"The angle is there, whether or not anyone has yet used it."
And that's what the article fiddles with. What if somebody used it to prevent confederate statues from being removed? What if some controversial statue, say, "Fearless Hitler" cannot be removed due to the law? These Confederate statues were there for ages and were not a big deal until last week. So once we decide that some types of artistic expression are bigoted, fucked up enough that they should be moved to some museum of human stupidity, someone not as evolved can use such laws to prevent removal.
We've seen it in Germany if memory serves when Recep Tayyip "Gollum" Erdogan (the moron from Turkey) used an obscure law to go after critics there forcing the legislative to shot it down swiftly. Copyright is that obscure law framework except that there are plenty of morons benefiting from it (at the expense of our culture, free speech and tax money).
"VARA, however, takes away that discretion by giving it to someone else who can trump it (so to speak)."
Ah the puns.
Anyway, the thing is, nobody will care about the law when it doesn't fit their world view so it's likely going to be enforced selectively. Where have we seen it before?
I wonder what would happen if they went the "screw it" route and produced a detailed document citing the articles that cite the documents. Of course the judge already covered his ears and is singing "LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU" so...
I've said already but it's worth repeating: congratulations!
I disagree that you "just write" and "aren't on the same level". There's no weapon as powerful as the pen (or the keyboard for modern times heh) and that's why authoritarian people and countries try so hard to suppress speech.
Your contribution is not to be underestimated and the fact that you have been recognized multiple times through different channels (with mentions to your work) is evidence of the importance. Heck, the trolling in this very article is definitive evidence you are doing it awesomely right.
I'd like to congratulate the rest of TD writers. It's obvious that Mike doesn't do it alone and you have all earned the award along with him. Congratulations!
"EPSN's value generally is aggregating the most live sports possible. It is valuable enough that cable companies have paid over the top for ESPN because they know that for a significant part of their subscribers, live sports is important. "
Streaming can do it. And better. Just start your browser/app, select the game you want to watch and it will show. No need to look for the channel. And you can watch again anytime, anywhere.
"This has all happened only in the last 2 years or so. ESPN isn't the first, but honestly they are very early in the game all considered."
Erm. Nope. I have had connections that would handle at least 2 simultaneous Full HD streams for at least 10 years now (and I'm being conservative and also don't live in a so-called developed nation). In lower qualities streaming has been around for ages. ESPN is very, very, very late but it may be somewhat early if compared to the rest of sports businesses.
"The funny part here is that the losers aren't ESPN, rather it's the cable company."
Both are losers. Both are going through hard times in the next years. But I'd argue that cable companies have a bit of an advantage there considering the bandwidth they reserve for cable in their systems can be used for better stream offerings (without impacting NN since it's a dedicated channel that doesn't eat into the bw you use for the internet). So yes, ESPN is a loser and will actually suffer more than the cable companies.
"ESPN is going to be around for a long time. Their future may be more aggregating live sports from all over the world rather than specifically broadcasting it, but the song remains the same. People will pay for sports."
Of course, the brand is valuable and may be bought and maintained (see Nokia) but if they want to remain where they are they will need to adapt faster. And they seem to be resisting because streaming won't include the most important part of sports. People will not pay if it's not attractive, valuable. People will stream from unauthorized sources.
Solution: don't remove at all. Let the platform moderater and instead of removing just hide it and warn when people want to access. Then we can just counter the idiocy with speech.
Of course we need to thicken our collective skins first.
I'm a millenial and I'm actually giving money (as in, giving, no strings attached) so Mike and crew can keep writing these awesome articles. I guess I'll go back and steal him once he gets old according to your wisdom eh?
No seriously grandpa, be careful with your blood pressure, no need yelling so much at the clouds.
If this idiot (or these idiots) are actually punished I'll concede that copyright is only 99% broken instead of 100%. And Google should really review their electronic DMCA system (ContentID and all).
Something tells me nothing is going to happen though.
Why not lower the definition to 56kbits? This would magically expand coverage to nearly 100% of the US even if you disconsider wireless. Problem solved, the US is the bestest country in the world to have internets!!!!
At this point Pai is just mocking the population. Let's hope next election delivers a metaphorical kick in the eggs of the Republicans and the legislative can finally put some resistance towards all this destruction. Again, it's not as if the Democrats are much better but at the very least it would send a clear message.
"If things don't change tremendously over the next few years, participating in the G20 summit will amount to tacit approval of the Saudi government's abuses and will legitimize ongoing censorship. "
Let's face it, if anybody was concerned about these issues we'd have embargoes on multiple countries against China, Russia, the US (yes, they violate all sorts of Human Rights), UK and many other totalitarian or pseudo-democratic countries. The world needs hypocrisy to function.
Re: "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
I kind of agree with the general idea of your comment even though you went derp in some parts of it (the conservative/liberal part was particularly amusing). This is one of those rare times I have important disagreements with Popehat and an article on TD.
I vehemently disagree with the notion of screwing a person's life because of their beliefs as twisted and abhorrent they may be unless their ACTIONS cause harm to, say, the people they don't like because racism. As long as they respect the rights of others and don't directly attack those peoples with lies or even physical assault then let them be. If their employer eventually finds out about them because they put their faces in a bullshit protest and decides to fire them because they are general dipshits so be it but it's not anybody's business to go hunt for stuff to screw that person. This makes people supposedly in the right (ie: not racists) as bad as the ones they are attacking.
I do support showing how stupid this bigotry is and I engage in selfless mockery when I meet these types but that's as far as my counter-speech will go. I refuse to try to screw them outside of the discussion because I am better than that. We should all be better than that. And if there are crimes involved let the freaking law enforcement/courts deal with it. Pressure the govt, protest if you will but leave the person and SPECIALLY, his/her family and social circle out of it.
On the post: Because Of Course There Are Copyright Implications With Confederacy Monuments
Re: Re: Too speculative
And that's what the article fiddles with. What if somebody used it to prevent confederate statues from being removed? What if some controversial statue, say, "Fearless Hitler" cannot be removed due to the law? These Confederate statues were there for ages and were not a big deal until last week. So once we decide that some types of artistic expression are bigoted, fucked up enough that they should be moved to some museum of human stupidity, someone not as evolved can use such laws to prevent removal.
We've seen it in Germany if memory serves when Recep Tayyip "Gollum" Erdogan (the moron from Turkey) used an obscure law to go after critics there forcing the legislative to shot it down swiftly. Copyright is that obscure law framework except that there are plenty of morons benefiting from it (at the expense of our culture, free speech and tax money).
On the post: Contractor Exposes Personal Information Of 1.8 Million Chicago Voters On AWS
On the post: Because Of Course There Are Copyright Implications With Confederacy Monuments
Ah the puns.
Anyway, the thing is, nobody will care about the law when it doesn't fit their world view so it's likely going to be enforced selectively. Where have we seen it before?
On the post: As HBO Screams About GoT Episodes Leaking From A Hack, HBO Leaks Next GoT Episode Early
On the post: North Carolina Election Agencies First Learned They'd Been Hacked From Leaked Documents Published By The Intercept
On the post: 'Smart' Lock Vendor Locks Hundreds Out Of Their Home With Bungled Firmware Update
I'm very wary with over the air firmware updates. I'm not sure if it's just paranoia or if I'm rightly worried.
On the post: EFF Pioneer Awards: Chelsea Manning, Annie Game... And Me
I disagree that you "just write" and "aren't on the same level". There's no weapon as powerful as the pen (or the keyboard for modern times heh) and that's why authoritarian people and countries try so hard to suppress speech.
Your contribution is not to be underestimated and the fact that you have been recognized multiple times through different channels (with mentions to your work) is evidence of the importance. Heck, the trolling in this very article is definitive evidence you are doing it awesomely right.
I'd like to congratulate the rest of TD writers. It's obvious that Mike doesn't do it alone and you have all earned the award along with him. Congratulations!
On the post: Aspiring Actor Forges Court Order To Delist Content, Gets Busted By Judge, Forges Court Order To Delist Article About Contempt Charges
On the post: FOIA Lawsuit Filed Over DOJ Data Complainant Is Pretty Sure Doesn't Even Exist
That's an incredibly funny way of describing a fart going out of an ass implying he took it out of his ass. Gold!
I'm not sure the DOJ will go down this path, I expect more obfuscation and delaying as long as procedural maneuvers allow.
In any case, I've come to a point I treat everything Trump says as lies.
On the post: As A Streaming Future Looms, ESPN Is Damned If It Does, Damned If It Doesn't
Re: Great Story
Streaming can do it. And better. Just start your browser/app, select the game you want to watch and it will show. No need to look for the channel. And you can watch again anytime, anywhere.
"This has all happened only in the last 2 years or so. ESPN isn't the first, but honestly they are very early in the game all considered."
Erm. Nope. I have had connections that would handle at least 2 simultaneous Full HD streams for at least 10 years now (and I'm being conservative and also don't live in a so-called developed nation). In lower qualities streaming has been around for ages. ESPN is very, very, very late but it may be somewhat early if compared to the rest of sports businesses.
"The funny part here is that the losers aren't ESPN, rather it's the cable company."
Both are losers. Both are going through hard times in the next years. But I'd argue that cable companies have a bit of an advantage there considering the bandwidth they reserve for cable in their systems can be used for better stream offerings (without impacting NN since it's a dedicated channel that doesn't eat into the bw you use for the internet). So yes, ESPN is a loser and will actually suffer more than the cable companies.
"ESPN is going to be around for a long time. Their future may be more aggregating live sports from all over the world rather than specifically broadcasting it, but the song remains the same. People will pay for sports."
Of course, the brand is valuable and may be bought and maintained (see Nokia) but if they want to remain where they are they will need to adapt faster. And they seem to be resisting because streaming won't include the most important part of sports. People will not pay if it's not attractive, valuable. People will stream from unauthorized sources.
On the post: Once Again, Rather Than Deleting Terrorist Propaganda, YouTube Deletes Evidence Of War Crimes
Of course we need to thicken our collective skins first.
On the post: The MPAA Narrative About Piracy Flips To Danger From Pirate Sites Now That It Has Lost The Moral Argument
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A lot of money would have been made instead of left on the table. We can't have it, we must act idiotically. - MAFIAA
On the post: The MPAA Narrative About Piracy Flips To Danger From Pirate Sites Now That It Has Lost The Moral Argument
Re: "Lost the moral battle", eh?
No seriously grandpa, be careful with your blood pressure, no need yelling so much at the clouds.
On the post: Impostor Sending Out DMCA Notices In Chaturbate's Name Now Targeting Techdirt URLs
Something tells me nothing is going to happen though.
On the post: FCC Begins Weakening The Definition Of Quality Broadband Deployment To Aid Lazy, Uncompetitive ISPs
Re: Re: Re: ANTIFA: For Or Against?
On the post: FCC Begins Weakening The Definition Of Quality Broadband Deployment To Aid Lazy, Uncompetitive ISPs
Re: Re: ANTIFA: For Or Against?
On the post: Stories Claiming DNC Hack Was 'Inside Job' Rely Heavily On A Stupid Conversion Error No 'Forensic Expert' Would Make
On the post: FCC Begins Weakening The Definition Of Quality Broadband Deployment To Aid Lazy, Uncompetitive ISPs
At this point Pai is just mocking the population. Let's hope next election delivers a metaphorical kick in the eggs of the Republicans and the legislative can finally put some resistance towards all this destruction. Again, it's not as if the Democrats are much better but at the very least it would send a clear message.
On the post: Saudi Government Looking To Jail More Citizens For 'Harming Public Order' With Their Religious Tweets
Let's face it, if anybody was concerned about these issues we'd have embargoes on multiple countries against China, Russia, the US (yes, they violate all sorts of Human Rights), UK and many other totalitarian or pseudo-democratic countries. The world needs hypocrisy to function.
On the post: One Twitter Account's Mission To Make White Supremacists Very, Very Famous
Re: "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
I vehemently disagree with the notion of screwing a person's life because of their beliefs as twisted and abhorrent they may be unless their ACTIONS cause harm to, say, the people they don't like because racism. As long as they respect the rights of others and don't directly attack those peoples with lies or even physical assault then let them be. If their employer eventually finds out about them because they put their faces in a bullshit protest and decides to fire them because they are general dipshits so be it but it's not anybody's business to go hunt for stuff to screw that person. This makes people supposedly in the right (ie: not racists) as bad as the ones they are attacking.
I do support showing how stupid this bigotry is and I engage in selfless mockery when I meet these types but that's as far as my counter-speech will go. I refuse to try to screw them outside of the discussion because I am better than that. We should all be better than that. And if there are crimes involved let the freaking law enforcement/courts deal with it. Pressure the govt, protest if you will but leave the person and SPECIALLY, his/her family and social circle out of it.
Don't pretend to be a better person. Just be it.
Next >>