Same for movies and series actually. And TD has always highlighted how piracy is a symptom of a failed business model. Glad you finally recognized it after all these years.
I suspect they'd rather eliminate all user input (or shut down in case of Google, Facebook where almost everything is user generated). And unemployment goes boom. I'd love to see these morons dealing with the backlash such things would cause but so far they've been lucky enough to have their craziness blocked by other parties (ie: activism, a few sane politicians etc).
I hope you see the huge cognitive dissonance between what you said before Mike called you on your bullshit and after. Because you first attacked CL for charging and then you say it's ok because it identifies users.
Aside from your own peculiar history revisionism to fit your distorted opinion of course.
“But if they are merely sharing the latest release of their favorite pop star, this traffic is of dubious value (no offense to Britney Spears intended).”
Is "pop star" a new codename for "porn"? Because really, they must have bumped into tons of porn :D
I bought that one and boy I couldn't be happier. I've been running her for almost 3 years on the ink that came with the printer and I've already gone through 3 packs of 500 sheets. I'll have to buy black ink soon but with my last hp I'd have had to buy at least two new cartridges which would cost at about 20% more than one black ink bottle. With the caveat my expenditure on this Epson was zero in the same time frame because I'm still using the original ink.
Other manufacturers are jumping the ink tank bandwagon already (I've seen one from HP that I will never buy anyway because they made it to my no-buy list) so ink is gonna get cheaper for sure.
"There's probably an easier, more elegant solution: stop buying HP printers until the company realizes that eliminating device functionality under the pretense of security is obnoxious bullshit. "
That. I ditched HP a while back and I'm still wondering why it took me so long.
The guy has got the "IT'S A CRIME!" hammer in his hands and he is not afraid to use it. He's a lost cause, what we need is to get the senators that aren't deaf to the matter to see the many issues and just isolate Blumenthal. Though job, it's not like you can rally people up like the SOPA thing because many will see the bill as something good just because its stated purpose is to prevent sex trafficking... Though job.
Dude, free market CREATES monopolies as much as bad regulations do. Your UTOPIC vision of free market fails in the same way capitalism and socialism fail in practice even though they are great on paper: they IGNORE the human factor. Did you know Nestle buys competitors just to shut them down and when they do they even break industrial equipment beyond repairing possibilities to prevent them from growing? Did you know big market chains force local markets out of business by maintaining low prices artificially just because they can sustain the losses? This is what free market produces in practice, big players emerge and consolidate being extremely predatory. And this is why you need to regulate it.
This is also why we have some good and some bad regulation out there. Because there are bad/clueless humans legislating. What we need to do is to follow the process and help to prevent the poisoning of it somehow. Will it be successful? Not always. Will it solve all the woes? Not always. Will it be abused by strong players? Absolutely. But going without is not a viable option. Applying regulations without overdoing it and in a sensible manner is the path we have, absent ethics in free-market (which by itself would be some sort of regulation, ironically).
Ooooh, now we have something. If you favor even those regulations then you can't have your free-market utopia. Because the market will be healthy specifically because of the regulation you say you don't like.
You are the one that needs some deep cleaning. The regulation being discussed is precisely what is needed to keep the ISPs in their best behavior. You can't simply leave basic infrastructure to develop by itself. You need to force their hand into going for rural and other areas that money says not profitable and to punish behavior thats profitable but screws the customer. Even if you do consider more competitive areas that can be somewhat disrupted with ease you'd still need to block more egregious behavior (just check the online advertising businesses). The other alternative is to let the government build the infrastructure... Which I believe we will both agree should be avoided almost like the plague. Almost.
"There is no free market right now, no, but there is such a thing."
Please, entertain us how this magical free market will materialize without the proven, historic consequence of huge monopolies raising and starting to be abusive. I am very interested in understanding how your regulations-free regulated market to avoid such things would work.
"This means laws that are only anti-monopoly or anti-trust, really anti anti-free-market laws. Anything that threatens a free-market should be illegal. No monopolies of any kind. Businesses can create only 1 contract that must be the exact same for all customers be it government, another business, or just a consumer."
So you want to enable free-market by placing anti-trust regulations, forbidding (via regulations) that monopolies form and overall use a deregulated regulation approach. No, seriously, how would you prevent monopolies and whatever else sans regulation? I'm really interested in how you'll protect workers from abuse, monopolies from forming and overall stuff that will happen naturally (as very easily explained by that nice Monopoly game) without regulations.
"Let me preface my comments by saying that I think the section 230 protections are overbroad, and have long since passed the level of being a protection against something, and instead has become a shield for some pretty bad business models."
This sentence alone should suffice to know you would be full of bullshit. I did read on anyway. And I wasn't wrong. Bad has a very peculiar definition in your dictionary, no?
So let's put this out of the way: prostitution is like marijuana. It's a crime because a small group of moralist assholes insist in making established, wide-spread and generally tolerated stuff illegal. This is bad for the girls/guys selling their work and for the customers looking for them along with victims of real trafficking because it makes police waste resources in perfectly good, consensual stuff.
As for the services, Backpage seems to have engaged in pretty bad behavior which is why they are being charged under EXISTING laws and will probably end up in jail. CDA 230 did not protect them at all. What CDA 230 did protect was Craiglist because even with the DOJ after them they could not produce anything against them to start a lawsuit much less to put them in jail because it was something their USERS were doing and CL was helping law enforcement when proper warrants were produced. Please provide citations for what you said though it's clear by now that even if there are citations even the government could not find evidence of what you said. Remember that demanding a payment for adult ads does not mean profiting of traffic because adult content != sex traffic.
And don't come with "omg, going after the ones actually committing the crime is hard so let us extract money from the platforms instead!". Law enforcement should be doing their investigative jobs, not screwing entire platforms that are useful for thousands, millions just because a tiny portion of it is used for crime. You are pretty lazy, no?
Ah your paragraph on child prostitution. If they are that careful they are not using such services not to leave traces. And if they are stupid enough to use they are going to get caught because as said before they cooperate with law enforcement when due process is followed and they have knowledge of the criminal activity. Not general knowledge because every single service that allows user input is used for criminal purposes. End of the story. You are only liable if you have specific knowledge of specific crimes being carried on your network. We still don't prosecute Ford for crimes perpetrated using their cars.
And then you complain about due process. Omg, it's slow! It's expensive! People should not have access to this, they should just shut up and go to jail based on the govt say so! Screw false positives, they can rot in prison for the greater good! Despicable, no?
The changes are far from narrow. You say 230 matters but you are ok with a law undermining the core of it while current laws are far enough to do what this abhorrent law pretends to do in the surface. I don't expect you to change your mind, you are just a plain moron but it's important to counter your bullshit.
On the post: EU Buried Its Own $400,000 Study Showing Unauthorized Downloads Have Almost No Effect On Sales
Re:
On the post: Insanity: Theresa May Says Internet Companies Need To Remove 'Extremist' Content Within 2 Hours
Re: Look at the upside
On the post: The NSA's Weird Interest In File Sharing Programs
Re:
On the post: The Senate Is Close To Undermining The Internet By Pretending To 'Protect' The Children
Re: Re: Re: Nothing shocking here
Aside from your own peculiar history revisionism to fit your distorted opinion of course.
On the post: The NSA's Weird Interest In File Sharing Programs
Is "pop star" a new codename for "porn"? Because really, they must have bumped into tons of porn :D
On the post: Shockingly, NY Times Columnist Is Totally Clueless About The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think your wording can be wrongly interpeted
On the post: HP Brings Back Obnoxious DRM That Cripples Competing Printer Cartridges
Re: Eco Tank
Other manufacturers are jumping the ink tank bandwagon already (I've seen one from HP that I will never buy anyway because they made it to my no-buy list) so ink is gonna get cheaper for sure.
On the post: HP Brings Back Obnoxious DRM That Cripples Competing Printer Cartridges
That. I ditched HP a while back and I'm still wondering why it took me so long.
On the post: Senator Blumenthal Happy That SESTA Will Kill Small Internet Companies
On the post: Shockingly, NY Times Columnist Is Totally Clueless About The Internet
Re: Re: I think your wording can be wrongly interpeted
On the post: California Sides With Comcast, Votes To Kill Broadband Privacy Law Favored By EFF
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is also why we have some good and some bad regulation out there. Because there are bad/clueless humans legislating. What we need to do is to follow the process and help to prevent the poisoning of it somehow. Will it be successful? Not always. Will it solve all the woes? Not always. Will it be abused by strong players? Absolutely. But going without is not a viable option. Applying regulations without overdoing it and in a sensible manner is the path we have, absent ethics in free-market (which by itself would be some sort of regulation, ironically).
On the post: California Sides With Comcast, Votes To Kill Broadband Privacy Law Favored By EFF
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are the one that needs some deep cleaning. The regulation being discussed is precisely what is needed to keep the ISPs in their best behavior. You can't simply leave basic infrastructure to develop by itself. You need to force their hand into going for rural and other areas that money says not profitable and to punish behavior thats profitable but screws the customer. Even if you do consider more competitive areas that can be somewhat disrupted with ease you'd still need to block more egregious behavior (just check the online advertising businesses). The other alternative is to let the government build the infrastructure... Which I believe we will both agree should be avoided almost like the plague. Almost.
So, yeah, keep being clueless.
On the post: Is There A Single Online Service Not Put At Risk By SESTA?
Re: Oooh, bullet points! You must see SESTA as dire indeed!
On the post: Shockingly, NY Times Columnist Is Totally Clueless About The Internet
Re: Say. Is anyone here sponsored by Google?
On the post: Shockingly, NY Times Columnist Is Totally Clueless About The Internet
On the post: California Sides With Comcast, Votes To Kill Broadband Privacy Law Favored By EFF
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please, entertain us how this magical free market will materialize without the proven, historic consequence of huge monopolies raising and starting to be abusive. I am very interested in understanding how your regulations-free regulated market to avoid such things would work.
On the post: California Sides With Comcast, Votes To Kill Broadband Privacy Law Favored By EFF
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you want to enable free-market by placing anti-trust regulations, forbidding (via regulations) that monopolies form and overall use a deregulated regulation approach. No, seriously, how would you prevent monopolies and whatever else sans regulation? I'm really interested in how you'll protect workers from abuse, monopolies from forming and overall stuff that will happen naturally (as very easily explained by that nice Monopoly game) without regulations.
On the post: The Senate Is Close To Undermining The Internet By Pretending To 'Protect' The Children
Re: Re: Nothing shocking here
On the post: The Senate Is Close To Undermining The Internet By Pretending To 'Protect' The Children
Re: Nothing shocking here
This sentence alone should suffice to know you would be full of bullshit. I did read on anyway. And I wasn't wrong. Bad has a very peculiar definition in your dictionary, no?
So let's put this out of the way: prostitution is like marijuana. It's a crime because a small group of moralist assholes insist in making established, wide-spread and generally tolerated stuff illegal. This is bad for the girls/guys selling their work and for the customers looking for them along with victims of real trafficking because it makes police waste resources in perfectly good, consensual stuff.
As for the services, Backpage seems to have engaged in pretty bad behavior which is why they are being charged under EXISTING laws and will probably end up in jail. CDA 230 did not protect them at all. What CDA 230 did protect was Craiglist because even with the DOJ after them they could not produce anything against them to start a lawsuit much less to put them in jail because it was something their USERS were doing and CL was helping law enforcement when proper warrants were produced. Please provide citations for what you said though it's clear by now that even if there are citations even the government could not find evidence of what you said. Remember that demanding a payment for adult ads does not mean profiting of traffic because adult content != sex traffic.
And don't come with "omg, going after the ones actually committing the crime is hard so let us extract money from the platforms instead!". Law enforcement should be doing their investigative jobs, not screwing entire platforms that are useful for thousands, millions just because a tiny portion of it is used for crime. You are pretty lazy, no?
Ah your paragraph on child prostitution. If they are that careful they are not using such services not to leave traces. And if they are stupid enough to use they are going to get caught because as said before they cooperate with law enforcement when due process is followed and they have knowledge of the criminal activity. Not general knowledge because every single service that allows user input is used for criminal purposes. End of the story. You are only liable if you have specific knowledge of specific crimes being carried on your network. We still don't prosecute Ford for crimes perpetrated using their cars.
And then you complain about due process. Omg, it's slow! It's expensive! People should not have access to this, they should just shut up and go to jail based on the govt say so! Screw false positives, they can rot in prison for the greater good! Despicable, no?
The changes are far from narrow. You say 230 matters but you are ok with a law undermining the core of it while current laws are far enough to do what this abhorrent law pretends to do in the surface. I don't expect you to change your mind, you are just a plain moron but it's important to counter your bullshit.
On the post: Why SESTA Is Such A Bad Bill
Re:
"Why do you see things so differently than many highly experienced legislators?"
Good joke! Have my funny vote.
Next >>