Have you ever stopped to ask why these nations consider the US an adversary? Countries don't decide these things on a whim, there are usually pretty good reasons, like being treated with a lack of respect for example.
i>"Are you really OK with anyone leaking any classified document they want?"
Not any document, but certainly the ones revealing illegal, unconstitutional behavior by the USG.
To flip your question, are you really OK with the government keeping their illegal, unconstitutional behavior a secret from the public? Because that's basically what you're saying.
What's the matter Joe? Afraid to discuss the fact that as a wannabe IP lawyer this study is a direct threat to your intended career? Trying to deflect the conversation off-topic again?
"...surely you know that Mike says his posts here on TD are in the public domain."
And as a wannabe lawyer, you should know this has no legal basis, and is really only a statement of Mike's intent not to enforce the automatically granted copyright.
"He explicitly invoked his copyright. The irony is killing me."
And real irony here is that he's doing the exact opposite of what you claim, and yet you claim to be a legal expert.
"The vast majority of the world's websites manage to police themselves and keep infringing content off their sites."
That's a totally irrelevant (and unsubstantiated) claim. Most infringement issues come from site with user-generated content, which mean all sites that don't have UGC have nothing to do with the discussion.
"You pirates live in your own fake reality and everyone is laughing at you."
I can smell your desperate state of denial from here. Given the massive, worldwide scale of copyright infringement, it would seem that our reality is quite solid and everybody is actually laughing at you. More likely nobody's laughing, just ignoring you.
Re: There are three key FEATURES: 1) no civil or criminal sanctions.
...it's only illegal infringement...
If it were only illegal infringement you might have a point, even if some of that 'infringement' should be perfectly legal (i.e. content taken from the public domain). But there is massive amounts of collateral damage ('anomalies' in blue-speak) caused by the War on Infringement, and whatever benefits the current copyright system might bring, they're outweighed by the costs to society as a whole. Content creators are not special little flowers that need protecting from the big, bad world any more than the rest of us, and that applies even more to the corporations that actually control most copyrights.
So Mike writes an article that criticises a sneaky plan to allow record labels to screw musicians out of their rights, and you call him names because you don't like what Google does. Do you realise that you are the one that sounds like a slimy weasel here? You also sound like you support the RIAA's position here, so it's pretty hard to believe you have any genuine concern for artists.
Re: SO, take away corporate privileges; de-corporatize the world.
Apparently the only way Mike can make you happy is if he writes a few paragraphs criticising everything you don't like, and then puts those paragraphs in every article he posts. Not crazy at all...
Perhaps you should get off your lazy ass and write your own blog instead of complaining that other people aren't doing enough of your complaining for you.
Mike's not the one with the burden of proof here. Anyone supporting this newly invented 'right' should be the one providing evidence that it will provide a net gain to society (not artists).
Since you're clearly a fan of this idea, do you have any actual data that shows that the benefits exceed the costs?
Re: It's always PLUTOCRATS who get to profit in Mike's "economics".
So Mike explains how this new 'right' would benefit rich, famous artists at the expense of poor, unknown ones, and how this is a very bad thing, and you still feel the need to accuse Mike of favouring 'The Rich'.
"...people often forget how much of a struggle even a small woman can put up...
I was getting a bit pissed off with the guy doing the recording repeatedly exclaiming "she's just a girl!", even when he could see the officer was physically exhausted after he finally got her into the car. That matters how exactly?
"Anyone with first aid experience will tell you that if someone is screaming "I can't breath" they can breath just fine."
Actually I'd say that anyone who knows how to breath could tell you that. As soon as she screamed those words her credibility was out the window and I knew she was lying through her teeth about the 'injuries' she was supposedly suffering.
"So if the bad cop to good cop article ratio here is like 50:1, we're supposed to think that not only are most cops bad, but by an absurdly large ratio."
If you are a very dim-witted person with no critical thinking skills then yes you are likely to think like that. You certainly appear to be in a small minority though, and the rest of us pity you.
On the post: Many Reasons Why The US Government Should Respect The Privacy Rights Of Foreigners Too
Re:
On the post: Ed Snowden: I'm Still Working For The NSA; They Are The Only Ones Who Don't Realize It
Re:
Not any document, but certainly the ones revealing illegal, unconstitutional behavior by the USG.
To flip your question, are you really OK with the government keeping their illegal, unconstitutional behavior a secret from the public? Because that's basically what you're saying.
On the post: Vast Majority Of US Businesses Say Intellectual Property Is Not Important
Re:
On the post: Vast Majority Of US Businesses Say Intellectual Property Is Not Important
Re:
And as a wannabe lawyer, you should know this has no legal basis, and is really only a statement of Mike's intent not to enforce the automatically granted copyright.
"He explicitly invoked his copyright. The irony is killing me."
And real irony here is that he's doing the exact opposite of what you claim, and yet you claim to be a legal expert.
On the post: Rep. Mike Rogers Goes On National TV To Lie About NSA Programs And Snowden
Re:
And if you think Mike is wrong, feel free to explain why. So far you've been less than convincing.
On the post: Italy's Communications Watchdog Assigns Itself Extrajudicial Powers To Order ISPs To Stop Copyright Infringement
Re:
That's a totally irrelevant (and unsubstantiated) claim. Most infringement issues come from site with user-generated content, which mean all sites that don't have UGC have nothing to do with the discussion.
"You pirates live in your own fake reality and everyone is laughing at you."
I can smell your desperate state of denial from here. Given the massive, worldwide scale of copyright infringement, it would seem that our reality is quite solid and everybody is actually laughing at you. More likely nobody's laughing, just ignoring you.
On the post: Italy's Communications Watchdog Assigns Itself Extrajudicial Powers To Order ISPs To Stop Copyright Infringement
Re: There are three key FEATURES: 1) no civil or criminal sanctions.
If it were only illegal infringement you might have a point, even if some of that 'infringement' should be perfectly legal (i.e. content taken from the public domain). But there is massive amounts of collateral damage ('anomalies' in blue-speak) caused by the War on Infringement, and whatever benefits the current copyright system might bring, they're outweighed by the costs to society as a whole. Content creators are not special little flowers that need protecting from the big, bad world any more than the rest of us, and that applies even more to the corporations that actually control most copyrights.
On the post: Elsevier Ramps Up Its War On Access To Knowledge
Re:
On the post: FBI Agent: Connection Logs Show Suspect's MAC Address, So Look For Apple Hardware
Re: It'd be standard to look up computer brand, minion.
On the post: NZ Customs Refuses To Answer Questions After Revelations Of Illegal Orders To Give FBI Info On Kim Dotcom For 'Brownie Points'
Re: Keep on digging
On the post: Hidden Within The TPP: The RIAA's Secret Plan To Screw Musicians Out Of Their Rights
Re:
On the post: Hidden Within The TPP: The RIAA's Secret Plan To Screw Musicians Out Of Their Rights
Re: SO, take away corporate privileges; de-corporatize the world.
Perhaps you should get off your lazy ass and write your own blog instead of complaining that other people aren't doing enough of your complaining for you.
On the post: Digital Exports Dwarf Other Industries, So Why Is The USTR Ignoring Them?
Re:
On the post: US Copyright Office Supports Artists Getting Paid Multiple Times For Same Work, Harming New Artists To Benefit Established Ones
Re:
Since you're clearly a fan of this idea, do you have any actual data that shows that the benefits exceed the costs?
On the post: US Copyright Office Supports Artists Getting Paid Multiple Times For Same Work, Harming New Artists To Benefit Established Ones
Re: It's always PLUTOCRATS who get to profit in Mike's "economics".
You're definitely not right in the head...
On the post: Non-Political Ad For Political Game Banned For Being Political
Re: Actually, watch the ad
Bias towards what? You've presented half an accusation, as if you think the word itself is a criticism.
On the post: Canadian Cop Puts On An Impromptu Clinic On How To Deal With Critics And Cameras
Re:
I was getting a bit pissed off with the guy doing the recording repeatedly exclaiming "she's just a girl!", even when he could see the officer was physically exhausted after he finally got her into the car. That matters how exactly?
On the post: Canadian Cop Puts On An Impromptu Clinic On How To Deal With Critics And Cameras
Re: Oh, the WORST psychopaths perform well for audiences.
And we all watched her perform. What's your point?
On the post: Canadian Cop Puts On An Impromptu Clinic On How To Deal With Critics And Cameras
Re: Re:
Actually I'd say that anyone who knows how to breath could tell you that. As soon as she screamed those words her credibility was out the window and I knew she was lying through her teeth about the 'injuries' she was supposedly suffering.
On the post: Canadian Cop Puts On An Impromptu Clinic On How To Deal With Critics And Cameras
Re: Re: Re:
If you are a very dim-witted person with no critical thinking skills then yes you are likely to think like that. You certainly appear to be in a small minority though, and the rest of us pity you.
Next >>