You mean the someone else's video that he starred in? And that used his own song, which he performed? If that's breaking the law, then it deserves to be broken.
Which is an unfortunate reality. Doesn't mean it makes sense to me, though. I'm also opposed to the government's decision to consider corporations people. They'll still be considered people, no matter how much I disagree. :\
Here's one thing pirates have contributed to the world: they're causing record companies to go out of business. They are the REAL leeches; worthless, undeserving brickheads sucking profit from the hands of those who actually do the work. More and more musicians are using Youtube and other social media to go into business for themselves, making far more money being modestly successful than they would ever get being wildly successful within the old-school industry.
You need to do some serious qualifying if you want to start with a premise that astoundingly moronic.
Okay, you want a qualification? Here's a fucking qualification:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
- the motherfucking Constitution
Re: Re: Now you see the _real_reason_ for the over the top patdowns....
Yeah, exactly. No matter how obnoxious the pat down is, it will never ever trump the potential dangers of those scanning machines. Visual records, radiation exposure. It's a nightmare.
No, that line next to it. Well, it's a bit scratched, and there's some fading. Actually, that might just be a crack in the floor. Where did I draw that line again? Is my pen out of ink?
Well of course they should. Even self-censorship of the press is detrimental to society. It might be wrong to reveal that information, but it should never, ever be wrong to report on it once it's leaked. That's how totalitarian states begin. First you make the press not report on specific illegal actions. Then you make the press not report on general illegal actions. Then legal actions it doesn't like...
So, I understand that yelling "fire!" in a movie theater does not fall under the 1st Amendment if there isn't any fire. But if there ACTUALLY IS A FIRE then it DOES! D:
That sounds like a lot of work. What if it was just "provide one piece of non-entertainment industry data showing that piracy hurts artists"? Let's go easy on the guy - zero is zero no matter how much you multiply it by ;)
Psh, don't cry for the startups. A system like you're suggesting would effectively give the US an automated gestapo, allowing them to block any site that doesn't have their "papers" so to speak, which of course they'd have the power to give and take away. Even if it's indirectly. The definition of "infringing" would become "any site the government doesn't agree with".
Even though Google is humoring the industry here, I seriously doubt they'd go for a proposal like that. They have money, they can be lobbyists too.
What's ridiculous is the sheer blind certainty these guys have about their actions. Like...'oh we can just take their domains, it's easy!' followed by 'oh we can just kick them out of the country, it's easy.' followed by 'oh we can just implement a filtering system it's *sigh* not that easy.' followed by 'oh we can just set up a national firewall it's kind of difficult...' followed by 'oh we can just unplug the internet entirely this is gonna be a pain in the ass' followed by 'oh we can just...outlaw...airwaves? It's...? Is that even physically possible?' followed, ultimately, by "ahhhh fuck us. We give up."
See if they just skipped to the last one, they'd save a TON of money, time, and heartache.
HAHAHA, the goal the entire time has been to make them harder to control and more difficult to prosecute? Whatever floats your boat. Or..more accurately - Whatever sinks the ship faster. :p
There was an interesting article the other day about this (in a magazine I whose name I sadly can't recall). How leaks sort of exist outside the bounds of technology. No matter how sophisticated your security is, you can't effectively protect against the people who are legitimately allowed access to that information.
Granted, the *best* way around this is to just run a government or organization that is open, honest, and stands by its principles. But that of course involves no fun tech gadgets, nor does it involve realistic expectations ;p
I don't think they said that, but you're right - publishing a call-to-arms to overthrow the US government is not illegal. Actually attempting it...well...now you're no longer protected by the 1st amendment so I can't help you.
Their servers have actually be decentralized for a long time. The Amazon servers were really just an extra buffer to help when the DDoS (or possibly just extreme traffic due to popularity) knocked them offline for a short time. So don't worry about wikileaks going down because of this, it's no big deal in the long run.
Just disappointing that Amazon would cave. That's all.
On the post: YouTube Sensation Justin Bieber Blocked From Uploading His Own Music To YouTube By Copyright
Re: Re: On Google's role
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No secrets
On the post: Google Won't Recommend Most Popular Searches If It Thinks It Might Sorta Have Something To Do With Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Bullshit
Here's one thing pirates have contributed to the world: they're causing record companies to go out of business. They are the REAL leeches; worthless, undeserving brickheads sucking profit from the hands of those who actually do the work. More and more musicians are using Youtube and other social media to go into business for themselves, making far more money being modestly successful than they would ever get being wildly successful within the old-school industry.
On the post: Lieberman Introduces New Censorship Bill In Kneejerk Response To Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re:
Okay, you want a qualification? Here's a fucking qualification:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
- the motherfucking Constitution
On the post: TSA Told To Tell Children That Groping Them Is A Game... Horrifying Sex Abuse Experts
Re: Re: Now you see the _real_reason_ for the over the top patdowns....
On the post: TSA Told To Tell Children That Groping Them Is A Game... Horrifying Sex Abuse Experts
Re: Re: Re: Re: How dumb are these people?
On the post: Lieberman Introduces New Censorship Bill In Kneejerk Response To Wikileaks
Re:
On the post: Lieberman Introduces New Censorship Bill In Kneejerk Response To Wikileaks
Re:
On the post: Lieberman Introduces New Censorship Bill In Kneejerk Response To Wikileaks
On the post: Google Won't Recommend Most Popular Searches If It Thinks It Might Sorta Have Something To Do With Piracy
Re:
On the post: Google Won't Recommend Most Popular Searches If It Thinks It Might Sorta Have Something To Do With Piracy
Re: Re:
On the post: Google Won't Recommend Most Popular Searches If It Thinks It Might Sorta Have Something To Do With Piracy
Re: Unintended consequences
Even though Google is humoring the industry here, I seriously doubt they'd go for a proposal like that. They have money, they can be lobbyists too.
On the post: Google Won't Recommend Most Popular Searches If It Thinks It Might Sorta Have Something To Do With Piracy
Re:
See if they just skipped to the last one, they'd save a TON of money, time, and heartache.
On the post: Google Won't Recommend Most Popular Searches If It Thinks It Might Sorta Have Something To Do With Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Judicial Hero: Philip Gutierrez Goes Ballistic On Ridiculous Gov't Prosecutors During Xbox Modding Trial
It's always fun seeing them go on the attack, they have the best rants :D
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: To bad
Granted, the *best* way around this is to just run a government or organization that is open, honest, and stands by its principles. But that of course involves no fun tech gadgets, nor does it involve realistic expectations ;p
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re:
Just disappointing that Amazon would cave. That's all.
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>