Alright, lets run with your assertion that Google is responsible. So what? Why should providing accurate, factual results that show the most common searches associated with particular terms be a punishable offense? What exactly are you you complaining about?
"This is laughably poor apologism."
Well nobody here is apologising for Google because they haven't done anything wrong, so I guess you're right about that.
I hardly ever type full searches any more. I deliberately pause after I think I've typed enough for Autocomplete to find what I want, and it often has. Don't know how it could be more annoying than helpful.
Thousands of posts about the negative aspects of copyright, and how they could be fixed. This isn't hard for us, but you're certainly struggling with it.
Re: Would all be well if Google, Facebook, and other internet grifters
"You keep pretending there's "innovation", but none of what Google or Facebook actually produces anything, only re-directs advertising money."
Without doubt the stupidest, wrongest, most intellectually challenged statement I think I've ever heard. So much wrong in one sentence, it boggles the mind...
If the frequency of fake serious stories like this one increases, people's trust will drop and their skepticism will rise, which will naturally reduce the effect of fake stories. To me this seems like a very ineffective cyberwar "weapon".
"So anyone who points out that Techdirt got it wrong should shut up?"
No, when Techdirt gets it wrong you should, in a constructive adult fashion, point that out and explain why. In this case though , I see no reason at all to believe TD got it wrong and your comment was a mile away from being constructive or adult, and was just trollish. So shut up.
And if this is what you think amounts to cyber way, I say bring it on. Some over-paid gamblers lost some money and some other over-paid gamblers made some, and the net result was not much of anything. Beats a real war any day.
Every time you claim it can be done, people will simply laugh at your ignorance. It's pretty hard to convince people of your argument's merits when they're laughing at you.
If you engage your brain for a second you might realise that anyone with a laptop can walk down the road and do exactly what Google did, and there is nothing illegal or punishable about it. Hopefully you'll then see how stupid your analogy is.
I see you don't understand how burden of proof works. Not surprising...
Multiple investigations around the world have failed to find evidence of Google doing anything with the data collected, let alone something bad. What do you know that everyone involved in those investigations somehow missed?
...Mike voiced an opinion based on NOTHING, but then he claims to be Mr. Evidence-Based.
This statement is evidence of very limited intellectual ability on your part. If you think that the desire to state an opinion and the desire to find and present evidence are mutually exclusive traits then you're just too dumb to participate.
Re: Re: Re: Number of people employed at McDonald's may be all-time high too.
"do you even understand what a 'natural right' is ?
clearly you do not."
Your screed has left me thinking the same thing about you.
"is it your natural right not to be mugged ?
is it your natural right not to be murdered ?
or to have your car stolen or your wife raped ?"
Why on earth do copyright maximalists always insist on bringing murder and rape into a discussion about copying, as if they're anywhere close to each other in significance. There is nothing, NOTHING, you can create that is significant enough to compare it's copying to murder and rape. The comparison makes you look like an over-entitled fool.
"copyright and the protection of idea's is also not contingent on specific laws and are in fact 'inalienable' rights..."
This is simply false, and I again ask for any credible source for this claim.
"You write a book you have a natural right not to have that stolen from you..."
Society has long agreed that it is wrong to physically take that book away from you and deprive you of its use, i.e. steal it. Copying is completely different, as is society's attitude to it.
"...and copying something and reducing any profits made from that creation is theft."
That is simply not the definition of theft, not by any dictionary, legal or common-sense meaning of the word. There is no natural or legal right guaranteeing a profit. Profit is something you earn by convincing people to pay more for your product or service than it costs you to provide.
Re: Number of people employed at McDonald's may be all-time high too.
"As I've written before and will again, copyright merely recognizes the natural rights of a creator to control copies of a work..."
No such natural rights exist, and I challenge you to offer any credible proof that they do. Humans have been freely copying each others creations since we first started scribbling on cave walls.
On the post: Japan The Latest Country To Mistakenly Say Google Is 'Responsible' For Autocomplete Results
Re:
Alright, lets run with your assertion that Google is responsible. So what? Why should providing accurate, factual results that show the most common searches associated with particular terms be a punishable offense? What exactly are you you complaining about?
"This is laughably poor apologism."
Well nobody here is apologising for Google because they haven't done anything wrong, so I guess you're right about that.
On the post: Japan The Latest Country To Mistakenly Say Google Is 'Responsible' For Autocomplete Results
Re:
On the post: Bureau Of Economic Analysis Shows Why Copyright Terms Should Be Greatly Diminished
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Winning But Losing: Lessons From An Internet StartUp
Re:
You do realise multiple courts found that Veoh were actually not "freeloading grifters" right? That's kinda the main point of the story...
"Now you come here blaming the system for your own failure?"
Veoh didn't fail in court, they won every time. You seem to be failing to grasp the basic stuff here.
On the post: When Corruption Fails: Hollywood Has 'Turned Off The Critical Thinking Functions Of Many Democrats'
Re: Would all be well if Google, Facebook, and other internet grifters
Without doubt the stupidest, wrongest, most intellectually challenged statement I think I've ever heard. So much wrong in one sentence, it boggles the mind...
On the post: Bureau Of Economic Analysis Shows Why Copyright Terms Should Be Greatly Diminished
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I certainly hope not because that's not the intended purpose of copyright.
As a wannabe IP lawyer it's no surprise you'd want copyright to be enforced in a way that produces the greatest economic return for you...
On the post: Bureau Of Economic Analysis Shows Why Copyright Terms Should Be Greatly Diminished
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/02490722336/how-hollywoods-own-pirates-must-in form-future-copyright.shtml#c1524
C'mon, where's my answer?!
On the post: Fake Tweet And Algorithmically Twitchy Financial Markets Lead To Market Swing; But Is That So Bad?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There is no cyber war
On the post: Fake Tweet And Algorithmically Twitchy Financial Markets Lead To Market Swing; But Is That So Bad?
Re: Re: Re: There is no cyber war
No, when Techdirt gets it wrong you should, in a constructive adult fashion, point that out and explain why. In this case though , I see no reason at all to believe TD got it wrong and your comment was a mile away from being constructive or adult, and was just trollish. So shut up.
And if this is what you think amounts to cyber way, I say bring it on. Some over-paid gamblers lost some money and some other over-paid gamblers made some, and the net result was not much of anything. Beats a real war any day.
On the post: Grooveshark Loses Latest Round In Court, In A Ruling That Could Gut The DMCA's Safe Harbors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: NYC Mayor Bloomberg Thinks Boston Bombing Renders The Constitution Obsolete
Re: Re: Re:
A drone attack is no more or less a terrorist attack than one from a manned aircraft.
On the post: Grooveshark Loses Latest Round In Court, In A Ruling That Could Gut The DMCA's Safe Harbors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Fined For Wi-Fi Privacy Violations, Grandstanding German Regulators Not Satisfied
Re: Today Bank robbers steal $10 million dollars
On the post: Google Fined For Wi-Fi Privacy Violations, Grandstanding German Regulators Not Satisfied
Re: Because GOT CAUGHT EARLY and stopped!
I see you don't understand how burden of proof works. Not surprising...
Multiple investigations around the world have failed to find evidence of Google doing anything with the data collected, let alone something bad. What do you know that everyone involved in those investigations somehow missed?
On the post: Attention Game Developers And Console Manufacturers: 'Always On' Is NOT The Same As 'Always Connectable'
Re: Re: Re: Attention 14-year-olds: quit playing games, leave the basement.
If there were valid reasons for that being the case, maybe your argument would have a leg to stand on. But there aren't, so it doesn't.
On the post: YouTube Wins Yet Another Complete Victory Over Viacom; Court Mocks Viacom's Ridiculous Legal Theories
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why don't you list them out for us. Not the intended benefits, but the actual, real-world benefits with citable evidence. Shouldn't take you long...
On the post: Boston Officials Allegedly Shut Down Mobile Service In Boston To Prevent Remote Detonation (Update: Or Not)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This statement is evidence of very limited intellectual ability on your part. If you think that the desire to state an opinion and the desire to find and present evidence are mutually exclusive traits then you're just too dumb to participate.
On the post: DMCA As Censorship: Chilling Effects On Research
Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/02490722336/how-hollywoods-own-pirates-must-in form-future-copyright.shtml#c1524
On the post: Julie Samuels' Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Number of people employed at McDonald's may be all-time high too.
clearly you do not."
Your screed has left me thinking the same thing about you.
"is it your natural right not to be mugged ?
is it your natural right not to be murdered ?
or to have your car stolen or your wife raped ?"
Why on earth do copyright maximalists always insist on bringing murder and rape into a discussion about copying, as if they're anywhere close to each other in significance. There is nothing, NOTHING, you can create that is significant enough to compare it's copying to murder and rape. The comparison makes you look like an over-entitled fool.
"copyright and the protection of idea's is also not contingent on specific laws and are in fact 'inalienable' rights..."
This is simply false, and I again ask for any credible source for this claim.
"You write a book you have a natural right not to have that stolen from you..."
Society has long agreed that it is wrong to physically take that book away from you and deprive you of its use, i.e. steal it. Copying is completely different, as is society's attitude to it.
"...and copying something and reducing any profits made from that creation is theft."
That is simply not the definition of theft, not by any dictionary, legal or common-sense meaning of the word. There is no natural or legal right guaranteeing a profit. Profit is something you earn by convincing people to pay more for your product or service than it costs you to provide.
On the post: Julie Samuels' Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Number of people employed at McDonald's may be all-time high too.
No such natural rights exist, and I challenge you to offer any credible proof that they do. Humans have been freely copying each others creations since we first started scribbling on cave walls.
Next >>