Re: Re: If you leave the troll's subject line intact, you deserve to be reported
He has a different viewpoint.
Well, that would be the understatement of the year.
Regardless, it's not that he has a different viewpoint, but that he has an agenda which is to disrupt any kind of meaningful conversation. Hell, he even admits it in many (most?) of his posts. His motive is to derail any sensible conversation and he never adds anything of value. It's mostly strawmen and ad homs.
Every time you respond to him, you are doing exactly what he wants.
That you ask that question indicates (to me) that you've never run afoul of the US "justice system." That you _actually_ break an _actual_ law is completely beside the point. All you need to do is annoy a person in power. They'll throw every charge in the book at you safe in the knowledge that they can make at least one of them "stick."
Seriously, why does anyone EVER bother to respond to this idiot? He will never engage in any kind of dialog, and by replying and not even bothering to change the subject line you're spreading his message even further.
Can't you imagine the glee he must feel by getting all of you riled up? You're not just letting him, you're causing him to "win."
Knock it off for crying out loud.
Everyone who replies to the troll gets a Report click
So, I guess now is as good as a time as any: Where were you on that issue? Afraid of showing your hypocrisy much?
Not to mention you intentionally dropped the "by" from the phrase "securing for limited Times ..." in a feeble attempt to paint that action as the goal rather than the method. It's obvious, when viewing the entire phrase that securing the monopoly is simply the technique, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts ..." which is to benefit ... I don't know, let's see ... the public! This feeble attempt at distortion is intellectually dishonest and destroys your credibility (as if you had any in the first place! ha!)
And in response to this gem ...
It's you and Mike who haven't read it. Nothing explicit about the public.
... I think this quote from Neal Stephenson says it best:
“The difference between stupid and intelligent people – and this is true whether or not they are well-educated – is that intelligent people can handle subtlety.”
It's pretty clear on which side of that line you fall.
what about educational materials like textbooks and such?
And therein lies a HUGE problem. Students are a captive market who are required to purchase these books, often (usually?) at hundreds of dollars each. Then every year they're "updated" with no meaningful change in content just so the used book market is destroyed, eliminating that option for a student as well.
For myself, I flat out refused in to purchase textbooks in my last several semesters, choosing to pirate them (when available, going without when not) instead and feeling absolutely zero guilt about it. I even encouraged other students to do the same.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but closing sentence stands out as being very much wrong.
Masnich just hates it when lawyers enforce law enforcement.
First, how is anyone supposed to enforce law enforcement? Maybe you meant to just say "enforce [the] law." But the bigger problem is that lawyers are in no way obliged or expected to enforce laws. That's the job of the police, aka Law Enforcement Officers.
The property is presumed to be not forfeitable, and the government has the burden of proving that it is before it is ultimately forfeited.
That is SO stupid it is almost funny. Haven't you been paying attention to the numerous cases where property has been seized with absolutely ZERO proof being given, much less an accusation of wrongdoing on the part of the owner of said property?
Go ahead, ask me to cite cases of this happening. I dare you. I double dare you.
You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. You think the legalese you throw around makes you look smart/well-informed, but your intellectual dishonesty stills shines through bright and clear.
Due process means a hearing and a right to be heard, and in many instances, such opportunities are there.
And in *this* case there is NO such opportunity. The Constitution clearly states that everyone is always entitled to due process in every case. Your weasel words of "in many instances" betray the truth of the situation.
That you refuse to acknowledge that these actions are clearly unconstitutional shows how intellectually dishonest you really are. You hide behind a court ruling and use its rhetoric to deny the reality that the DOJ is acting unconstitutionally.
That these laws are entirely unjust and immoral seems to be no problem for you. Here's an idea: let those of us with a working moral compass decide these issues.
kim dotcom can send his lawyers to fight in in court
No. He can't. Do you even bother to read?
Using the “fugitive disentitlement” doctrine, the government is blocking the defendants from challenging the forfeiture.
On the post: News Corp's CEO Bizarre Obsession With Made Up Lies About Google
Re: Re: If you leave the troll's subject line intact, you deserve to be reported
Well, that would be the understatement of the year.
Regardless, it's not that he has a different viewpoint, but that he has an agenda which is to disrupt any kind of meaningful conversation. Hell, he even admits it in many (most?) of his posts. His motive is to derail any sensible conversation and he never adds anything of value. It's mostly strawmen and ad homs.
Every time you respond to him, you are doing exactly what he wants.
On the post: The Rise Of ContentID Trolls: Dan Bull Has Someone Claim His Music, Take His Money, Issue Takedowns
Re: Everyone wins!
For the record, I also Report my own comments when I reply to his nonsense.
Keep up the good work lads!
On the post: Universal Music Has No Sense Of Humor, Takes Down Hilarious Twitter Profile Pun Parody Of Nirvana Song
Re: Re: Re: FFS
I'm wondering: will you ever figure out how this whole comment thing works?
On the post: Universal Music Has No Sense Of Humor, Takes Down Hilarious Twitter Profile Pun Parody Of Nirvana Song
Re: Re: Re: FFS
On the post: UK Music Collection Society PRS Sues SoundCloud
Re: Re: Re:
Nobody.
But, by all means, keep hitting the tar baby. Let us know how that works out for you.
On the post: American Teen Gets 11 Year Sentence For Pro-ISIS Tweets That Taught People How To Use Bitcoin
Re: huh?
Hahaha. You're funny!
That you ask that question indicates (to me) that you've never run afoul of the US "justice system." That you _actually_ break an _actual_ law is completely beside the point. All you need to do is annoy a person in power. They'll throw every charge in the book at you safe in the knowledge that they can make at least one of them "stick."
On the post: American Teen Gets 11 Year Sentence For Pro-ISIS Tweets That Taught People How To Use Bitcoin
Re: Re: Re:
There is? From a purely 1st Amendment position I don't think so, but I may be wrong. Please tell us what the difference is.
On the post: Universal Music Has No Sense Of Humor, Takes Down Hilarious Twitter Profile Pun Parody Of Nirvana Song
Re: FFS
Everyone who replies to the troll DESERVES a Report click
On the post: UK Music Collection Society PRS Sues SoundCloud
Re: Reply to the idiot, get reported just like the idiot
On the post: Complaint To FTC Says It’s 'Deceptive' For Google To Not Recognize 'Right To Be Forgotten' In US
Re: Report the troll AND his "followers"
On the post: The Rise Of ContentID Trolls: Dan Bull Has Someone Claim His Music, Take His Money, Issue Takedowns
Re: You ALL deserve a Report click
Can't you imagine the glee he must feel by getting all of you riled up? You're not just letting him, you're causing him to "win."
Knock it off for crying out loud.
Everyone who replies to the troll gets a Report click
On the post: News Corp's CEO Bizarre Obsession With Made Up Lies About Google
If you leave the troll's subject line intact, you deserve to be reported
Just report him and move on. And report those who reply without changing the subject line.
On the post: Split Works Debate Raises Thorny Issues For Music Companies (And For The Rest Of Us)
Ouch! Did you have to own him THAT hard?
But, not to worry, I doubt he has read (much less comprehended) that part of the Constitution either.
On the post: Judge Curious If Malibu Media Is Seeding Its Own Files And Engaged In Copyright Misuse
quoting the Constitution out of context doesn't help your credibility
So, I guess now is as good as a time as any: Where were you on that issue? Afraid of showing your hypocrisy much?
Not to mention you intentionally dropped the "by" from the phrase "securing for limited Times ..." in a feeble attempt to paint that action as the goal rather than the method. It's obvious, when viewing the entire phrase that securing the monopoly is simply the technique, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts ..." which is to benefit ... I don't know, let's see ... the public! This feeble attempt at distortion is intellectually dishonest and destroys your credibility (as if you had any in the first place! ha!)
And in response to this gem ...
It's you and Mike who haven't read it. Nothing explicit about the public.
... I think this quote from Neal Stephenson says it best:
It's pretty clear on which side of that line you fall.
On the post: Authors Guilded, United, And Representing... Not Authors
Re: Re: Dear Authors...
And therein lies a HUGE problem. Students are a captive market who are required to purchase these books, often (usually?) at hundreds of dollars each. Then every year they're "updated" with no meaningful change in content just so the used book market is destroyed, eliminating that option for a student as well.
For myself, I flat out refused in to purchase textbooks in my last several semesters, choosing to pirate them (when available, going without when not) instead and feeling absolutely zero guilt about it. I even encouraged other students to do the same.
On the post: Topsite Operator, Who Admitted To Operating Servers With Tons Of Pirated Movies, Gets Off With Just Probation
Re: You're just wrong, Masnick
Masnich just hates it when lawyers enforce law enforcement.
First, how is anyone supposed to enforce law enforcement? Maybe you meant to just say "enforce [the] law." But the bigger problem is that lawyers are in no way obliged or expected to enforce laws. That's the job of the police, aka Law Enforcement Officers.
Where did you get such a silly idea?
On the post: Even If You Think Kim Dotcom Is Guilty As Sin, The US Government Stealing His Assets Should Concern You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is SO stupid it is almost funny. Haven't you been paying attention to the numerous cases where property has been seized with absolutely ZERO proof being given, much less an accusation of wrongdoing on the part of the owner of said property?
Go ahead, ask me to cite cases of this happening. I dare you. I double dare you.
You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. You think the legalese you throw around makes you look smart/well-informed, but your intellectual dishonesty stills shines through bright and clear.
On the post: Even If You Think Kim Dotcom Is Guilty As Sin, The US Government Stealing His Assets Should Concern You
Re: Re: Re:
And in *this* case there is NO such opportunity. The Constitution clearly states that everyone is always entitled to due process in every case. Your weasel words of "in many instances" betray the truth of the situation.
That you refuse to acknowledge that these actions are clearly unconstitutional shows how intellectually dishonest you really are. You hide behind a court ruling and use its rhetoric to deny the reality that the DOJ is acting unconstitutionally.
On the post: Even If You Think Kim Dotcom Is Guilty As Sin, The US Government Stealing His Assets Should Concern You
Re:
asset forfeiture proceedings are legal
So was slavery. And prohibition.
That these laws are entirely unjust and immoral seems to be no problem for you. Here's an idea: let those of us with a working moral compass decide these issues.
kim dotcom can send his lawyers to fight in in court
No. He can't. Do you even bother to read?
On the post: If The UK Wants People To 'Respect' Copyright, Outlawing Ripping CDs Is Probably Not Helping
Re: Go back into your hole antidirt
Look at the upside: if you're silent at least you're not advertising what a spectacular shithead you are.
Next >>