"...trying to draw out a sophisticated debate here..."
Can you point to which parts of your contribution you consider to be "sophisticated"? Because I'm seeing a staggering lack of sophistication in all the people 'criticizing' this post and the commentors who support it.
If think the sheer volume of flagged comments proves AG Wright's point. Someone clearly wants this discussion shut down or discredited.
"I don't live my life based on the statistical probability of the method of my death!!! Do you?"
I do and so do you. You make decisions like that every day without even thinking about it. If you step in front of an approaching truck you have a high statistical probability of dying, so you decide to wait 'til it's passed and there's a safe gap in traffic. You probably make multiple such decisions daily.
The chances of dying in a terrorist attack play practically no part in my daily decision making, because there is practically zero chance of it happening.
"You don't mind being under surveillance when you are the beach by life guards, because you know they are there to watch over you and protect you."
This ridiculous comparison proves you're either not smart enough or not honest enough to play a meaningful part in this discussion.
"Pandora is just trying to get wealthy on the backs of musicians."
Pandora are asking to pay the same rates as terrestrial radio stations, an action you claim is them "trying to get wealthy on the backs of musicians". So are you implying that terrestrial radio stations are already getting wealthy on the backs of musicians? Because that's the only logical conclusion to make from your claim. So where's your rant about terrestrial radio stations getting wealthy on the backs of musicians? Should I look on The Trichordist?
Pretentious wankers like this probably don't even realise that these sorts of actions can leave a very sour taste in fans' mouths, and are probably far more damaging than YouTube could ever be.
"Everyone has SOME slight obligation to prevent crime, and tacitly admit that crime is going on."
Okay then, answer me this (I know you won't). Which of these two scenarios best meets your requirement to "prevent crime"?
1. Google caves to AG's grandstanding and delists websites allegedly engaged in "illegal activity". AG claims success! Meanwhile said illegal activity continues unabated, but is a tiny bit harder to find on the internet. Or...
2. AG's leave Google alone and do their damn job, using proper law enforcement tools to locate "illegal activity" (easy to find, look on Google!) and stop it from actually occurring.
I genuinely believe you're not smart enough to see the correct answer here.
"The same could be said for having someone note the license plates of cars that go to local gun shops (legal) and those who visit local politician's offices (also legal), and combining that list."
And if that were happening on anywhere near the same scale as this you might have a point. But it's not, so you don't.
What they are trying to say is that disclosure of metadata � the details about phone calls, without the actual voice � isn't a big deal, not something for Americans to get upset about if the government knows. Let's take a closer look at what they are saying:
They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18 minutes. But they don't know what you talked about.
They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret.
They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don't know what was discussed.
They know you received a call from the local NRA office while it was having a campaign against gun legislation, and then called your senators and congressional representatives immediately after. But the content of those calls remains safe from government intrusion.
They know you called a gynecologist, spoke for a half hour, and then called the local Planned Parenthood's number later that day. But nobody knows what you spoke about.
Sorry, your phone records�oops, "so-called metadata"�can reveal a lot more about the content of your calls than the government is implying.
Unless you're the AC who posted the comment I was replying to, I completely agree.
"I don�t think Sheriff Winder�s use constitutes abuse. That is largely an issue regarding the roles of shame and forgiveness in Salt Lake County, rather than copyright..."
Copyright has a clearly defined purpose, and it's not for censoring websites officialdom don't like. Quoting Mike from his post; "There's clearly no copyright interest in the photos. They weren't created because of copyright. The government isn't using them to promote greater public learning or to support more content creation." The use of copyright law to suppress speech is one of the reasons why respect for copyright law is at an all-time low and still falling.
In your blind rage you might have missed that this post doesn't discredit copyright at all, or even call for any changes to copyright law other than clarifying the logical assumption that local governments shouldn't be able to claim copyright on their creations, as per the federal government.
For someone who clearly loves copyright, you're strangely at ease with such an obvious example of it's abuse, especially since it's the government censoring public info. Says a lot about you...
"Oh look, Pirate Mike is whining about the MPAA again yet not offering any substantive suggestions to solve the problem he's whining about."
Stupid troll is stupid. The solution to the problem is for the MPAA to shut the hell up and let the treaty that's been on the table for years move forward. The treaty is the solution, and the MPAA is blocking it, which Mike has very clearly explained numerous times.
Your inability understanding is not Mike's or TD's problem, it's entirely your own.
On the post: Rep. Grayson: Let Me Tell The NSA: There Is No Threat To Our Nation When I Call My Mother
Re: Re: Re: Paid shills and comments
Can you point to which parts of your contribution you consider to be "sophisticated"? Because I'm seeing a staggering lack of sophistication in all the people 'criticizing' this post and the commentors who support it.
If think the sheer volume of flagged comments proves AG Wright's point. Someone clearly wants this discussion shut down or discredited.
On the post: Rep. Grayson: Let Me Tell The NSA: There Is No Threat To Our Nation When I Call My Mother
Re: Re: Re: Re:
While discussing their plot between themselves? No, not likely.
On the post: Rep. Grayson: Let Me Tell The NSA: There Is No Threat To Our Nation When I Call My Mother
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do and so do you. You make decisions like that every day without even thinking about it. If you step in front of an approaching truck you have a high statistical probability of dying, so you decide to wait 'til it's passed and there's a safe gap in traffic. You probably make multiple such decisions daily.
The chances of dying in a terrorist attack play practically no part in my daily decision making, because there is practically zero chance of it happening.
"You don't mind being under surveillance when you are the beach by life guards, because you know they are there to watch over you and protect you."
This ridiculous comparison proves you're either not smart enough or not honest enough to play a meaningful part in this discussion.
On the post: Rep. Grayson: Let Me Tell The NSA: There Is No Threat To Our Nation When I Call My Mother
Re: Re: Re:
No, that's not what he said, and only a complete moron could possibly interpret it that way.
On the post: California AG Pretends Copyright Infringement Is Theft; Charges Streaming Site With Grand Theft
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every single time."
So Mike, who posts under his real name every day, is "hiding", says his anonymous accuser.
Irony, thy name is AC...
On the post: Legacy Recording Industry Claims Pandora Is Playing A 'Sick Joke' In Seeking The Same Rates Others Pay
Re:
Pandora are asking to pay the same rates as terrestrial radio stations, an action you claim is them "trying to get wealthy on the backs of musicians". So are you implying that terrestrial radio stations are already getting wealthy on the backs of musicians? Because that's the only logical conclusion to make from your claim. So where's your rant about terrestrial radio stations getting wealthy on the backs of musicians? Should I look on The Trichordist?
On the post: Yahoo! Fought Back Against PRISM, Lost In Secret Ruling
Re: Re:
On the post: Pianist Storms Off Stage, Claims Fans Filming His Performance Mean Record Labels Won't Give Him A Contract
Re: On the way out
On the post: DoD: If You See A Leaked NSA Document, Press SHIFT And DELETE To Get Rid Of It
Re:
No, it's called a rule, and rules are not ethics.
"I know ethic's are foreign to you, you might want to look it up."
Ironic, since you've mangled the definition of ethics so badly.
On the post: Mississippi Attorney General Says Its Google's Fault He Can Find Infringing & Counterfeit Items
Re: Google loves infringing content.
Okay then, answer me this (I know you won't). Which of these two scenarios best meets your requirement to "prevent crime"?
1. Google caves to AG's grandstanding and delists websites allegedly engaged in "illegal activity". AG claims success! Meanwhile said illegal activity continues unabated, but is a tiny bit harder to find on the internet. Or...
2. AG's leave Google alone and do their damn job, using proper law enforcement tools to locate "illegal activity" (easy to find, look on Google!) and stop it from actually occurring.
I genuinely believe you're not smart enough to see the correct answer here.
On the post: Edward Snowden: Whistleblower Behind Leaks Outs Himself
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: troubling
And if that were happening on anywhere near the same scale as this you might have a point. But it's not, so you don't.
On the post: Edward Snowden: Whistleblower Behind Leaks Outs Himself
Re: Re: Re: troubling
They don't need to:
http://gizmodo.com/why-the-metadata-the-nsa-has-on-you-matters-512103968
What they are trying to say is that disclosure of metadata � the details about phone calls, without the actual voice � isn't a big deal, not something for Americans to get upset about if the government knows. Let's take a closer look at what they are saying:
They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18 minutes. But they don't know what you talked about.
They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret.
They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don't know what was discussed.
They know you received a call from the local NRA office while it was having a campaign against gun legislation, and then called your senators and congressional representatives immediately after. But the content of those calls remains safe from government intrusion.
They know you called a gynecologist, spoke for a half hour, and then called the local Planned Parenthood's number later that day. But nobody knows what you spoke about.
Sorry, your phone records�oops, "so-called metadata"�can reveal a lot more about the content of your calls than the government is implying.
On the post: Edward Snowden: Whistleblower Behind Leaks Outs Himself
Re: Re: Re: troubling
You seem to be woefully behind the times regarding Wyden's actions. Please try to keep up.
On the post: Edward Snowden: Whistleblower Behind Leaks Outs Himself
Re: Re:
On the post: NSA Says It Doesn't Spy On Americans As Obama Administration Defends Letting NSA Spy On Americans
Re: Finally!
I'm pretty sure it's somewhere in the middle actually.
On the post: Utah Sheriff Claims Copyright On Mugshot Photos To Avoid Releasing Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: to JMT
Unless you're the AC who posted the comment I was replying to, I completely agree.
"I don�t think Sheriff Winder�s use constitutes abuse. That is largely an issue regarding the roles of shame and forgiveness in Salt Lake County, rather than copyright..."
Copyright has a clearly defined purpose, and it's not for censoring websites officialdom don't like. Quoting Mike from his post; "There's clearly no copyright interest in the photos. They weren't created because of copyright. The government isn't using them to promote greater public learning or to support more content creation." The use of copyright law to suppress speech is one of the reasons why respect for copyright law is at an all-time low and still falling.
On the post: Utah Sheriff Claims Copyright On Mugshot Photos To Avoid Releasing Them
Re: Re:
In your blind rage you might have missed that this post doesn't discredit copyright at all, or even call for any changes to copyright law other than clarifying the logical assumption that local governments shouldn't be able to claim copyright on their creations, as per the federal government.
For someone who clearly loves copyright, you're strangely at ease with such an obvious example of it's abuse, especially since it's the government censoring public info. Says a lot about you...
On the post: Utah Sheriff Claims Copyright On Mugshot Photos To Avoid Releasing Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please provide evidence of this claim.
On the post: MPAA: Oh, Of Course We Want To Help The Blind Read More... Just As Long As You Don't Touch Copyright
Re:
Stupid troll is stupid. The solution to the problem is for the MPAA to shut the hell up and let the treaty that's been on the table for years move forward. The treaty is the solution, and the MPAA is blocking it, which Mike has very clearly explained numerous times.
Your inability understanding is not Mike's or TD's problem, it's entirely your own.
On the post: Constitutional Scholar Who Taught Obama Comes Out Against Bradley Manning Trial
Re:
Next >>