By what definition? Can you name a legal case where a judge ruled that way? As far as I can tell the courts don't care until someone actually violates the copyright and then that's all that matters.
It proves that big tech has a bias, and will censor those with whom they disagree, while permitting TOS violations of those with whom they agree, while hiding behind 230
Of course big tech has a bias. The problem here is that you have not demonstrated why that isn't ok. You're allowed to have a bias. Why can't they?
And no there is no such thing as a "de facto public forum" so if you try to bring that up you'll only be further demonstrating your own unwillingness to let them have the same basic rights you enjoy just because you disagree with them.
You're free to make most whatever decisions you want.
You are not free to make everyone else shut up about how wrong your choice or the reasons you have for making that choice are. If you don't want that either don't make decisions most people will disagree with or get out of the business.
but the idea that a company can't make that decision on it's own customer base is rather vague
It's also not the idea that the author was pushing.
So let me give a little different perspective on this. When is a person allowed to be forgiven for past misdeeds and when are we willing to recognize that someone has changed? Are you just going to refuse to ever let them back into society (which a company refusing to hire someone over past misdeeds is absolutely doing)? How long does it take or what actions must a person do to finally be seen as worth taking a risk on letting back in?
If we are unwilling to accept some risk in order to allow people to live life again after making bad choices than we are no better than they are. Indeed I would argue that being unwilling to ever forgive is one of the worst crimes anyone can make.
could only happen in the 'Land of the Free, Home of the Brave'!
I'm not sure if you just insult the US no matter what or really have that poor an understanding on what's happening in the rest of the world around copyright and similar laws but you need to look around.
The law is actually more sane here despite the very real problems it has. At least I generally can't get thrown in prison based purely on an accusation (literally without proof) that I broke copyright law. And that's just one basic example of the insanity going on all around the world with regards to "IP".
He is using personal insults with the direct intent to say that their opinions/position are incorrect. That is exactly what ad hominem is.
Seriously. How can you see calling someone insults precisely because of what argument they are advocating for as not a personal attack? That's exactly what it is.
It was sold at a government auction, so this has nothing to do with the actual worth of the property. Go to one of these auctions they hold for selling off confiscated property. It'll blow your mind how cheaply they sell things. They literally don't care how much they get because it's all free $$ at that point.
You're partially right, but for the wrong reasons.
The DMCA cannot pass Constitutional scrutiny because it doesn't allow for fair use. Any Copyright law that does not allow for fair use is absolutely unconstitutional. The real problem is that no one has been willing to fight that issue all the way to the Supreme Court.
No one is separating the evaluation of the costs from the value of the enforcement. The whole point is there was no value. None. Whatsoever.
Also there is no comparison in any actual law put in place to enforce any other law because Hadopi doesn't enforce Copyright law or any other law for that matter. It literally has nothing to do with enforcing Copyright law because it doesn't punish people based on if they've broken the law or not. It just punishes anyone based on pure hearsay. It does nothing to actually verify if the law was broken.
This is not law enforcement. This is anarchy. Copyright can't be "the problem" because Copyright isn't even considered when using this law.
You missed the entire argument the article made. Nice job creating your own strawman to attack rather than addressing the point, though.
The point was that Hadopi has done almost nothing to actually help artists and the money that has been spent on it and might be spent on it in the future would actually do a ton of good for said artists if it were spent trying to build up help for them directly rather than punish people randomly based on nothing more than the assumption that they've broken the law literally without any evidence to prove they have.
The law doesn't belong in citizen's hands, except for...
The biggest problem with this law and the ways it's being used is that it quite literally allows anyone to write their own laws. Not just any laws, either, but federal laws.
This is insane. How on earth can anyone reasonably argue that that's ok?
The system in question does not value property over lives. Some individuals certainly do, but then you're talking about all businesses everywhere and that is simply not true.
And the fact that doing this causes some change to happen does not make it ok or justify doing it. You need far more than that to justify this.
Re: 'You don't care if I DIE, why should I care about your shop?
The premise of your balance is not true of our current state. That's why.
Some individuals have not valued their lives. That does not show society not valuing them.
And if you can find a way to argue that the curfews in question have gone beyond what has been considered acceptable by most courts for a general curfew then great.
The reason they cannot be protested by being out in public is pretty obvious. Because it's a curfew and breaking it makes you a criminal. If the curfew is considered Constitutionally lawful (which most courts have long recognized that as long as they only go on for a limited time during a state of emergency they are within the bounds of the Constitution) then no they cannot be protested in this manner. There are other ways that don't involve breaking the law to do so.
Continuing to buckle down on only half the story continues to accomplish nothing.
The fact that these protests claim (and yes, they only claim this so far) they were peaceful is not the end of the important list of facts.
In many of these cases the protesters were breaking a lawful curfew. The police shooting teargas at them is a polite way of making them disperse and obey the law. The alternatives are not better. Try to arrest a mob that large and you're only going to put cops in a dangerous situation they shouldn't need to be in. This is not me saying that all of these fit into that explanation, only to point out that many seem to be happily ignoring those that do. Pretending that all these protesters are in the right is not helping.
I would also honestly be more on your side if the riots today were targeting police institutions. You keep saying that makes what's happening here ok and ignoring that that's not what's happening at all. People are randomly destroying anything for whatever twisted reason floats their boat. Comparing this to the Boston tea party is ridiculous. They're nothing alike.
On the post: Happy 20th Birthday To 'No One Lives Forever', The Classic PC Game That Can't Be Sold Today Thanks To IP
Re: Re: Re: Declaratory judgement?
By what definition? Can you name a legal case where a judge ruled that way? As far as I can tell the courts don't care until someone actually violates the copyright and then that's all that matters.
On the post: China's Hong Kong Protester-Targeting 'See Something, Say Something' Hotline Is A Big Success
7 years?
7 more years would still be 20 years short of the 50 years that was promised. So why are they supposed to take control in only 7 more years?
On the post: Take-Two Going To Trial Over Yet Another Tattoo Artist Claiming Copyright On Athlete Bodies
Re: Re: Re: 'Strange, tattoo sales just plumetted...'
More specifically it is the insane idea that people can own the right to create just because they created some specific thing first.
On the post: Because Congress Apparently Has NOTHING AT ALL IMPORTANT To Work On, It Introduced TWO MORE Section 230 Bills Yesterday
Re: Right Idea
It proves that big tech has a bias, and will censor those with whom they disagree, while permitting TOS violations of those with whom they agree, while hiding behind 230
Of course big tech has a bias. The problem here is that you have not demonstrated why that isn't ok. You're allowed to have a bias. Why can't they?
And no there is no such thing as a "de facto public forum" so if you try to bring that up you'll only be further demonstrating your own unwillingness to let them have the same basic rights you enjoy just because you disagree with them.
On the post: Hypocrite FCC Commissioner Cheers On Zoom Block Usage By Person He Disagrees With; While Insisting Social Media Shouldn't Block People
Re: Re: Re: Working in the communication business
You're free to make most whatever decisions you want.
You are not free to make everyone else shut up about how wrong your choice or the reasons you have for making that choice are. If you don't want that either don't make decisions most people will disagree with or get out of the business.
On the post: Hypocrite FCC Commissioner Cheers On Zoom Block Usage By Person He Disagrees With; While Insisting Social Media Shouldn't Block People
Re: Working in the communication business
but the idea that a company can't make that decision on it's own customer base is rather vague
It's also not the idea that the author was pushing.
So let me give a little different perspective on this. When is a person allowed to be forgiven for past misdeeds and when are we willing to recognize that someone has changed? Are you just going to refuse to ever let them back into society (which a company refusing to hire someone over past misdeeds is absolutely doing)? How long does it take or what actions must a person do to finally be seen as worth taking a risk on letting back in?
If we are unwilling to accept some risk in order to allow people to live life again after making bad choices than we are no better than they are. Indeed I would argue that being unwilling to ever forgive is one of the worst crimes anyone can make.
On the post: Auto Industry Pushes Bullshit Claim That 'Right To Repair' Laws Aid Sexual Predators
Re:
could only happen in the 'Land of the Free, Home of the Brave'!
I'm not sure if you just insult the US no matter what or really have that poor an understanding on what's happening in the rest of the world around copyright and similar laws but you need to look around.
The law is actually more sane here despite the very real problems it has. At least I generally can't get thrown in prison based purely on an accusation (literally without proof) that I broke copyright law. And that's just one basic example of the insanity going on all around the world with regards to "IP".
On the post: AMC Theaters: Risk Death And Disability To Watch Movie Reruns For 15 Cents!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cheap Movies
Perhaps you can explain what makes you think I'm "right-wing" or how a personal insult qualifies as criticism in any way whatsoever?
On the post: AMC Theaters: Risk Death And Disability To Watch Movie Reruns For 15 Cents!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cheap Movies
He is using personal insults with the direct intent to say that their opinions/position are incorrect. That is exactly what ad hominem is.
Seriously. How can you see calling someone insults precisely because of what argument they are advocating for as not a personal attack? That's exactly what it is.
On the post: AMC Theaters: Risk Death And Disability To Watch Movie Reruns For 15 Cents!
Re: Re: Cheap Movies
The ad hominem is strong with this one.
On the post: Michigan Supreme Court: Selling A $24,000 House (And Keeping The Proceeds) Over An $8.41 Debt Is Unlawful
Re:
It was sold at a government auction, so this has nothing to do with the actual worth of the property. Go to one of these auctions they hold for selling off confiscated property. It'll blow your mind how cheaply they sell things. They literally don't care how much they get because it's all free $$ at that point.
On the post: Congress To Consider National Right To Repair Law For First Time
Re: DMCA and Constitution
You're partially right, but for the wrong reasons.
The DMCA cannot pass Constitutional scrutiny because it doesn't allow for fair use. Any Copyright law that does not allow for fair use is absolutely unconstitutional. The real problem is that no one has been willing to fight that issue all the way to the Supreme Court.
On the post: In 10 Years Of Existence, The Long-Running French Farce Known As Hadopi Has Imposed Just €87,000 In Fines, But Cost Taxpayers €82 Million
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That's not a useful metric
No one is separating the evaluation of the costs from the value of the enforcement. The whole point is there was no value. None. Whatsoever.
Also there is no comparison in any actual law put in place to enforce any other law because Hadopi doesn't enforce Copyright law or any other law for that matter. It literally has nothing to do with enforcing Copyright law because it doesn't punish people based on if they've broken the law or not. It just punishes anyone based on pure hearsay. It does nothing to actually verify if the law was broken.
This is not law enforcement. This is anarchy. Copyright can't be "the problem" because Copyright isn't even considered when using this law.
On the post: In 10 Years Of Existence, The Long-Running French Farce Known As Hadopi Has Imposed Just €87,000 In Fines, But Cost Taxpayers €82 Million
Re: Re: Re: That's not a useful metric
You missed the entire argument the article made. Nice job creating your own strawman to attack rather than addressing the point, though.
The point was that Hadopi has done almost nothing to actually help artists and the money that has been spent on it and might be spent on it in the future would actually do a ton of good for said artists if it were spent trying to build up help for them directly rather than punish people randomly based on nothing more than the assumption that they've broken the law literally without any evidence to prove they have.
On the post: EFF, Orin Kerr Ask The Supreme Court To Prevent Turning The CFAA Into A Convenient Way To Punish Site Users, Security Researchers
The law doesn't belong in citizen's hands, except for...
The biggest problem with this law and the ways it's being used is that it quite literally allows anyone to write their own laws. Not just any laws, either, but federal laws.
This is insane. How on earth can anyone reasonably argue that that's ok?
On the post: Peaceful Protests Around The Nation Are Being Greeted By Police Violence. Remind Me Again How Peaceful Protests Are Better?
Re: Re: Peaceful is not the end of the story
No, we don't. You just stopped before the rest of my statement. Considering the alternative possible solutions, that was very polite.
On the post: Peaceful Protests Around The Nation Are Being Greeted By Police Violence. Remind Me Again How Peaceful Protests Are Better?
Re: Re: Targeted Destruction
The system in question does not value property over lives. Some individuals certainly do, but then you're talking about all businesses everywhere and that is simply not true.
And the fact that doing this causes some change to happen does not make it ok or justify doing it. You need far more than that to justify this.
On the post: Peaceful Protests Around The Nation Are Being Greeted By Police Violence. Remind Me Again How Peaceful Protests Are Better?
Re: 'You don't care if I DIE, why should I care about your shop?
The premise of your balance is not true of our current state. That's why.
Some individuals have not valued their lives. That does not show society not valuing them.
On the post: Peaceful Protests Around The Nation Are Being Greeted By Police Violence. Remind Me Again How Peaceful Protests Are Better?
Re: Re: Peaceful is not the end of the story
And if you can find a way to argue that the curfews in question have gone beyond what has been considered acceptable by most courts for a general curfew then great.
The reason they cannot be protested by being out in public is pretty obvious. Because it's a curfew and breaking it makes you a criminal. If the curfew is considered Constitutionally lawful (which most courts have long recognized that as long as they only go on for a limited time during a state of emergency they are within the bounds of the Constitution) then no they cannot be protested in this manner. There are other ways that don't involve breaking the law to do so.
On the post: Peaceful Protests Around The Nation Are Being Greeted By Police Violence. Remind Me Again How Peaceful Protests Are Better?
Peaceful is not the end of the story
Continuing to buckle down on only half the story continues to accomplish nothing.
The fact that these protests claim (and yes, they only claim this so far) they were peaceful is not the end of the important list of facts.
In many of these cases the protesters were breaking a lawful curfew. The police shooting teargas at them is a polite way of making them disperse and obey the law. The alternatives are not better. Try to arrest a mob that large and you're only going to put cops in a dangerous situation they shouldn't need to be in. This is not me saying that all of these fit into that explanation, only to point out that many seem to be happily ignoring those that do. Pretending that all these protesters are in the right is not helping.
I would also honestly be more on your side if the riots today were targeting police institutions. You keep saying that makes what's happening here ok and ignoring that that's not what's happening at all. People are randomly destroying anything for whatever twisted reason floats their boat. Comparing this to the Boston tea party is ridiculous. They're nothing alike.
Next >>