COPYRIGHT is the law-enshrined CENSORSHIP of all NATURAL PERSONS' rights to copy everything they see. Because copying is how we learn. We copy our parents to learn to speak. We copy our teachers to learn to write. We must learn/copy everything that came before, before we can expand the bounds of current knowledge.
CENSORSHIP is CENSORSHIP no matter who's in control.
Re: Re: "We Shouldn't Want Internet Giants Deciding" - WE don't; YOU DO!
He can't seem to grasp the fact that corporations are made of people, and that they, collectively, are guaranteed many of the same rights that are recognized individually, by virtue of the First Amendment right of free assembly, and it's recognized (COMMON LAW!) corollary right of association.
Which, in turn, has a recognized (COMMON LAW!) corollary right - to not associate. It is by that right that private individuals and businesses can tell him to fuck off completely, and why making his statements merely hidden is a very kind way of dealing with him.
If a power is not held by the federal government (like a federal regulatory agency declaring that they do not have regulatory power over a whole market), it is up to the states whether or not they legislate it themselves. Those laws can be unconstitutional, but that's a whole different issue.
It's the 10th Amendment, man. It's literally in the Constitution.
...or he was just having a bad day? Seriously, don't be so quick to assume that because a person has an attitude with one cop, they hate all cops.
There are so many other reasons for it, like the fact that he had set up a speed trap. Which have a tendency to scare the overcautious into driving well below the speed limit, for fear of getting a ticket for going 1-5 over the limit.
This bullshit has been knocking around the court system for twelve years now!
While I'm glad to see a glimmer of justice being served, the time span involved for the open-and-shut nature of the case is insane. I hope Swartz can win some restitution for his costs and time.
Probably gonna happen anyways. These folks don't give two shits about whether or not their notice is valid. They just throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks.
Don't forget to make confused statements about EEEE-vil Corporations owning everybody, and if not for regulations, the free market would have stopped them.
Even though that's the exact opposite of what happened from 1850-1920.
And the fact that copyright is a government regulation.
Re: "uniform, consistent federal regulations" would be neutrality.
I know, right?
If the ISPs could have proven actual harm caused by net neutrality instead of just claiming (in opposition to their own reports to shareholders!) that it was damaging investment, maybe the vast majority of the public would have come out on their side, instead of what actually happened.
Their constant shrieking about how "the sky is falling" were really annoying, though.
You're making a lot of assumptions about whoever you're calling "kid", though.
That doesn't mean that what they are doing is ethical, despite how legal it may be. And now people know that the "positive" (they kinda aren't) reviews are paid, and generally people don't like that.
...Except, I don't know whether it was on purpose or not, but "John Smith" and several other "different people" reply for each other.
In such a way that there are only two options:
1: They are the same person, sockpuppeting in an effort to pretend they have widespread support.
2: They are different people, but one or several of them are responding in such a way as to give the appearance of being the same person.
Because you answer 1 guy, and the "other guy" (with an identicon that supports the sockpuppet theory) answers by saying "Where did I say that?"
Or maybe they are cripplingly bad at internetting and are unable to grasp the concept of threads, while simultaneously being tech-savvy enough to jump TOR nodes in order to avoid imagined censorship. The same TOR nodes they have historically claimed only pirates and child pornographers have use for.
Re: Re: Re: So I was right about dat. And WHO was not?
When EVIL -- and I FULLY MEAN that even though agree with the administrative process above: corporations are ALL inherently EVIL and must be closely watched, even your precious GOOGLE
Did you accidentally use the same user name for these posts less than a minute apart, "John Smith"?
The people you are cheering for are corporations. The sheer idiocy and hypocrisy of you cheering for a "win" given to one, then saying in your next breath that "ALL CORPORATIONS are EEEE-VIL" makes everyone bored enough to read your tripe dismiss any valid argument you would ever have.
On the post: We Shouldn't Want Internet Giants Deciding Who To Silence; But They Should Let Users Decide Who To Hear
Re: Re:
CENSORSHIP is CENSORSHIP no matter who's in control.
On the post: We Shouldn't Want Internet Giants Deciding Who To Silence; But They Should Let Users Decide Who To Hear
Re: Re: "We Shouldn't Want Internet Giants Deciding" - WE don't; YOU DO!
He can't seem to grasp the fact that corporations are made of people, and that they, collectively, are guaranteed many of the same rights that are recognized individually, by virtue of the First Amendment right of free assembly, and it's recognized (COMMON LAW!) corollary right of association.
Which, in turn, has a recognized (COMMON LAW!) corollary right - to not associate. It is by that right that private individuals and businesses can tell him to fuck off completely, and why making his statements merely hidden is a very kind way of dealing with him.
On the post: California Shakes Off ISP Lobbyists, Embraces Real Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Federal preemption
Wha..?
That's exactly how it works.
If a power is not held by the federal government (like a federal regulatory agency declaring that they do not have regulatory power over a whole market), it is up to the states whether or not they legislate it themselves. Those laws can be unconstitutional, but that's a whole different issue.
It's the 10th Amendment, man. It's literally in the Constitution.
On the post: California Shakes Off ISP Lobbyists, Embraces Real Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: TheyDidItToThemSelves
Because the only thing worse than not making money?
Someone else making it instead.
On the post: Court Says Cop Gets No Immunity For Pulling A Man Over For Flipping Him Off
Re: Re: Re: Being lawful doesn't make you less of an ass
Well, yes. Anyone flipping anyone off, EVER, is an A-hole move.
I just feel it's overkill to make the jump straight to "he's a bigot."
It's just a finger. He didn't say, "Die, Pig!" or anything. He just flipped off the guy running a speed trap.
On the post: Court Says Cop Gets No Immunity For Pulling A Man Over For Flipping Him Off
Re: Being lawful doesn't make you less of an ass
...or he was just having a bad day? Seriously, don't be so quick to assume that because a person has an attitude with one cop, they hate all cops.
There are so many other reasons for it, like the fact that he had set up a speed trap. Which have a tendency to scare the overcautious into driving well below the speed limit, for fear of getting a ticket for going 1-5 over the limit.
On the post: Court Says Cop Gets No Immunity For Pulling A Man Over For Flipping Him Off
This is ridiculous.
This bullshit has been knocking around the court system for twelve years now!
While I'm glad to see a glimmer of justice being served, the time span involved for the open-and-shut nature of the case is insane. I hope Swartz can win some restitution for his costs and time.
On the post: That Time Telco Lobbyists Sent Me All Their Talking Points About Trying To Shift The Blame To Internet Companies
Re: Re: DMCA, here we come
Probably gonna happen anyways. These folks don't give two shits about whether or not their notice is valid. They just throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks.
On the post: Comcast Is Trying To Ban States From Protecting Broadband & TV Consumers
Re: Re: Re: Wrong
Ooh! Ooh!
Don't forget to make confused statements about EEEE-vil Corporations owning everybody, and if not for regulations, the free market would have stopped them.
Even though that's the exact opposite of what happened from 1850-1920.
And the fact that copyright is a government regulation.
On the post: Comcast Is Trying To Ban States From Protecting Broadband & TV Consumers
Re: "uniform, consistent federal regulations" would be neutrality.
I know, right?
If the ISPs could have proven actual harm caused by net neutrality instead of just claiming (in opposition to their own reports to shareholders!) that it was damaging investment, maybe the vast majority of the public would have come out on their side, instead of what actually happened.
Their constant shrieking about how "the sky is falling" were really annoying, though.
You're making a lot of assumptions about whoever you're calling "kid", though.
On the post: Amazon Pays Employees To Chirp Happily On Twitter About Wonderful Working Conditions
Re: Amazon workers on Twitter
That doesn't mean that what they are doing is ethical, despite how legal it may be. And now people know that the "positive" (they kinda aren't) reviews are paid, and generally people don't like that.
They're literally shills.
On the post: Amazon Pays Employees To Chirp Happily On Twitter About Wonderful Working Conditions
Re: Re:
On the post: Nickelodeon Is Opposing A 12 Year Old New Zealand Girl's 'Slime' Trademark For Some Reason
Re: Slimey
Naw, slime molds are useful, but generally misunderstood.
Nickelodeon's slimy behavior is well understood, and actively harmful.
On the post: Research Paper Shows Militarized SWAT Teams Don't Make Cops -- Or The Public -- Any Safer
Re: Re: Re: Tell us about the world you wish for, Techdirt
You forgot to change TOR nodes, your identicon shows that you are the one accusing others of mental deficiencies.
On the post: Research Paper Shows Militarized SWAT Teams Don't Make Cops -- Or The Public -- Any Safer
Re: Re: Re:
In such a way that there are only two options:
1: They are the same person, sockpuppeting in an effort to pretend they have widespread support.
2: They are different people, but one or several of them are responding in such a way as to give the appearance of being the same person.
Because you answer 1 guy, and the "other guy" (with an identicon that supports the sockpuppet theory) answers by saying "Where did I say that?"
Or maybe they are cripplingly bad at internetting and are unable to grasp the concept of threads, while simultaneously being tech-savvy enough to jump TOR nodes in order to avoid imagined censorship. The same TOR nodes they have historically claimed only pirates and child pornographers have use for.
On the post: Recognizing It Had No Chance, Cox Settles BMG Copyright Trolling Case
Re: Re: Re: So I was right about dat. And WHO was not?
When EVIL -- and I FULLY MEAN that even though agree with the administrative process above: corporations are ALL inherently EVIL and must be closely watched, even your precious GOOGLE
Did you accidentally use the same user name for these posts less than a minute apart, "John Smith"?
On the post: Recognizing It Had No Chance, Cox Settles BMG Copyright Trolling Case
Re: Re: So I was right about dat. And WHO was not?
Also, copyright as it exists today was bought and paid for by Disney.
A corporation.
Therefore, copyright is EEEEE-VIL!
On the post: Recognizing It Had No Chance, Cox Settles BMG Copyright Trolling Case
Re: So I was right about dat. And WHO was not?
The people you are cheering for are corporations. The sheer idiocy and hypocrisy of you cheering for a "win" given to one, then saying in your next breath that "ALL CORPORATIONS are EEEE-VIL" makes everyone bored enough to read your tripe dismiss any valid argument you would ever have.
Reported as troll.
On the post: Verizon Throttled The 'Unlimited' Data Plan Of A Fire Dept. Battling Wildfires
Re: Re: Re: "Who cares about a fire, I've got a data plan to sell!"
On the post: Verizon Throttled The 'Unlimited' Data Plan Of A Fire Dept. Battling Wildfires
Re: Re: Pigs...
Well, this guy seems to be ignoring a simple fact in order to be offended:
It's not the individual firefighters that are needing priority, it's the fire department that needs priority.
In other words, when the FD goes home for the day, they get the same service as anyone else. But when they are on shift, their shit had better work.
Next >>