Because "rights" are not "rights" unless even the criminals have them. Otherwise, they are privileges, to be taken away at the behest of Big Brother, for any "crime" that he pleases.
Re: One further thing missing from that police comment:
I would argue that, because of the "industry"-wide favoritism and union-driven protectionist behavior, the only people who don't belong on the list are "people who failed to become police." Since they were never cops, they never benefited or continue to benefit from the "blue line" mindset - the public and strong defense of "brother officers" that police are pressured into joining.
Not a list of 12,000 crimes, a list of 12,000 criminals. Criminals in a position of trust and power, defended by their superiors and leaders, and considered more trustworthy by our justice system than any other member of the public. 12,000 criminals, convicted by the justice system, (likely) with a large portion of them keeping their position and power, or at worst, being allowed to get a similar position with a new precinct. 12,000 criminals who are vociferously and publicly supported by the lion's share of allegedly non-criminal officers simply because they share a uniform.
But some channels ARE moderating- and still getting hit.
The mother referenced in the article got this tweet from YouTube when she was demonetized and complained:
Just to be super clear, we're not saying anything is wrong with the actual video and thank you for doing a great job moderating the comments section. These recent actions are due to an abundance of caution related to content that may endanger minors.
Moderation is hard, yes, but YouTube's new policy also makes it pointless.
Re: Re: Re: NOT "ownership culture" but GREED.
He keeps seeing this "Anonymous Coward" guy posting around here, too. Pretty sure that it's actually Mike, and he's used his Admin Powers™ to hide the profile. All in an attempt to hide the fact that the last time "Anonymous Coward" posted was 1967.
Ah, for the naive, sweet younger days of last week...
Last week, the worst ideas about the whole shitshow (with any sort of basis in reality) were that they had mistakenly raided 7815 Harding Street, a quiet and nondescript house, instead of 7815 Hardy, a house that definitely looks the part they claimed of the raided place: seedy, decent quality camera system, shady folks hanging around, etc.
To think it would devolve into a whole conspiracy of lies, planted evidence and invented witness statements. I truly did not expect this.
If, as you say, nothing changed after FOSTA, then it was a waste of taxpayer money, and your defense of a piece of legislation you claim to be useless is baffling.
Does Japan at least have specific, clear cut rules about what is or isn't infringement? Legally mandated thresholds that tell you whether or not your particular action is infringement?
Because, there are SO MANY things that can be called infringement.
Coke's design on their can in your movie? Jail.
Poster on a wall as you band walks past it in your music video? Jail.
More than six notes following a specific cadence? Jail.
Stills from a videogame in your article critiquing said game? Jail.
Home movie of your baby dancing to a Prince song? JAIL!
You are exactly right. That is why the cases are so important - they protect the common people from the government just as much as newspapers and other publishers.
They do not, however, protect ANYONE from getting their flyers put in the trash when they are nailed to private property. If you want to put your poster on a privately owned bulletin board, you have to have the owner's permission, and you have to follow their rules.
The rules don't change just because things are digital. A privately owned bbs is no different than a corkboard in front of your house. Just because you can read it from the road, and maybe even reach it over the fence, doesn't mean it suddenly belongs to you.
If you're not our regular troll who cannot distinguish between restrictions on the US gov't's ability to censor the public and the public's ability to exercise their right of association, please forgive me for stating the obvious.
On the post: Starz Really, Really Doesn't Want You To Know That TorrentFreak Wrote About Leaked Shows, Or That Anyone Tweeted About It
Re: Re: Kill the messenger?
They'd be more believable of they blamed the takedowns on hackers.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
See? Pencil manufacturers figured it out! Why can't tech companies?!
On the post: If You Think Big Internet Companies Are Somehow To Blame For The New Zealand Massacre, You're Wrong
Re:
Your rhetoric is very telling - damning, even.
Because "rights" are not "rights" unless even the criminals have them. Otherwise, they are privileges, to be taken away at the behest of Big Brother, for any "crime" that he pleases.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Of Course You Need To Register Your Copyright Before You Can Sue; Copyright Trolls & Hollywood Freak Out
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, he's telling the truth. He just doesn't comprehend that the cops all die a little every time he walks in.
"Sir, can we please tell him to go away?"
"Just... just take his printouts and put them with the rest."
sounds of a shredder bogging down in the background
On the post: Supreme Court Says Of Course You Need To Register Your Copyright Before You Can Sue; Copyright Trolls & Hollywood Freak Out
Re: Re:
He considers people quoting him back at himself as plagiarism.
I don't see how, we gladly attribute it to him. I know I don't want credit for his nonsense...
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: One further thing missing from that police comment:
I would argue that, because of the "industry"-wide favoritism and union-driven protectionist behavior, the only people who don't belong on the list are "people who failed to become police." Since they were never cops, they never benefited or continue to benefit from the "blue line" mindset - the public and strong defense of "brother officers" that police are pressured into joining.
On the post: California AG Says Journalist Broke The Law By Obtaining A List Of Convicted Officers Via A Public Records Request
Re: Re: That can't be right...
Not a list of 12,000 crimes, a list of 12,000 criminals. Criminals in a position of trust and power, defended by their superiors and leaders, and considered more trustworthy by our justice system than any other member of the public. 12,000 criminals, convicted by the justice system, (likely) with a large portion of them keeping their position and power, or at worst, being allowed to get a similar position with a new precinct. 12,000 criminals who are vociferously and publicly supported by the lion's share of allegedly non-criminal officers simply because they share a uniform.
On the post: YouTube And Demonetization: The Hammer And Nail Of Content Moderation
Re: Re:
Except on YouTube, the comment is removed, and the commenter is possibly banned.
Here, we just put a warning on it, a "read at your own risk" sign.
On the post: YouTube And Demonetization: The Hammer And Nail Of Content Moderation
But some channels ARE moderating- and still getting hit.
The mother referenced in the article got this tweet from YouTube when she was demonetized and complained:
Just to be super clear, we're not saying anything is wrong with the actual video and thank you for doing a great job moderating the comments section. These recent actions are due to an abundance of caution related to content that may endanger minors.
Moderation is hard, yes, but YouTube's new policy also makes it pointless.
Why put in more work for no reason?
On the post: The Latest In Trademark Abuse Is Registering Marks To Obtain Ownership Of Instagram Accounts
Re: Re: Re: NOT "ownership culture" but GREED.
He keeps seeing this "Anonymous Coward" guy posting around here, too. Pretty sure that it's actually Mike, and he's used his Admin Powers™ to hide the profile. All in an attempt to hide the fact that the last time "Anonymous Coward" posted was 1967.
On the post: One Of The People Suing Fortnite Over 'Stolen' Dance Steps Gets His Dance Rejected By The US Copyright Office
Re: ANOTHER NEW RECORD ZOMBIE: EIGHT AND HALF YEAR GAP!
Remember! Just because everyone's after you, doesn't mean you're not paranoid!
On the post: Fatal Houston PD Drug Raid Apparently Predicated On Drugs A Cop Had Stashed In His Car
Ah, for the naive, sweet younger days of last week...
Last week, the worst ideas about the whole shitshow (with any sort of basis in reality) were that they had mistakenly raided 7815 Harding Street, a quiet and nondescript house, instead of 7815 Hardy, a house that definitely looks the part they claimed of the raided place: seedy, decent quality camera system, shady folks hanging around, etc.
To think it would devolve into a whole conspiracy of lies, planted evidence and invented witness statements. I truly did not expect this.
On the post: FOSTA Co-Sponsor Richard Blumenthal Tells Court FOSTA Didn't Change CDA 230 & That It Was Written To Violate 1st Amendment
Re: Re:
I recommend The Chair.
Not an electric chair, just a stool with only one leg. You have to use it if you want to sit.
On the post: FOSTA Co-Sponsor Richard Blumenthal Tells Court FOSTA Didn't Change CDA 230 & That It Was Written To Violate 1st Amendment
Re: Section 230 is NOT the whole of The Law.
If, as you say, nothing changed after FOSTA, then it was a waste of taxpayer money, and your defense of a piece of legislation you claim to be useless is baffling.
On the post: Good Luck, Japan: Government About To Make All Copyright Infringement A Criminal Offense
Re:
Off to jail for you, we don't have any of that namby-pamby "fair use" nonsense around here.
On the post: Good Luck, Japan: Government About To Make All Copyright Infringement A Criminal Offense
Re: Re:
No, no, my friend. Those pigs are more equal than the rest.
On the post: Good Luck, Japan: Government About To Make All Copyright Infringement A Criminal Offense
Quick question
Does Japan at least have specific, clear cut rules about what is or isn't infringement? Legally mandated thresholds that tell you whether or not your particular action is infringement?
Because, there are SO MANY things that can be called infringement.
Coke's design on their can in your movie? Jail.
Poster on a wall as you band walks past it in your music video? Jail.
More than six notes following a specific cadence? Jail.
Stills from a videogame in your article critiquing said game? Jail.
Home movie of your baby dancing to a Prince song? JAIL!
On the post: Interested In Helping Advance Tech Policy In The Right Direction? Here's An Amazing Opportunity
Re: I'm not as ashamed of this as I should be...
Though I am ashamed of "$7500 dollars."
On the post: Interested In Helping Advance Tech Policy In The Right Direction? Here's An Amazing Opportunity
I'm not as ashamed of this as I should be...
counts on fingers
Well, since this seems like a "per diem" situation, and that's usually tax free, I'd say it defrays about $7500 dollars a month.
On the post: Federal Judge Thinks The Best Fix For An Accidentally Unsealed Court Doc Is Prior Restraint
Re: Fire-Up the Gutenberg
You are exactly right. That is why the cases are so important - they protect the common people from the government just as much as newspapers and other publishers.
They do not, however, protect ANYONE from getting their flyers put in the trash when they are nailed to private property. If you want to put your poster on a privately owned bulletin board, you have to have the owner's permission, and you have to follow their rules.
The rules don't change just because things are digital. A privately owned bbs is no different than a corkboard in front of your house. Just because you can read it from the road, and maybe even reach it over the fence, doesn't mean it suddenly belongs to you.
If you're not our regular troll who cannot distinguish between restrictions on the US gov't's ability to censor the public and the public's ability to exercise their right of association, please forgive me for stating the obvious.
Next >>