See? And they should be Tyrannosaurus Sexual Abusers... at least they'd be helping out those poor t-rex's who's short arms keep them from being able to touch themselves.
Re: JSTOR is "selling scarcity": isn't that your advice?
"May be low, but there's the principle."
Before defending the principle of the thing, I'd want to look into how much JSTOR is paying for that bandwidth and how much they're charging for access.
Since they're not paying for most of the items they're controlling, where's the 'principles' in making money off of the control of works that were given for free in the first place? And if you ask the authors of most of those works, they'd probably tell you that they DIDN'T give them to JSTOR with a note attached saying "please DON'T distribute".
So, if they got the material for free, and are charging large amounts of money for it, and you're arguing that the actual cost to that access (bandwidth) is low in the first place... not much of a high ground to shout "principle" from.
"So you are on a board where tech policy is the major focus and seem to have 'forgotten' about the French three strike law, which is probably the most draconian piracy law on the books? You have a convenient memory when it comes to your sweeping contention that the French government is afraid of its citizens. "
No, I have a poor memory… there’s a difference. I didn’t purposefully overlook something that was counter to my point… you can tell that by the fact that I said “oops, my bad… you’re right” instead of ignoring your point or trying to drown it out with insults or subject changes.
And my ‘sweeping contention’? Are you saying that their government does not do as they want (with some exceptions, such as the 3-strikes)? When you look at us, you see time after time AFTER TIME where our government is actively working in the interest of corporations and lobbies (and, shamefully, churches at times) and NOT in our interest. Now look at France… do you see the same thing to the same extent?
"That's all about the political climate. We currently have social security and Medicare/Medicaid only because it was brought into law in a different era. Today, there's little chance of those being taken away because it is the status quo. "
I disagree… if enough private health care companies greased enough palms, SS and Medicare/caid would be gone tomorrow. Hell, look at the Federal Income Tax. It was introduced to relieve post-war financial pressures (in a different era) and was only intended to be there for a limited time. Now that the time has long past, there are many who don't want it around (largely, the worker who see's Uncle Sam taking all his/her money). So, if you're right and the political climate ruled the hill, you'd see a lot more politicians campaigning on the promise to do away with income tax.
Of course, all of that is my opinion and you can agree or disagree; I really don’t care.
"On this subject, I know what I'm talking about. Having my credibility questioned by the guy who ignores the existence of three strikes legislation in his insistence that the French government fears its electorate is not particularly damning."
So I'll just take your word for it then? You are anonymously posting a statement about a political group being not just powerless, but completely powerless… and all without a shred of proof to back that up? You don’t even have credibility for me to question in the first place. I don't even have to try to damn that with questions... it does that itself just fine on its own.
In the end, I no more care about your opinion of me then you care of mine. If you want to argue with insults and condescending derision, that's your call... Others will weigh the value of your statements accordingly.
You're right... I didn't take that one into consideration. But look at their other laws... They have universal healthcare(for better or worse, depending on who you listen to) because they wanted it. Go ask a French legislator about the idea of taking away that healthcare... see what he or she says. I would love to see private industry try to bribe that one away like has happened here.
And for the record, 'you're full of shit' is not the best way to engage in reasonable debate. You sound like a petulant 12 year-old using curse words because you're out of mommy and daddy's earshot (or because you're on Xbox Live).
"Demand Progress has no weight in DC. None. Until now, they were dismissed as professional malcontents. Now they are tainted by the spectre of criminal charges against the founder. There had already been skepticism over the legitimacy of the petitions and messaging over Protect IP. Now those are totally discarded as part of the political calculus."
[citation needed] And, again for the record, you're opinion isn't going to go far with me as a 'citation'.
The problem isn't whether you're paranoid. The problem is that our government isn't paranoid enough.
I think this is all coming too late. If this kind of thing happened long ago... I'm talking about the government abusing its power to punish the people... we could have a much better environment to deal with it.
Look at the French Revolution. When the people were pissed enough at those in power to actually do something about it, people in power died. Now, I'm not one to advocate the death of anyone, but I will say that as a result of that, the French government fears its people. Which is how it should be.
Here, we're nothing but little sheep being herded wherever they want us. We fear our government doing exactly this [points to article above] to us, so we all keep quiet and follow along lest we be next.
If something doesn't happen as the result of this one (and picking on the founder of one of the biggest 'let's change things' activist groups probably wasn't the best of ideas), then we're going just see more and more of this. Me? I'm going to be sending letters to reps as a start. After that, I think my yearly charitable donations budget just got re-allocated.
And as was pointed out above, that's going to be very hard to prove... especially since they haven't charged anyone with criminal copyright infringement.
So far, they've charged Puerto 80 of Aiding & Abetting.
As an 'example of the problems with the patent system today', this post and its conclusion is not a non-sequitor. If you enumerated the problems that have been discussed on this site, you'd see 'venue shopping' as one of them. Thus, this is an example of one of the problems.
You pointing out that Apple could have infringed is a non-sequitor in and of itself. The point of the article was that from the first paper being filed to the gavel banging on the judge's bench, this has been a sham. This company went out of their way to keep this suit in Texas even though there is nothing about the whole thing that has anything to do with Texas. At all. Nadda. Zero.
And the info you put up about Apple stealing stuff for OS? Really not sure how that fits into this at all. So… yeah. Non-Sequitor Pot, meet Non-Sequitor Kettle.
I remember from mah history classes that Australia was a penal colony once upon a time... did I miss the point where we started using it to dump our undesirably stupid politicians? It’s rare when another country trumps us with that level of legislative idiocy.
Careful, Australia... you're cutting in on our turf.
wow. Wish I had read those first. Well, in that case, let me amend my previous statement...
"Zero scholars?..." -me
I believe the DNA evidence of my client's guilt is wrong. And to prove that, I submit this potato! And if that doesn't convince you, I have this nice turnip! [sits down triumphantly as the nice young men in their clean white coats come to take me away].
"Noted Constitutional scholar Floyd Abrams has provided two separate analyses of the legislation to the Senate judiciary committee, which conclude that the bill is fully consistent with due process, and has no negative impact on First Amendment rights (read them here and here.)"- Sandra Aistars
One scholar? That's what you bring to defend the Constitutionality of this bill? Sorry, but the opposition brought one hundred. I think I'll put my layman's faith in the side that has more than just one guy saying it's going to be Ok.
at least, I hope so. This part struck me as particularly insincere:
"Second, the bill does not allow copyright owners to “petition the court to make sites invisible to people in the U.S.” or the “right to rip sites from DNS.” The bill only allows the Attorney General to seek an order from a court that would allow the AG to ask search engines to use commercially reasonable means to make sites that the court has determined are “dedicated to infringement” inaccessible to U.S consumers. There is no parallel private right of action in the bill." - Sandra Aistars (maybe?)
So let me get this straight... only the AG can pull the sites? The copyright owners can't? Wasn't one of the larger domain name seizures announced from the steps of Walt-freakin-Disney?! You know... a copyright owner?
I'm not usually one to snug up my tinfoil hat before calling someone naive, but come on. It's not that the copyright owner's can't submit requests for takedowns... it's just that the request forms are printed on the backs of checks made out to cash.
"Mike isn't beyond trying to spin this against the TSA at every turn. I think he does this because his biggest ever traffic spkie was during the TSA thing last year, and perhaps he is trying to pump the traffic back up, maybe get some sponsors back on the site."
I'm sure Mike posted this story because the Submit inbox was inundated by it. Hell, the only reason I didn't submit it was because I knew that just about everyone else that saw the hilarious irony here was already submitting it by the time I read it.
But hey, don't let me get in the way of AC's trying to pump up their traffic since they aren't beyond trying to spin this kind of story against Mike and Techdirt at every turn.
See, here's what's funny: you say Mike is trying to spin this against the TSA... but we all know the whole thing is a joke with a somewhat-applicable-to-reality punch line. You, on the other hand, actually believe in the addition of this to your anti-Mike campaign. And we all know that too.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not just somethign to flatten your clothes with
You know... I almost missed this when I made my last post...
"Disrespect runs deep and wide. The ones who usually can't see it are the ones most guilty of it." - you
I couldn't have made my point about you more clearly.
But how about this one:
"’Respect’ does not mean adherence to my personal standards. Only an egotistical fool believes that his personal standards are the ones against which all others should be measured." - me
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not just somethign to flatten your clothes with
Nice attempt at back peddling, but no go. So far, I have read in your posts in this sub-thread, and the one in response to Radial Skid (in case you're lost: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/05102215089/zero-sum-economics.shtml#c1135) nothing but disrespect for anything that falls outside your own opinion of what is 'proper'. Again, I ask who the hell are you.
Radical Skid already pointed out that all the things you're attributing to the 'new generation' is ancient in some cases, so I'll let his stand. That point being (in case you suffer from a case of "oh god, talk about not getting it") is that there have ALWAYS been places where you cannot go safely for fear of gangs... gangs who think they own the street (sorry, but the Crips & Bloods, MS13, Latin Kings... they've been around longer than the last 10 years).
And, for the record, you did accuse me and mine of being immoral thieves and thugs...
"A generation (probably including your daighters, if they have internet access and like music) who cannot be bothered to respect the work of others." - you
Do you want to back pedal further and say I misinterpreted that?
And you know what? I did just download copies of the Harry Potter books after seeing the recent movie. Because I own all the originals and didn't feel justified in paying for additional copies to place on my Nook (that I didn't have when I got the books). I wanted to read them again, but now I use a Nook.
And how is me going around armed to defend myself disrespectful? If you come to me and put a gun in my face and demand my wallet, am I supposed to ‘respect’ you and give up without a fight?
Perhaps you have a misinformed image of me that you think my pants are on the ground and my glock is tucked away under my gang-colored hoodie that I wear in 100+deg weather. I'm actually a 32yo, slightly over-weight, white man with a wife & two daughters who drives a Scion XB (with factory radio, for the record). I own two pistols in full compliance of my local laws, and I am properly licensed to carry them on my person (no, not both at the same time). I work in Learning & Development for a major insurance company, and was actually trying to join my local police force as a new career, but they stopped hiring due to budget reasons.
So... again... I say that if you choose to judge me personally with your cynical eye that can see nothing but doom & gloom, go fuck yourself. But go do it quietly where I don't have to even acknowledge you exist.
You blame entire groups of people based on the actions of a few and act defensive and ‘misinterpreted’ when others point out that you yourself are the problem based on your own actions. Again, for the final time, go look in the mirror.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This leads to an interesting conclusion about Hadopi
Ok... I see where we're divergent here. You're talking about the concept of spam in general. OK, I grant that just about any email I ever receive from anyone who's not a live individual personally known to me would fall under that definition.
But when you started the thread, you mentioned that the French Government is a spammer because of this. If you mean they are canonical spammers, ok... but who cares? I had assumed you made this comment with the intention that 'something should be done about it'. That's why I assumed you mean they were sending out spam as defined by the laws that actually could do something about it.
Looks like we're both right, we were just having two different arguments. I was talking about enforceable spam, I guess. Even those things allowed by CANSPAM are still spam by definition, but I was talking about those things that aren’t allowed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not just somethign to flatten your clothes with
Ok... so you are accusing me and my family of being immoral thugs just out to take what we want. Well, to that, I say go fuck yourself. You don't know me... you don't know mine.
You come on here blathering about a lack of respect in this world and don't even pause to look in the mirror. Maybe if you take a second to do so, you'll see yourself as part of the problem. After figuring that out, maybe you can tell me who the hell you are to make such judgmental accusations, oh ye hypocrite.
I do 'stick my head outside'... and it's quite clear from the sand. I go around armed in public to defend myself from a lot what's out there. But I don't go around screaming about how everyone is evil and out to get me. I give people a chance to prove that they're better than the negative that makes the news. I sure as hell don't accuse them of evil until they've individually proven they deserve it. Much like you yourself do now.
Take your broad, cynical generalizations and go preach them to a brick wall. Yes, there's some really bad stuff in the world. But not everything in the world is bad.
On the post: Gatekeepers And The Economy
Re:
And I'm glad your 6 year old has the mental capacity to understand the joke... don't worry, you'll get there one day.
On the post: Gatekeepers And The Economy
Re:
On the post: Copyright Alliance Takes On The Aaron Swartz Case With A Post Full Of Bad Analogies
Re: JSTOR is "selling scarcity": isn't that your advice?
Since they're not paying for most of the items they're controlling, where's the 'principles' in making money off of the control of works that were given for free in the first place? And if you ask the authors of most of those works, they'd probably tell you that they DIDN'T give them to JSTOR with a note attached saying "please DON'T distribute".
So, if they got the material for free, and are charging large amounts of money for it, and you're arguing that the actual cost to that access (bandwidth) is low in the first place... not much of a high ground to shout "principle" from.
On the post: The Lack Of A Legal Or Moral Basis For The Aaron Swartz Indictment Is Quite Troubling
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If I was paranoid ...
And my ‘sweeping contention’? Are you saying that their government does not do as they want (with some exceptions, such as the 3-strikes)? When you look at us, you see time after time AFTER TIME where our government is actively working in the interest of corporations and lobbies (and, shamefully, churches at times) and NOT in our interest. Now look at France… do you see the same thing to the same extent?
I disagree… if enough private health care companies greased enough palms, SS and Medicare/caid would be gone tomorrow. Hell, look at the Federal Income Tax. It was introduced to relieve post-war financial pressures (in a different era) and was only intended to be there for a limited time. Now that the time has long past, there are many who don't want it around (largely, the worker who see's Uncle Sam taking all his/her money). So, if you're right and the political climate ruled the hill, you'd see a lot more politicians campaigning on the promise to do away with income tax.
Of course, all of that is my opinion and you can agree or disagree; I really don’t care.
So I'll just take your word for it then? You are anonymously posting a statement about a political group being not just powerless, but completely powerless… and all without a shred of proof to back that up? You don’t even have credibility for me to question in the first place. I don't even have to try to damn that with questions... it does that itself just fine on its own.
In the end, I no more care about your opinion of me then you care of mine. If you want to argue with insults and condescending derision, that's your call... Others will weigh the value of your statements accordingly.
On the post: The Lack Of A Legal Or Moral Basis For The Aaron Swartz Indictment Is Quite Troubling
Re: Re: Re: If I was paranoid ...
And for the record, 'you're full of shit' is not the best way to engage in reasonable debate. You sound like a petulant 12 year-old using curse words because you're out of mommy and daddy's earshot (or because you're on Xbox Live).
[citation needed] And, again for the record, you're opinion isn't going to go far with me as a 'citation'.
On the post: The Lack Of A Legal Or Moral Basis For The Aaron Swartz Indictment Is Quite Troubling
Re: If I was paranoid ...
I think this is all coming too late. If this kind of thing happened long ago... I'm talking about the government abusing its power to punish the people... we could have a much better environment to deal with it.
Look at the French Revolution. When the people were pissed enough at those in power to actually do something about it, people in power died. Now, I'm not one to advocate the death of anyone, but I will say that as a result of that, the French government fears its people. Which is how it should be.
Here, we're nothing but little sheep being herded wherever they want us. We fear our government doing exactly this [points to article above] to us, so we all keep quiet and follow along lest we be next.
If something doesn't happen as the result of this one (and picking on the founder of one of the biggest 'let's change things' activist groups probably wasn't the best of ideas), then we're going just see more and more of this. Me? I'm going to be sending letters to reps as a start. After that, I think my yearly charitable donations budget just got re-allocated.
On the post: Justice Department Practicing Mix-And-Match, Sleight-Of-Hand Law In Seizure Case
Re:
So far, they've charged Puerto 80 of Aiding & Abetting.
On the post: Apple Loses Patent Lawsuit... Over Playlists
Innovation at last!
On the post: Apple Loses Patent Lawsuit... Over Playlists
Re: No support for your non-sequitor assertion:
You pointing out that Apple could have infringed is a non-sequitor in and of itself. The point of the article was that from the first paper being filed to the gavel banging on the judge's bench, this has been a sham. This company went out of their way to keep this suit in Texas even though there is nothing about the whole thing that has anything to do with Texas. At all. Nadda. Zero.
And the info you put up about Apple stealing stuff for OS? Really not sure how that fits into this at all. So… yeah. Non-Sequitor Pot, meet Non-Sequitor Kettle.
On the post: Australian Attorneys General Still Feel The Need To Think About The 37-Year-Old 'Children'
New dumping colony?
Careful, Australia... you're cutting in on our turf.
On the post: The Copyright Alliance Blog Takes On Someone Who Wrote Something
Re: Re: Re:
I believe the DNA evidence of my client's guilt is wrong. And to prove that, I submit this potato! And if that doesn't convince you, I have this nice turnip! [sits down triumphantly as the nice young men in their clean white coats come to take me away].
On the post: The Copyright Alliance Blog Takes On Someone Who Wrote Something
Re:
On the post: The Copyright Alliance Blog Takes On Someone Who Wrote Something
Re:
So let me get this straight... only the AG can pull the sites? The copyright owners can't? Wasn't one of the larger domain name seizures announced from the steps of Walt-freakin-Disney?! You know... a copyright owner?
I'm not usually one to snug up my tinfoil hat before calling someone naive, but come on. It's not that the copyright owner's can't submit requests for takedowns... it's just that the request forms are printed on the backs of checks made out to cash.
On the post: Newspapers Win Suit Against Google, Get Their Wish To Be Delisted, Then Complain
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Woman Faces Felony Charges For Groping A TSA Agent
Re: Re: Re:
But hey, don't let me get in the way of AC's trying to pump up their traffic since they aren't beyond trying to spin this kind of story against Mike and Techdirt at every turn.
See, here's what's funny: you say Mike is trying to spin this against the TSA... but we all know the whole thing is a joke with a somewhat-applicable-to-reality punch line. You, on the other hand, actually believe in the addition of this to your anti-Mike campaign. And we all know that too.
On the post: Vague Law + Vindictive Law Enforcement? Hide Your Veggies!
Re:
On the post: Zero-Sum Economics
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not just somethign to flatten your clothes with
I couldn't have made my point about you more clearly.
But how about this one:
On the post: Zero-Sum Economics
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not just somethign to flatten your clothes with
Radical Skid already pointed out that all the things you're attributing to the 'new generation' is ancient in some cases, so I'll let his stand. That point being (in case you suffer from a case of "oh god, talk about not getting it") is that there have ALWAYS been places where you cannot go safely for fear of gangs... gangs who think they own the street (sorry, but the Crips & Bloods, MS13, Latin Kings... they've been around longer than the last 10 years).
And, for the record, you did accuse me and mine of being immoral thieves and thugs...
Do you want to back pedal further and say I misinterpreted that?
And you know what? I did just download copies of the Harry Potter books after seeing the recent movie. Because I own all the originals and didn't feel justified in paying for additional copies to place on my Nook (that I didn't have when I got the books). I wanted to read them again, but now I use a Nook.
And how is me going around armed to defend myself disrespectful? If you come to me and put a gun in my face and demand my wallet, am I supposed to ‘respect’ you and give up without a fight?
Perhaps you have a misinformed image of me that you think my pants are on the ground and my glock is tucked away under my gang-colored hoodie that I wear in 100+deg weather. I'm actually a 32yo, slightly over-weight, white man with a wife & two daughters who drives a Scion XB (with factory radio, for the record). I own two pistols in full compliance of my local laws, and I am properly licensed to carry them on my person (no, not both at the same time). I work in Learning & Development for a major insurance company, and was actually trying to join my local police force as a new career, but they stopped hiring due to budget reasons.
So... again... I say that if you choose to judge me personally with your cynical eye that can see nothing but doom & gloom, go fuck yourself. But go do it quietly where I don't have to even acknowledge you exist.
You blame entire groups of people based on the actions of a few and act defensive and ‘misinterpreted’ when others point out that you yourself are the problem based on your own actions. Again, for the final time, go look in the mirror.
On the post: France Three Strikes Law Suggests A Huge Percentage Of French Citizens At Risk Of Losing Internet Access
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This leads to an interesting conclusion about Hadopi
But when you started the thread, you mentioned that the French Government is a spammer because of this. If you mean they are canonical spammers, ok... but who cares? I had assumed you made this comment with the intention that 'something should be done about it'. That's why I assumed you mean they were sending out spam as defined by the laws that actually could do something about it.
Looks like we're both right, we were just having two different arguments. I was talking about enforceable spam, I guess. Even those things allowed by CANSPAM are still spam by definition, but I was talking about those things that aren’t allowed.
On the post: Zero-Sum Economics
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not just somethign to flatten your clothes with
You come on here blathering about a lack of respect in this world and don't even pause to look in the mirror. Maybe if you take a second to do so, you'll see yourself as part of the problem. After figuring that out, maybe you can tell me who the hell you are to make such judgmental accusations, oh ye hypocrite.
I do 'stick my head outside'... and it's quite clear from the sand. I go around armed in public to defend myself from a lot what's out there. But I don't go around screaming about how everyone is evil and out to get me. I give people a chance to prove that they're better than the negative that makes the news. I sure as hell don't accuse them of evil until they've individually proven they deserve it. Much like you yourself do now.
Take your broad, cynical generalizations and go preach them to a brick wall. Yes, there's some really bad stuff in the world. But not everything in the world is bad.
Next >>