights; perhaps not the whole amount but, say, limited to 1% or $10,000, whichever is less.
As it is, it's just good fun for the cop to watch the taxpayers get punished for his abuse.
The spying is about money and power all right, but only peripherally about the NSA's money and power.
The real reason for the spying is that government, corporations, and plutocrats regard all of us as potential terrorists; an immediate danger to their power and control. As a result, they are willing to give unlimited money and power to NSA and others to keep an eye on us, which leads to the secondary money and power dreams of the NSA.
This should be apparent to anyone: It is clear despite denials and dissembling, that the NSA is far more interested in watching citizens, than it is foreigners. Most people either enthusiastically agree NSA has a right, or at least accept the need for NSA, to observer foreigners. So think about it: Why else does NSA expend so much effort to get around the laws protecting citizens from snooping?
He forgot a rule, sadly demonstrated here in Orlando by the death of Maria Godinez:
"When a cop must shoot a suspect, other citizens should get out of the way. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it is not the cops but the bystanders hitting the deck, who can prevent a cop's stray bullets from turning into tragedies."
We're just going to do whatever we do. But, if it should turn out that whatever we do is something you petitioned us to do, we'll sure be glad to grab credit for listening to your petition.
I use a rule of thumb to judge in advance whether a movie is likely to be good: The intensity of advertising immediately prior to opening; with higher intensities corresponding to worse movies. I have speculated that the theory is this: If a movie sucks, then you must run a massive, "turn-their-brains-to-pudding" advertising campaign designed to ensure everyone sees it opening weekend. If it is a great movie, you hardly need to advertise it at all, because of all the word of mouth advertising you get.
So, if my theory is valid, then a pre-leak of a bad movie is seriously damaging to its first weekend take because everyone learns it is bad before the opening; the advertising doesn't work. (Conversely, I'd expect pre-leaks to make good movie returns even better.)
The only question remaining is, did Expendables 3 advertising campaign qualify as a massive, "turn-their-brains-to-pudding"? I kind of think it did.
It's possible there is some truth to the idea that some of the incitement is coming from outside the area.
However, the questions posed prove nothing. In the case of the question about "protesting at night", well, most of the people work or have other commitments during the day; their free time is at night, like everyone else's. Not only that, but darkness covers movement, so sneaking around is best done at night.
The other two questions describe criminality in general; one of the fundamental constants of criminality is lack of wisdom. Consider: A man is poor, so he robs a bank; then he gets caught, the money gets taken back; and now he's still poor and in prison for the next 25 years. How did robbing the bank improve his situation?
People, particularly people in mobs, frequently don't think things all the way through to the aftermath. Intelligence says, "I'm poor. If I rob the bank, then I'll have money." A yields B. Wisdom says, now think beyond that: What is the aftermath? A yields B, but A will also yield other consequences?
In general, criminals and mobs have some moderate intelligence but zero wisdom.
So to answer the questions:
1) How are the victim or the victim's family helped by looting? Looting seems like a good idea at the time: "I want a color TV. There's a color TV. The police are busy elsewhere. So I can take the TV and then I'll have a TV." No one thinks ahead to what it will mean to the community and their own family to loot a color TV. It's not like they dare have the TV set up and operating; or that they dare to sell it...should wisdom take hold, they'll probably wind up tossing their "prize" in the river.
2) If the intent of the protests are peaceful, why protest at night and not during the day - especially on a weekend? Daytime has other commitments; night is best for sneaking around. I concede these reasons apply equally to outsiders, but these do not prove outsiders.
3) How is the victim or his family helped by throwing rocks, moltov cocktails or shooting at the police? Dealing with the police is now; "We can beat these idiots." Same reasoning as any war: No one is thinking ahead to the aftermath. Mobs use some limited intelligence to win now; have zero wisdom.
All of this, of course, is why mobs and rioting are so dangerous.
On the post: If You're A Copyright Maximalist 'Piracy' Must Be The Answer To All Problems
Unsatisfactory
Greedy? Why we allowed the world the round-off $730 billion for other budgets...so why would you think $45 trillion is greedy?
On the post: PACER Officials Give Weak, Nonsensical Excuse For Why PACER Deleted Tons Of Public Court Records With No Notice
Incompatible format
But just who is it here that considers those documents unimportant, and why? Is it PACER development? No, they're an "employee", not the "owner" of the documents.
So it's the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, which manages the system, that made this decision.
Perhaps I could understand these being ruled unimportant if it were just the local court cases; the number of people who would need those is low-per-document, giving a low return for storage; and the local court is supposed to have copies.
But Appeals Court decisions?
It sounds to me like the Administrative Office of the United States Courts decided, due to stupidity or deliberate malfeasance, to eradicate Appeals Court case law. I hope it's not malfeasance, because that would be really scary.
On the post: Justice Dept. Official: We Could Get Lois Lerner's Emails From Backups, But It's Too Hard So Naaaaaah
We can solve this...
Gov: Wahh wah wahh wah wah!
Requestor: But the NSA grabs everything and promises it will only look at relevant stuff. We're just doing the same. We promise we'll only look at Lerner's emails. Trust us.
Gov: Wah wahh wah wahh wahh wah!
Requestor: But our promise is as good as the NSA's. You accept promises from the NSA. Look, we didn't even have our fingers crossed. You can trust us.
On the post: Champion Of The People: Verizon Complains Exigent Circumstances Order Inadequate For Info Requested; Hands Over Info Anyway
What Verizon basically said...
On the post: PACER Deleting Old Cases; Time To Fix PACER
Re:
Of course. Public records are used against the government; therefore, they must be locked up so the government can abuse its citizens in peace. Or if not abuse, well, public records are very not a priority.
But records on all those potential terro...*ahem*...all those awesome citizens, well, those are a priority, because those help us control the citizens.
On the post: NSA Makes Metadata (Including Info On Americans) Available To Domestic Law Enforcement Via 'Google-Like' Search
Super advanced security, no doubt
Agent: Find "Citizen Joe".
Computer: No matching records found for U.S. citizen.
Agent: Sudo find "Citizen Joe".
Computer: Found 13,914 records...
On the post: California Lawmaker Votes To Kill Uber... Then Caught Driving Drunk Just Hours Later
What Connection
On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Much Worse
Good, we agree after all!
The scale of punishment in each case is related to it's ability to sufficiently punish and at the same time potentially change the attitudes of the criminal.
And, again, we agree. I have no problem with stacking a copyright violator's crimes for his multiple offenses, or with him ultimately winding up with more time than a person who commits one child abuse might get. Do the crime, do the time.
But the two crimes do not relate as a moral issue.
Now, if we could just get decent stacking going for the crimes of companies, the world would be a much better place. (I.e., a company that steals billions from victims should actually have to pay more than $150,000 as a penalty.)
On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6
Re: Re: Re: Much Worse
I don't see any mention in that statement of "stacking" of charges which, by the by, could also occur for multiple incidents of child abuse. What I saw and what I see a flat statement that "copyright is much worse, morally [...] than any form of child abuse could be." I emphasize: Morally!
So just where would you draw the line there? Would copyright violation be more immoral than rape? Murder? Serial murder? Grinding people up for the meatballs? Killing millions in an ethnic cleansing?
It takes a bitter cold heart to weigh living, breathing, suffering humans on one scale against profit on the other and say the humans are wanting.
On the post: Crime And Punishment? 33 Months In Jail For Filming And Uploading Fast & Furious 6
Re: Much Worse
The only way any person could regard copyright infringement (simple theft) as being worse than child abuse (physical harm to a human being) is if that person holds humans (other than themselves) to be simple chattel; having value only to be used for scientific experiments, slave labor, fighting wars, turning over their mean income for stingy copyright licences, and once dead, as fodder for the soylent green tanks.
A person who places *their* *money* above every other human value has a shattered iceberg in their chest, where most people have a heart.
Surely the query was merely ill thought and you aren't one of those people?
On the post: Patent Troll Intellectual Ventures Claims Its Layoffs Are Because It's Invented A New Way To Buy Patents
But did they patent it
On the post: NYPD Settles Case In Which It Arrested Guy For Recording Stop And Frisk, Pays $125,000
Re: Re:
As it is, it's just good fun for the cop to watch the taxpayers get punished for his abuse.
On the post: NYPD Settles Case In Which It Arrested Guy For Recording Stop And Frisk, Pays $125,000
Re:
On the post: Money And Power: The Real Reason For The NSA Spying On Everyone
Misdirection
The real reason for the spying is that government, corporations, and plutocrats regard all of us as potential terrorists; an immediate danger to their power and control. As a result, they are willing to give unlimited money and power to NSA and others to keep an eye on us, which leads to the secondary money and power dreams of the NSA.
This should be apparent to anyone: It is clear despite denials and dissembling, that the NSA is far more interested in watching citizens, than it is foreigners. Most people either enthusiastically agree NSA has a right, or at least accept the need for NSA, to observer foreigners. So think about it: Why else does NSA expend so much effort to get around the laws protecting citizens from snooping?
On the post: LAPD Officer Says Tragedies Could Be Prevented If Citizens Would Just Shut Up And Do What Cops Tell Them To
He forgot a rule
"When a cop must shoot a suspect, other citizens should get out of the way. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it is not the cops but the bystanders hitting the deck, who can prevent a cop's stray bullets from turning into tragedies."
On the post: Administration Proudly Announces That If Your 'We The People' Petition Aligns With Its Priorities, Something Might Actually Happen
Sure be happy to share in any credit
On the post: Police In Ferguson Sign Court Agreement Promising Not To Interfere With Media... Then Go Threaten And Arrest Media
Re: Re: Loopholes big enough to drive armored trucks through
(Press complies.)
"OMG! You're all standing on a bullseye! You must disperse immediately."
On the post: From The Unsealed 'Jewel v. NSA' Transcript: The DOJ Has Nothing But Contempt For American Citizens
Re: A devastating Freudian slip has occurred
No wonder they want this buried.
On the post: Hollywood Desperate To Blame Bad Opening Box Office Of Expendables 3 On Piracy Rather Than The Fact That It Sucked
Sadly, they could have a point
I use a rule of thumb to judge in advance whether a movie is likely to be good: The intensity of advertising immediately prior to opening; with higher intensities corresponding to worse movies. I have speculated that the theory is this: If a movie sucks, then you must run a massive, "turn-their-brains-to-pudding" advertising campaign designed to ensure everyone sees it opening weekend. If it is a great movie, you hardly need to advertise it at all, because of all the word of mouth advertising you get.
So, if my theory is valid, then a pre-leak of a bad movie is seriously damaging to its first weekend take because everyone learns it is bad before the opening; the advertising doesn't work. (Conversely, I'd expect pre-leaks to make good movie returns even better.)
The only question remaining is, did Expendables 3 advertising campaign qualify as a massive, "turn-their-brains-to-pudding"? I kind of think it did.
On the post: Police In Ferguson Back To Threatening And Arresting Reporters: Tells Them To 'Get The Fuck Out Of Here'
Re: The really story?
However, the questions posed prove nothing. In the case of the question about "protesting at night", well, most of the people work or have other commitments during the day; their free time is at night, like everyone else's. Not only that, but darkness covers movement, so sneaking around is best done at night.
The other two questions describe criminality in general; one of the fundamental constants of criminality is lack of wisdom. Consider: A man is poor, so he robs a bank; then he gets caught, the money gets taken back; and now he's still poor and in prison for the next 25 years. How did robbing the bank improve his situation?
People, particularly people in mobs, frequently don't think things all the way through to the aftermath. Intelligence says, "I'm poor. If I rob the bank, then I'll have money." A yields B. Wisdom says, now think beyond that: What is the aftermath? A yields B, but A will also yield other consequences?
In general, criminals and mobs have some moderate intelligence but zero wisdom.
So to answer the questions:
1) How are the victim or the victim's family helped by looting? Looting seems like a good idea at the time: "I want a color TV. There's a color TV. The police are busy elsewhere. So I can take the TV and then I'll have a TV." No one thinks ahead to what it will mean to the community and their own family to loot a color TV. It's not like they dare have the TV set up and operating; or that they dare to sell it...should wisdom take hold, they'll probably wind up tossing their "prize" in the river.
2) If the intent of the protests are peaceful, why protest at night and not during the day - especially on a weekend? Daytime has other commitments; night is best for sneaking around. I concede these reasons apply equally to outsiders, but these do not prove outsiders.
3) How is the victim or his family helped by throwing rocks, moltov cocktails or shooting at the police? Dealing with the police is now; "We can beat these idiots." Same reasoning as any war: No one is thinking ahead to the aftermath. Mobs use some limited intelligence to win now; have zero wisdom.
All of this, of course, is why mobs and rioting are so dangerous.
Next >>