Can you please provide a list of at least 24 things (i.e. "dozens") that he refuses to talk about or acknowledge. Or just admit you made that claim up.
What the hell is a "copyright denier"? I don't remember anybody claiming "copyright never happened!" They'd have to be nuttier than you...
"Right now, Big Search makes millions of mistakes each day when it recommends illegally copied material to its customers."
That's not a mistake, it's a search algorithm working exactly as it's supposed to, by finding the stuff people want the most. If you broke that functionality (and I know you'd love to), search engines would be useless. It'd be like digging up all the roads to prevent criminals driving.
"I wish the system were perfect, but it's better than almost every other form of enforcement. "
Except for the complete failure to reduce piracy. Other than that it's awesome...
"I think it's easy as pie to show that most of what he posts is faith-based, biased nonsense."
If it's so easy why have you never even come close to doing that?
"I think the world should know what MM is all about--and it ain't pretty."
I think the world should know what you are all about, but unlike Mike, you're to gutless to put your name to what you write, so all your accusations and insults are just noisy bluster, with zero credibility or respect. You're the one who's scared, not Mike.
"As bad as this all may seem, it's well deserved after years of unchecked abuse."
Thanks for selfishly not seeing the bigger and more important picture, and condoning censorship through copyright abuse. Personal vendetta's are no excuse for abusing a very bad piece of legislation.
The whole point of the article was the chance of a rare legal victory against DMCA abuse, not the two bloggers. Words didn't fail you, you failed them.
Just another troll, but for the benefit of others...
"That totally is the fault of copyright and not the people involved!"
Some people are assholes. You will never prevent this. Give an asshole access to a bad law and you will get bad results. The practical and obvious solution is to fix the bad law, because you will never fix assholes.
Ah, the old "no one bought it", head-in-the-sand denial. That'll be an effective argument...
There are few creatures on the planet that will live to see something created in their lifetime get into the public domain. It's limited in only the most literal sense, but not in any practical sense, and as noted in the comment above, this is a "gross warping of the spirit and original intent of the law". For someone so pro-copyright, you certainly seem to have a complete lack of respect for the intention of the creators of the original laws.
"Masnick writes those articles to encourage people to pirate; he provides a rationalization for it."
An explanation for why something is occurring is neither encouragement nor rationalisation. It takes a huge and twisted leap of logic to get from Mike's position to your interpretation.
"Piracy makes his employer, Google, millions of dollars every year via illicit ad revenue."
Your whole "employed by Google" schtick couldn't possibly be genuine, because I struggle to believe you could be so stupid as to reach that conclusion from the facts presented. So surely it must just be a very weak attempt at an insult, throwing mud to see if it sticks. It's not working; try something new.
But ignoring the lack of any citation for your accusations towards Google, their 2012 profit was $10.73 billion. Your "millions" would be chump change.
"When are you going to grow a pair and actually discuss the issues with me? Stop being such a baby."
Did you take a master class in irony or something, because you're really good at it!
If you had a pair you'd publish your nonsense under your real name and occupation just like Mike does. Instead you hide behind anonymity because we all know you'd never have the guts to say it in public. You know your behavior here is incredibly anti-social and you'd be deeply embarrassed (I hope) if your friends and colleagues knew what you wrote. You're in no position to tell anyone to "grow a pair", at least not until you do the same. Why would anyone, let alone Mike, bow to your constant rude demands? You know you'd be ignored, punched in the face or fired if you acted like that in person. So's who's really the baby here?
Yeah, I'm sure if a prosecutor publicly and repeatedly threatened you with maximum sentences amounting to decades in prison you wouldn't be worried at all. You'd sleep soundly at night clutching a set of sentencing guidelines...
Your continual attempts to shame TD into not discussing this topic clearly shows how desperate you are you shut the discussion down, because the more it's discussed publicly, and the more people figure out what's really going on with the "justice" system, the worse things will be for you and your ilk. So we'll just keep on talking thanks.
On the post: Teri Buhl Responds To Our Story; Still Confused About The Internet And The Law
Re:
Well I guess that's something you can directly relate to. You two could start a support group...
On the post: Teri Buhl Responds To Our Story; Still Confused About The Internet And The Law
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Much Does HBO Pay MarkMonitor To Send DMCA Notices Removing Its Official Content From Google?
Re: And so what if there are glitches?
What the hell is a "copyright denier"? I don't remember anybody claiming "copyright never happened!" They'd have to be nuttier than you...
"Right now, Big Search makes millions of mistakes each day when it recommends illegally copied material to its customers."
That's not a mistake, it's a search algorithm working exactly as it's supposed to, by finding the stuff people want the most. If you broke that functionality (and I know you'd love to), search engines would be useless. It'd be like digging up all the roads to prevent criminals driving.
"I wish the system were perfect, but it's better than almost every other form of enforcement. "
Except for the complete failure to reduce piracy. Other than that it's awesome...
On the post: Collateral Censorship: Oxford Union Replaces Assange Speech Backdrop, Citing 'Copyright' Concerns
Re: Correction
On the post: Chris Sprigman's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE legal authority to seize domain names
Tell that to Dajaz1.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So Mike states the same thing he's being saying for years, and now you think we're getting somewhere? Just now?
Mental illness. That's the only explanation I can come up with for the stuff you write. That's not an insult, it's a genuine opinion.
On the post: Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If it's so easy why have you never even come close to doing that?
"I think the world should know what MM is all about--and it ain't pretty."
I think the world should know what you are all about, but unlike Mike, you're to gutless to put your name to what you write, so all your accusations and insults are just noisy bluster, with zero credibility or respect. You're the one who's scared, not Mike.
On the post: Two More Politicians Claim Video Games Are The Real 'Problem'
Re: Re: Follow the money
You do realize the USA has 315 million members right?
Why should the NRA have such a disproportionate amount of influence?
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Birth Blogger Fight Goes Legal Over DMCA Abuse
Re:
Thanks for selfishly not seeing the bigger and more important picture, and condoning censorship through copyright abuse. Personal vendetta's are no excuse for abusing a very bad piece of legislation.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Birth Blogger Fight Goes Legal Over DMCA Abuse
Re: Seriously?
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Birth Blogger Fight Goes Legal Over DMCA Abuse
Re:
"That totally is the fault of copyright and not the people involved!"
Some people are assholes. You will never prevent this. Give an asshole access to a bad law and you will get bad results. The practical and obvious solution is to fix the bad law, because you will never fix assholes.
On the post: Human Rights Lawyer Explains Why He's Working For Kim Dotcom: Exposing American Corruption
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I couldn't resist.
Yep, it's all Mike's faults. Mike, Mike, Mike. Not your fault at all...
Here's a heads-up: you are the only one who thinks this. The only one.
On the post: Is The Line Between 'Hacker' And 'Criminal' Really That Fuzzy?
Re: Re: Re:
When it comes to law enforcement there should be one clear and accurate definition. Any other meanings would be irrelevant.
On the post: Just As Many Musicians Say File Sharing Helps Them As Those Who Say It Hurts
Re: Re:
There are few creatures on the planet that will live to see something created in their lifetime get into the public domain. It's limited in only the most literal sense, but not in any practical sense, and as noted in the comment above, this is a "gross warping of the spirit and original intent of the law". For someone so pro-copyright, you certainly seem to have a complete lack of respect for the intention of the creators of the original laws.
On the post: Just As Many Musicians Say File Sharing Helps Them As Those Who Say It Hurts
Re: Re: My personal experience
I think you'll find most record label contracts have already done that.
On the post: Just As Many Musicians Say File Sharing Helps Them As Those Who Say It Hurts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An explanation for why something is occurring is neither encouragement nor rationalisation. It takes a huge and twisted leap of logic to get from Mike's position to your interpretation.
"Piracy makes his employer, Google, millions of dollars every year via illicit ad revenue."
Your whole "employed by Google" schtick couldn't possibly be genuine, because I struggle to believe you could be so stupid as to reach that conclusion from the facts presented. So surely it must just be a very weak attempt at an insult, throwing mud to see if it sticks. It's not working; try something new.
But ignoring the lack of any citation for your accusations towards Google, their 2012 profit was $10.73 billion. Your "millions" would be chump change.
On the post: Aaron Swartz Unlikely To Face Jail Or Conviction... Until Feds Decided To 'Send A Message'
Re:
Did you take a master class in irony or something, because you're really good at it!
If you had a pair you'd publish your nonsense under your real name and occupation just like Mike does. Instead you hide behind anonymity because we all know you'd never have the guts to say it in public. You know your behavior here is incredibly anti-social and you'd be deeply embarrassed (I hope) if your friends and colleagues knew what you wrote. You're in no position to tell anyone to "grow a pair", at least not until you do the same. Why would anyone, let alone Mike, bow to your constant rude demands? You know you'd be ignored, punched in the face or fired if you acted like that in person. So's who's really the baby here?
On the post: Another Case Of Prosecutorial Bullying Against A 'Hacker'
Re:
On the post: Another Case Of Prosecutorial Bullying Against A 'Hacker'
Re:
On the post: iNanny: Apple Takes Down Popular Photo Apps Because They Made Searching For Nude Photos 'Too Easy'
Re: Re:
Next >>