These people are just intolerant megalomaniacs that think their way of thinking should be the only one. It's sad we still have people devolved enough to fit the typical Middle Ages dweller.
Re: Re: Re: Re: FU, or not FU? That is the question.
Not to mention life + 75 years means it's virtually infinite because anything created during anybody's lifetime won't be in the public domain to 'promote' such progress during said lifetime. Or it'll be available when said person is already very old and probably not able to create much anymore.
"A rights holder has no obligation to make something available. Copyright in fact allows them to hold it for 75 years without releasing it. It's up to them."
Which leads us to the point: copyright is broken and unconstitutional as it is today. Remember what the Constitution says? Lemme refresh your memory:
United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8
The Congress shall have power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Locking it behind a law doesn't seem like any kind of promotion, no?
Even if it wasn't fair use (and I do think it clearly fits that considering the moron is now POTUS) there's the availability part. It should be clear: if it's not available for reasonable prices then it's public domain. Simple as that.
Re: Techdirt often does this in less than 15 minutes on MY comments!
Hmmm no, actually you are so obnoxious the rest of Techdirt quickly flags the drivel you wrote and it gets hidden. Got it? You are so obnoxious your posts are being voted into hiding by other people. Do I need to repeat it?
You keep proving my point. The problems were not caused by legalization but rather because of the restrictions imposed. I do see value in regulating heavier drugs even if they are legal (like that heroin example I mentioned) but overtaxing it, making it hard to acquire or placing too burdensome restrictions are akin to keeping it illegal.
As I said, you just proved my point and you are still wrong.
Just imagine if they make their content all available to multiple streaming services, don't need to deal with the infra-structure costs and make tons of money because people will pay more for services that offer more? What if they suggested Netflix adds tiers to their streaming service so people can get access to their content for a small, added fee to the standard subscription which would give early access to these new shows?
We can only imagine such wonderful world now that Disney, CBS etc decided to go dumb and fracture the market. And consequently drive people to piracy. Or have them go without.
It doesn't really matter, you still have to go through the hassle of finding which service has what you are looking for and then creating an account, logging in etc. This is exactly what people who migrated from piracy to streaming don't want.
I'll either go without or back to piracy. They want to screw people into their walled gardens? Fine, I'll screw them out of my money :)
Expect them to ramp up the "PIRACY!!!! MUST DO SOMETHING, PASS LAWS!!!" yelling when the inevitable influx towards piracy happens even though it's their own fault.
"Legalization does not fail. What failed (if it did, most of my research shows it's actually bad regulation that makes things worse)."
Hmm I screwed the sentence here, lemme fix.
Legalization does not fail. What did fail (when it did) was badly regulated legalization. As I said, legalizing it but putting severe restrictions only aggravate the problem. Just as an example, the govt taxes tobacco here more heavily to discourage consumption. The activists are now asking the govt to scale back the taxation a bit because it's fueling a healthy black market. Bad regulation at its best.
"Drugs are very illegal, and have never had anyone tolerate them advertising in public."
You ignored the point. I clearly said AVAILABLE. But since you went into the details I never talked about you don't see ads because you can't "disguise" it into something that looks legal. Prostitution can be 'disguised'. You can't really say if an "escort" service is actually prostitution.
"If anything, the legalization of weed should tell you what happens when drugs get even marginally legalized - people ilne up for it. Imagine if you could legally put ads for smack and coke on Backpage..."
Read about the experience with legalization in Europe. Heroin is legal in some places there. The consumption spiked at first and generally settled at lower levels than when they were illegal. And of course there's the US where govt is discovering there's tons of tax money to make from marijuana (incidentally just like tobacco and alcohol, two drugs that are much worse than marijuana). The fact that lines would form to buy means there's plenty of demand, simple as that. Sure coke is a worse problem but then again you treat it as a public health issue, screw the drug cartels by selling it legally and get a bonus of assisting people that develop an addiction.
"Okay, reality check for you: Prostitution is unlikely to ever be fully legal in the US because it's not going to play with the conservatives or the extreme libs either. So that fantasy won't play out."
Like marijuana?
"Legalization didn't do anything except give the illegal operators ANOTHER way to dodge the laws."
That's their experience. And they put some idiotic limitations. Let the girls offer their services directly to the customer in ebay and new entrants will have exactly zero incentive to go with pimps. Less developed places have other underlying problems that make the issue more complex but we are talking about the US and Hong Kong is not a good comparison point.
"Amsterdam? Red Light district, doors, and well maintained government mandated testing and licensing... and tons and tons of street prostitution, pimps, and organized crime. "
That's one source. I've done some research right now and while this may be true in fact the legalization brought much more benefits than negatives. Contrary to you I am more actively engaged in these issues and I follow/sponsor activism aiming to legalize the job and all the evidence seems to contradict you. I respect sex workers.
Legalization does not fail. What failed (if it did, most of my research shows it's actually bad regulation that makes things worse).
"Want another example? Nevada. Legalized prostitution everywhere except Clark County, and yet Nevada has the highest level of prostitution arrests, the most "girls to your room" bull crap, and not surprisingly, lots of Backpage style activity. Hmmm. Legalization has worked out, right?"
What's the exact context of the arrests? Because we know cops are salivating over marijuana even though many states are legalizing it. They are specifically targeting people from states where it's legal and federal govt couldn't care less about respecting the law. So again, what's the context? What's the impact of law enforcement agents bias against them? It's much more complex and nuanced than you think. Legalization alone isn't the panacea. Legalizing with severe constraints is the same of keeping it illegal. And society still has a ton of prejudice that will get in the way either making legalization difficult or poisoning it with idiotic restrictions.
I don't expect you to understand anything but at the very least I'll leave it here as food for thought.
"Again, I really want to call all of this something other than "fake news" because of what that term has become, but it's hard to find an appropriate substitute."
On the post: Campaigners For SESTA See It As A First Step To Stomping Out Porn
Re: My morality is more moral than your morality
On the post: Campaigners For SESTA See It As A First Step To Stomping Out Porn
Re: Assertions so silly call for quote-and-contradict:
You linked the Daily Beast. No seriously, it's a waste of time to come with any facts or the truth. You are immune to those.
On the post: Campaigners For SESTA See It As A First Step To Stomping Out Porn
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for porn and prostitution to be extinguished."
Or something like that.
On the post: Sirius XM Uses DMCA To Memory Hole Archive Of Howard Stern's Interviews With Donald Trump
Re: Re: Re: Re: FU, or not FU? That is the question.
Seriously, the shit is 100% unconstitutional.
On the post: Sirius XM Uses DMCA To Memory Hole Archive Of Howard Stern's Interviews With Donald Trump
Re: Re: Re: FU, or not FU? That is the question.
Which leads us to the point: copyright is broken and unconstitutional as it is today. Remember what the Constitution says? Lemme refresh your memory:
United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8
The Congress shall have power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Locking it behind a law doesn't seem like any kind of promotion, no?
On the post: Sirius XM Uses DMCA To Memory Hole Archive Of Howard Stern's Interviews With Donald Trump
On the post: How The Supreme Court's Continued Misunderstanding Of Copyright Ruined Halloween
On the post: Copyright Troll Carl Crowell Ups The Ante: Now Demands Accused Pirates Hand Over Their Hard Drives
On the post: Chinese High-Tech Startups: Now More Copied Than Copying
On the post: Idea v. Expression: Game Studio Bluehole Gets Its Fur Up Over Epic Games Putting 100 Vs. 100 Player Battle Royale Into Game
I should have attended law school.
On the post: Never Enough: EU Demands Social Media Companies Do The Impossible Even Faster
Re: Techdirt often does this in less than 15 minutes on MY comments!
On the post: As 'Star Trek: Discovery' Shows, The Streaming Exclusivity Wars Risk Driving Users Back To Piracy
Re:
On the post: SESTA Is Being Pushed As The Answer To A Sex Trafficking 'Epidemic' That Simply Doesn't Exist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I said, you just proved my point and you are still wrong.
On the post: As 'Star Trek: Discovery' Shows, The Streaming Exclusivity Wars Risk Driving Users Back To Piracy
Re: Wait, I thought piracy was a good thing?
We can only imagine such wonderful world now that Disney, CBS etc decided to go dumb and fracture the market. And consequently drive people to piracy. Or have them go without.
On the post: As 'Star Trek: Discovery' Shows, The Streaming Exclusivity Wars Risk Driving Users Back To Piracy
Re: Is it a bad thing?
On the post: As 'Star Trek: Discovery' Shows, The Streaming Exclusivity Wars Risk Driving Users Back To Piracy
Re:
Expect them to ramp up the "PIRACY!!!! MUST DO SOMETHING, PASS LAWS!!!" yelling when the inevitable influx towards piracy happens even though it's their own fault.
On the post: SESTA Is Being Pushed As The Answer To A Sex Trafficking 'Epidemic' That Simply Doesn't Exist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmm I screwed the sentence here, lemme fix.
Legalization does not fail. What did fail (when it did) was badly regulated legalization. As I said, legalizing it but putting severe restrictions only aggravate the problem. Just as an example, the govt taxes tobacco here more heavily to discourage consumption. The activists are now asking the govt to scale back the taxation a bit because it's fueling a healthy black market. Bad regulation at its best.
On the post: SESTA Is Being Pushed As The Answer To A Sex Trafficking 'Epidemic' That Simply Doesn't Exist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You ignored the point. I clearly said AVAILABLE. But since you went into the details I never talked about you don't see ads because you can't "disguise" it into something that looks legal. Prostitution can be 'disguised'. You can't really say if an "escort" service is actually prostitution.
"If anything, the legalization of weed should tell you what happens when drugs get even marginally legalized - people ilne up for it. Imagine if you could legally put ads for smack and coke on Backpage..."
Read about the experience with legalization in Europe. Heroin is legal in some places there. The consumption spiked at first and generally settled at lower levels than when they were illegal. And of course there's the US where govt is discovering there's tons of tax money to make from marijuana (incidentally just like tobacco and alcohol, two drugs that are much worse than marijuana). The fact that lines would form to buy means there's plenty of demand, simple as that. Sure coke is a worse problem but then again you treat it as a public health issue, screw the drug cartels by selling it legally and get a bonus of assisting people that develop an addiction.
"Okay, reality check for you: Prostitution is unlikely to ever be fully legal in the US because it's not going to play with the conservatives or the extreme libs either. So that fantasy won't play out."
Like marijuana?
"Legalization didn't do anything except give the illegal operators ANOTHER way to dodge the laws."
That's their experience. And they put some idiotic limitations. Let the girls offer their services directly to the customer in ebay and new entrants will have exactly zero incentive to go with pimps. Less developed places have other underlying problems that make the issue more complex but we are talking about the US and Hong Kong is not a good comparison point.
"Amsterdam? Red Light district, doors, and well maintained government mandated testing and licensing... and tons and tons of street prostitution, pimps, and organized crime. "
That's one source. I've done some research right now and while this may be true in fact the legalization brought much more benefits than negatives. Contrary to you I am more actively engaged in these issues and I follow/sponsor activism aiming to legalize the job and all the evidence seems to contradict you. I respect sex workers.
Legalization does not fail. What failed (if it did, most of my research shows it's actually bad regulation that makes things worse).
"Want another example? Nevada. Legalized prostitution everywhere except Clark County, and yet Nevada has the highest level of prostitution arrests, the most "girls to your room" bull crap, and not surprisingly, lots of Backpage style activity. Hmmm. Legalization has worked out, right?"
What's the exact context of the arrests? Because we know cops are salivating over marijuana even though many states are legalizing it. They are specifically targeting people from states where it's legal and federal govt couldn't care less about respecting the law. So again, what's the context? What's the impact of law enforcement agents bias against them? It's much more complex and nuanced than you think. Legalization alone isn't the panacea. Legalizing with severe constraints is the same of keeping it illegal. And society still has a ton of prejudice that will get in the way either making legalization difficult or poisoning it with idiotic restrictions.
I don't expect you to understand anything but at the very least I'll leave it here as food for thought.
On the post: Republican Governors Association Sets Up Partisan News Site & Forgets To Tell Anyone As It Pumps Out 'News'
This is a good issue for a poll.
I vote we call it "My Little Phony".
On the post: Mission Accomplished: Ajit Pai's FCC Declares Wireless Competition Issues Fixed
Next >>