Clearly, you must have meant: a TROLL of control. Copyright trolling is the second major thing copyright is used for after censorship and as a tool of control.
(Wish TD had a mandatory preview before submitting. Extra credit: in-place preview instead of on a new page.)
The third major purpose of copyright is to promote the profits of mega corporations that exploit artists and creators.
As the article explained, the context was clear. It was understood by the party it was directed to.
Sometimes (not always) a short statement can be enough to make reasonable conclusions about someone's character. I could provide an example that would 'Godwin' this thread.
Why do we need to worry about trying to stop things like this from happening at a societal level? It has probably always happened. Just not at quite such a large scale.
Have you ever heard of someone becoming 'the laughingstock of such and so city/county/whatever" ? This kind of thing could always happen when someone says something massively stupid. Then after time to back pedal, decides instead to double, triple, quadruple down. And then make legal threats, and attempt to censor anyone repeating the facts.
This kind of thing always will happen as long as there are people who 'speak their mind', and have something terrible, ridiculous, or factually untrue on their minds. ("the moon landings were faked!")
As a Forbes contributor, I would think that Coppola would be able to write her own apology.
Another hypothesis is that Forbes saw the blowback and nicely asked her to write an apology. Or offered a pre-written one to choose from.
This would not be the first time that Forbes had a contributor who wrote something factually unsupported like "What SCO Wants, SCO Gets", which was massively incendiary. Then years later sort of, kind of apologized via "Snowed by SCO". Then shortly after moved to The New York Times.
Is the world quickly becoming worse than the worst fiction?
Example, the movie GATTACA.
Similarly, Orwell's 1984 was a warning, not a guide. But that warning could surprisingly apply to the US. Continuous never ending war. Ubiquitous surveillance. Just wait until all TVs have built in webcams for your live chat convenience. The government seems to all but control the media.
How soon before the US mandates DNA collection?
Could it really happen?
Yes. Bad things have happened in history. Things people didn't ask for. They were just born into a world that was bad.
> To see the programs, you have to put up with the commercials.
Bzzzzzt. Wrong.
I will not watch ads. Period.
I pay to watch TV. Netflix. Hulu Plus. Prime. Etc. And there is other excellent free content like PBS and TED. And you'd be amazed at the educational content you can find on YouTube.
They could solve those security issues instantly, if they wanted to.
STOP using any form of executable content. No Flash. No JavaScript. No ActiveX. No Silverlight. No Java Applets.
Your ads should be static content. Text. An image. An animated image.
An ad network could eliminate security issues by making sure that those three things are the only acceptable form of content from an advertiser that can be run on their ad network.
Long, long ago, I saw a Dilbert cartoon, possibly from one of the books in dead tree format. That cartoon explained that Marketing is what one does when one finds that they have grown up and have no useful talent or skills.
I hate freedom so much that if I happen to watch an over the air news broadcast and an ad appears, I hit the mute button. Usually I see news recorded earlier on my TiVo and can just fast forward which demonstrates my deep abiding hatred of free speech.
So if I cover my ears when you talk, am I engaging in censorship?
Did I prevent others from hearing you?
If I sell other people ear plugs so they can avoid listening to you, is that censorship? (Note: I'm not forcing anyone to buy the earplugs, and they could instead just put cotton in their ears, or their fingers in their ears.)
Is it my duty to ties people's hands to their sides so that they can't plug their ears?
If you could, would you put your advertisements on the insides of everyone's eyelids using implants mandatory at birth?
Next time, please try filing the case in every state, simultaneously.
Be sure to swear that you are not currently involved in any other lawsuits, nor have ever filed a defamation suit previously.
This time, write a "to whom it may concern" letter attesting to anyone interested, that you are not an idiot. Sign it and have the signature notarized. Then file that as exhibit A in evidence. That will greatly impress the court.
Extra credit: sue the MO and CA courts that rule against you for facilitating and enabling defamation.
Everyone Knows that Stingray gathers way way WAY more than just location information from ALL nearby phones.
Therefore a warrant should not be needed for Stingray, because Everyone Knows that it is a tool for intrusive, unwarranted (pun intended) invasion of the privacy of everyone in the nearby area.
On the post: Ecuador Continues To Use US Copyright Law To Censor Critics
Re: Gee, I wonder where Ecuador learned how to abuse copyright?
On the post: Ecuador Continues To Use US Copyright Law To Censor Critics
Gee, I wonder where Ecuador learned how to abuse copyright?
On the post: Ecuador Continues To Use US Copyright Law To Censor Critics
Re: Not a bug
This was obviously a typo.
Clearly, you must have meant: a TROLL of control. Copyright trolling is the second major thing copyright is used for after censorship and as a tool of control.
(Wish TD had a mandatory preview before submitting. Extra credit: in-place preview instead of on a new page.)
The third major purpose of copyright is to promote the profits of mega corporations that exploit artists and creators.
On the post: Writer Claims Libel, Copyright Infringement When Screencap Of Her Tweet Is Used In An Online Article
Re:
Sometimes (not always) a short statement can be enough to make reasonable conclusions about someone's character. I could provide an example that would 'Godwin' this thread.
Why do we need to worry about trying to stop things like this from happening at a societal level? It has probably always happened. Just not at quite such a large scale.
Have you ever heard of someone becoming 'the laughingstock of such and so city/county/whatever" ? This kind of thing could always happen when someone says something massively stupid. Then after time to back pedal, decides instead to double, triple, quadruple down. And then make legal threats, and attempt to censor anyone repeating the facts.
This kind of thing always will happen as long as there are people who 'speak their mind', and have something terrible, ridiculous, or factually untrue on their minds. ("the moon landings were faked!")
On the post: Writer Claims Libel, Copyright Infringement When Screencap Of Her Tweet Is Used In An Online Article
Re: color me skeptical
Another hypothesis is that Forbes saw the blowback and nicely asked her to write an apology. Or offered a pre-written one to choose from.
This would not be the first time that Forbes had a contributor who wrote something factually unsupported like "What SCO Wants, SCO Gets", which was massively incendiary. Then years later sort of, kind of apologized via "Snowed by SCO". Then shortly after moved to The New York Times.
On the post: Kuwait Creating Mandatory DNA Database Of All Citizens, Residents -- And Visitors
Sci Fi Dystopian Nightmare
Is the world quickly becoming worse than the worst fiction?
Example, the movie GATTACA.
Similarly, Orwell's 1984 was a warning, not a guide. But that warning could surprisingly apply to the US. Continuous never ending war. Ubiquitous surveillance. Just wait until all TVs have built in webcams for your live chat convenience. The government seems to all but control the media.
How soon before the US mandates DNA collection?
Could it really happen?
Yes. Bad things have happened in history. Things people didn't ask for. They were just born into a world that was bad.
On the post: Writer Claims Libel, Copyright Infringement When Screencap Of Her Tweet Is Used In An Online Article
HELP !! My Imaginary Rights were violated !!
(surely there must be some lawyer who will jump in?)
On the post: If You Use An Adblocker You Hate Free Speech, Says Internet Ads Guy
Re: Inviting and Disinviting
So what do you expect from someone who represents such an industry?
On the post: If You Use An Adblocker You Hate Free Speech, Says Internet Ads Guy
Re: Re:
Bzzzzzt. Wrong.
I will not watch ads. Period.
I pay to watch TV. Netflix. Hulu Plus. Prime. Etc. And there is other excellent free content like PBS and TED. And you'd be amazed at the educational content you can find on YouTube.
On the post: If You Use An Adblocker You Hate Free Speech, Says Internet Ads Guy
About those Security Issues
STOP using any form of executable content. No Flash. No JavaScript. No ActiveX. No Silverlight. No Java Applets.
Your ads should be static content. Text. An image. An animated image.
An ad network could eliminate security issues by making sure that those three things are the only acceptable form of content from an advertiser that can be run on their ad network.
On the post: If You Use An Adblocker You Hate Free Speech, Says Internet Ads Guy
Re: Heed well the wisdom of David Canzi
On the post: If You Use An Adblocker You Hate Free Speech, Says Internet Ads Guy
Re:
I hate freedom so much that if I happen to watch an over the air news broadcast and an ad appears, I hit the mute button. Usually I see news recorded earlier on my TiVo and can just fast forward which demonstrates my deep abiding hatred of free speech.
On the post: If You Use An Adblocker You Hate Free Speech, Says Internet Ads Guy
Re: Re:
On the post: If You Use An Adblocker You Hate Free Speech, Says Internet Ads Guy
Re: Re: Censorship?
Did I prevent others from hearing you?
If I sell other people ear plugs so they can avoid listening to you, is that censorship? (Note: I'm not forcing anyone to buy the earplugs, and they could instead just put cotton in their ears, or their fingers in their ears.)
Is it my duty to ties people's hands to their sides so that they can't plug their ears?
If you could, would you put your advertisements on the insides of everyone's eyelids using implants mandatory at birth?
On the post: Missouri Court To Chuck Johnson: WTF Are You Doing In A Missouri Court?!? Go Away
A Better Approach
Be sure to swear that you are not currently involved in any other lawsuits, nor have ever filed a defamation suit previously.
This time, write a "to whom it may concern" letter attesting to anyone interested, that you are not an idiot. Sign it and have the signature notarized. Then file that as exhibit A in evidence. That will greatly impress the court.
Extra credit: sue the MO and CA courts that rule against you for facilitating and enabling defamation.
On the post: AT&T CEO Thinks You're A Forgetful Idiot, Hilariously Gives Apple Encryption Advice
Re: Re:
Or alternately a mandatory Preview first, then you must confirm you want to submit what you see, the way you see it.
And how about supporting a few additional harmless html tags like strikethrough? Numbered and bulleted lists?
On the post: AT&T CEO Thinks You're A Forgetful Idiot, Hilariously Gives Apple Encryption Advice
Re: give the guy a break.
On the post: AT&T CEO Thinks You're A Forgetful Idiot, Hilariously Gives Apple Encryption Advice
(and if we're lucky, congress is owned only by US corporations.)
On the post: Prosecutors Say Cops Don't Need Warrants For Stingrays Because 'Everyone Knows' Cell Phones Generate Location Data
Everyone Knows
Therefore a warrant should not be needed for Stingray, because Everyone Knows that it is a tool for intrusive, unwarranted (pun intended) invasion of the privacy of everyone in the nearby area.
On the post: Prosecutors Say Cops Don't Need Warrants For Stingrays Because 'Everyone Knows' Cell Phones Generate Location Data
Re: Everyone Knows...
Next >>