Re: Re: Re: Everyone around here uses the duck analogy for everything
You're saying "because people I don't agree with use the same logic as the SC, therefore I'm right".
You may as well say "because of unconnected issue X e.g. 'trisomic idiot' therefore I'm right".
Specifically, the former relies on the hypocrisy fallacy, a form of ad hominem: "This man says murder is wrong but always kills people, therefore murder is right!". Or "This person is against the SC generalising but generalises way too much himself when criticising copyright, therefore generalisation is right!"
Re: Everyone around here uses the duck analogy for everything
"Everyone around here is always saying bizarro things like, "That's just like a library" or "that's just like reading a newspaper over someone's shoulder." So why can't the Supreme Court use the same structure to toss Aereo into the trash can where it belongs."
Ad hominem.
"It was never a serious startup, just a weird legal hack to get some leverage in retransmission negotiations. It was never a viable or useful technology. Why create a bazillion antenna just to get around some impediment."
Because it's fun seeing the copyright believers trying to juggle so many contradictory variables when reality consistently collides with their beliefs.
"So let's celebrate that the Supreme Court called a duck a duck. It was just a cheap, stupid trick that didn't add to the world at all."
The fact that the Supreme Court of the United States of America bickered over the philosophical ramifications of tiny antenna at ALL was enough for me. I really didn't care if Aereo won or lost.
It's amazing how far people will go to insist that ownership of expression and freedom of expression are reconcilable.
I was too young at the time, but I know plenty of people from (now) my side of the debate who researched and knew Saddam Hussein could not have possibly had so many WMD, but nonetheless said the war WAS historically justified.
And my side were also trying to tell millions of people this stance, even when those millions were marching to the tune of something like "we believe that even if he has the WMD, the war is still not justified!" The logic we had was falling on deaf ears because the anti-war-demonstrators were regurgitating WMD just as much as the pro-war.
Try being in THAT minority. The humanitarian case, the historical case for fighting all totalitarianism indiscriminately, the case for removing genocidal regimes regardless of how historic such genocide had been, the case for ending the sanctions, the case for democracy and secularism, the case for kick-starting democratic revolutions where dictators were everywhere amongst the continent, the case for internationalism and solidarity: ALL of that got drowned out from BOTH sides.
It surely must make more sense for copyright holders to go after the source, namely the pirate websites themselves, instead of those linking to the source. Because that way it wouldn't matter if Google links to the site: the site will be blocked anyway. And Google becomes an effective tool for the copyright holder in spotting where the pirate sites are located.
The reason why this approach is not taken is because there is a great deal of cowardliness with respect to not admitting that this is a lost cause. They can't attack the sources because there are too many sources, also known as "I am Spartacus!", also known as a comparison to prohibition and the war on drugs. So instead of admitting their failures, they scapegoat the search engines that do nothing more than mention what the pirate websites actually are, in a hope that all piracy woes will miraculously vanish. Such logic would also mean preventing the BBC from mentioning anything about the Pirate Bay whatsoever. Or listing the websites that have been blocked through court orders. This is another form of the "super-injunction", which is something that quite rightly deserves hostility and ridicule in itself. You only need to look to Ryan Giggs to see how this idea is discredited.
Such a thing is already happening with both a) news media's reporting of who is filling "right to be forgotten" requests and b) ChillingEffects.org keeping a list of the websites taken down from Google by DMCA.
- Google via YouTube, once they have enough power, will start offering very shitty streaming deals for artists - music, film and game alike - in exchange for copyrights, in an attempt to get as many copyrights as possible. Or all the studios will tactically negotiate with Google. - Google become far more ready to police infringing content that IT holds the rights to - not just within themselves, but any puny alternative website out there that doesn't have the same power that they do and cannot defend themselves against the lawsuits. - The supposed enemies of copyright embrace copyright and really do take a dangerous stab at the internet's foundations. - MPAA and RIAA start praising Google for being such admirable copyright defenders.
And then the copyright believers will have got what they always wanted: central power to strike down anything and everything that infringes, even the slightest derivative.
MPAA and Google may be enemies now, but I fear a pact a-brewin. A merge between them would be disastrous.
I really don't think the Google Fiber revolution will succeed in any sense. Just because they offer such powerful speeds does not mean they will GIVE such speeds. Just look at the monopolistic ISPs of today.
You think corruption stops with ads? They've yet to become far more corrupt than you can imagine.
Copyright still on a fundamental level gives the holder the power to restrict derivatives, even if they choose not to use that power. That is why copyright is still to be opposed on principle.
The thought that deviantArt could at any day be subject to a lynch mob of copyright holders and be sued out of existence should piss off any decent thinking person.
If that were true, I would still not support them. There is such a thing as prioritising. Copyright, however much I want it abolished, does not get in the way of more important political matters. Same with the drug war. There will come a time when we will naturally swing in the opposite direction of those status quos as the Zeitgeist moves forward and as people really see how futile the current policies are (it is happening rather rapidly now with cannabis legislation), and political opinion will in turn shift.
I say the same about Ron Paul. When I first heard of him, I was initially seduced by his tough stance in favour of abolishing the drug war. However, that support soon faded when I heard of his other policies. He wants the rights of female bodies taken away from them based on the notion that the cells of a conceived female egg are far more vital than those of a non-conceieved egg (if abortion is murder, masturbation is infanticide). He thinks that monopolies can ONLY come from state interference, as if the concepts of the merger and takeover were non-existent, never mind the price-fixing tendencies of corporations. He wants to privatise the U.S. Education Department. He thinks global warming is a hoax and won't even attempt to try and stop it. And many others.
"I asked if I could tweet about the visit. The straight answer was 'no', as this might appear prejudicial in light of the upcoming election."
Okay so... police asking an anti-UKIP blogger to remove his tweet - not on a legal basis but an intimidation basis - is in no way being prejudicial, but the very act of telling people about this non-prejudicial visit... is prejudicial?
The fact that UKIP, a fringe but somehow still mainstream party, should now quite rightly have their own manifesto consisting of extremist nonsense subjected to a Streisand effect but haven't had it subjected to such effect already shows how worrying the situation is here in the U.K.
The E.U. is worth defending. Don't let these tits have their way just because of an older population's nostalgia for the glorious Britain that never existed.
We've never had it so fucking good compared to generations before. I'm not prepared to allow xenophobic plus nationalistic tendencies to run rampant based on the most reactionary of reductionisms. All nationalism is suspect and all glorification of lost traditions for their own sakes deserve hostility.
And I am sorry to say that as a Scottish citizen, that goes for Alex Salmond's shit-stirring, too.
I'm sick of the way people make excuses for what he's doing to Ukraine and Syria. He had been threatening Ukraine for the past 10 years.
And despite all that, Ron Paul a few weeks ago on U.K.'s Channel 4 news claimed that the U.S. was to blame for Ukraine's nightmare. He openly said the U.S. plotted the overthrow of Yanukovych, and that they had a hand in provoking Russia.
How the fuck is Ukraine any threat to Russia? Nobody has even attempted to answer.
I often wonder what it would take to snap people out of the America-First-Cause mentality: the mentality they are too cowardly to admit having.
And I fear that the cost these artists will encounter for getting Kickstarter's seal of approval - and even more importantly, Kickstarter's seal of quality assurance - will be a higher percentage of what Kickstarter takes from the project's pot. And even the copyrights.
Let us hope the crowdfunding sites do not tend towards some kind of oligopoly where they can fix the prices for those artists... dig in and set up tons of competition, wherever you can.
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re: Re: Re: Everyone around here uses the duck analogy for everything
You may as well say "because of unconnected issue X e.g. 'trisomic idiot' therefore I'm right".
Specifically, the former relies on the hypocrisy fallacy, a form of ad hominem: "This man says murder is wrong but always kills people, therefore murder is right!". Or "This person is against the SC generalising but generalises way too much himself when criticising copyright, therefore generalisation is right!"
On the post: Supreme Court Uses The Bizarre 'Looks Like A Cable Duck' Test To Outlaw Aereo
Re: Everyone around here uses the duck analogy for everything
Ad hominem.
"It was never a serious startup, just a weird legal hack to get some leverage in retransmission negotiations. It was never a viable or useful technology. Why create a bazillion antenna just to get around some impediment."
Because it's fun seeing the copyright believers trying to juggle so many contradictory variables when reality consistently collides with their beliefs.
"So let's celebrate that the Supreme Court called a duck a duck. It was just a cheap, stupid trick that didn't add to the world at all."
The fact that the Supreme Court of the United States of America bickered over the philosophical ramifications of tiny antenna at ALL was enough for me. I really didn't care if Aereo won or lost.
It's amazing how far people will go to insist that ownership of expression and freedom of expression are reconcilable.
On the post: College Pulls Support For Students' Parodic Musical Because It *Imagines* Disney Might Sue It
On the post: BitTorrent Shows You What The Internet Looks Like Without Net Neutrality; Suggests A Better Way
On the post: China Learned The Tricks Of Propaganda From The Best: US Politicians & PR Industry
Re: Goebbels, Bernays, Creel Committee ... & Iraq "WMD"
And my side were also trying to tell millions of people this stance, even when those millions were marching to the tune of something like "we believe that even if he has the WMD, the war is still not justified!" The logic we had was falling on deaf ears because the anti-war-demonstrators were regurgitating WMD just as much as the pro-war.
Try being in THAT minority. The humanitarian case, the historical case for fighting all totalitarianism indiscriminately, the case for removing genocidal regimes regardless of how historic such genocide had been, the case for ending the sanctions, the case for democracy and secularism, the case for kick-starting democratic revolutions where dictators were everywhere amongst the continent, the case for internationalism and solidarity: ALL of that got drowned out from BOTH sides.
On the post: British Recording Industry Thinks 'Right To Be Forgotten' Proves Google Can Stop Piracy
The reason why this approach is not taken is because there is a great deal of cowardliness with respect to not admitting that this is a lost cause. They can't attack the sources because there are too many sources, also known as "I am Spartacus!", also known as a comparison to prohibition and the war on drugs. So instead of admitting their failures, they scapegoat the search engines that do nothing more than mention what the pirate websites actually are, in a hope that all piracy woes will miraculously vanish. Such logic would also mean preventing the BBC from mentioning anything about the Pirate Bay whatsoever. Or listing the websites that have been blocked through court orders. This is another form of the "super-injunction", which is something that quite rightly deserves hostility and ridicule in itself. You only need to look to Ryan Giggs to see how this idea is discredited.
On the post: British Recording Industry Thinks 'Right To Be Forgotten' Proves Google Can Stop Piracy
Re: could we..?
Both of which defeat their respective purposes.
On the post: British Recording Industry Thinks 'Right To Be Forgotten' Proves Google Can Stop Piracy
Now the claim seems to be the opposite.
Then again I'm not surprised two wishful-thinking forces have allied like this.
On the post: Trademark Holder Sends Cease-And-Desist To Zazzle Over Products Using 3,000-Year-Old Greek Letter
On the post: Google AdSense's Idiotic And Hypocritical Morality Police Force Us To Remove Ads On News Stories
- Google via YouTube, once they have enough power, will start offering very shitty streaming deals for artists - music, film and game alike - in exchange for copyrights, in an attempt to get as many copyrights as possible. Or all the studios will tactically negotiate with Google.
- Google become far more ready to police infringing content that IT holds the rights to - not just within themselves, but any puny alternative website out there that doesn't have the same power that they do and cannot defend themselves against the lawsuits.
- The supposed enemies of copyright embrace copyright and really do take a dangerous stab at the internet's foundations.
- MPAA and RIAA start praising Google for being such admirable copyright defenders.
And then the copyright believers will have got what they always wanted: central power to strike down anything and everything that infringes, even the slightest derivative.
MPAA and Google may be enemies now, but I fear a pact a-brewin. A merge between them would be disastrous.
I really don't think the Google Fiber revolution will succeed in any sense. Just because they offer such powerful speeds does not mean they will GIVE such speeds. Just look at the monopolistic ISPs of today.
You think corruption stops with ads? They've yet to become far more corrupt than you can imagine.
On the post: Hell Freezing Over? Disney Realizing That Fans Celebrating 'Frozen' By Infringement May Be A Good Thing
The thought that deviantArt could at any day be subject to a lynch mob of copyright holders and be sued out of existence should piss off any decent thinking person.
On the post: German Court: Jesus Doesn't Deserve Copyright Protection
So that means NO to King James translations/derivatives and NO to vaccines that interfere with his design of viruses.
Blasphringers SHALL BE PUNISUED. OBVIOUSLY.
On the post: Pedophile, Embarrassed Politician And Disliked Doctor Kick Off Attempts To Delete Their Histories From Google
Re: Removed from search result
On the post: Police Ask Blogger To Take Down Tweets Critical Of UK Political Party
Re: Re: Re:
I say the same about Ron Paul. When I first heard of him, I was initially seduced by his tough stance in favour of abolishing the drug war. However, that support soon faded when I heard of his other policies. He wants the rights of female bodies taken away from them based on the notion that the cells of a conceived female egg are far more vital than those of a non-conceieved egg (if abortion is murder, masturbation is infanticide). He thinks that monopolies can ONLY come from state interference, as if the concepts of the merger and takeover were non-existent, never mind the price-fixing tendencies of corporations. He wants to privatise the U.S. Education Department. He thinks global warming is a hoax and won't even attempt to try and stop it. And many others.
On the post: Police Ask Blogger To Take Down Tweets Critical Of UK Political Party
Re:
On the post: Police Ask Blogger To Take Down Tweets Critical Of UK Political Party
Re:
On the post: Police Ask Blogger To Take Down Tweets Critical Of UK Political Party
Okay so... police asking an anti-UKIP blogger to remove his tweet - not on a legal basis but an intimidation basis - is in no way being prejudicial, but the very act of telling people about this non-prejudicial visit... is prejudicial?
On the post: Police Ask Blogger To Take Down Tweets Critical Of UK Political Party
The E.U. is worth defending. Don't let these tits have their way just because of an older population's nostalgia for the glorious Britain that never existed.
We've never had it so fucking good compared to generations before. I'm not prepared to allow xenophobic plus nationalistic tendencies to run rampant based on the most reactionary of reductionisms. All nationalism is suspect and all glorification of lost traditions for their own sakes deserve hostility.
And I am sorry to say that as a Scottish citizen, that goes for Alex Salmond's shit-stirring, too.
On the post: Vladimir Putin Restricting Naughty Language And 'Unregistered' Bloggers
I'm sick of the way people make excuses for what he's doing to Ukraine and Syria. He had been threatening Ukraine for the past 10 years.
And despite all that, Ron Paul a few weeks ago on U.K.'s Channel 4 news claimed that the U.S. was to blame for Ukraine's nightmare. He openly said the U.S. plotted the overthrow of Yanukovych, and that they had a hand in provoking Russia.
How the fuck is Ukraine any threat to Russia? Nobody has even attempted to answer.
I often wonder what it would take to snap people out of the America-First-Cause mentality: the mentality they are too cowardly to admit having.
On the post: Washington State Files First Consumer Protection Lawsuit Against Kickstarter Project That Failed To Deliver
Re:
Let us hope the crowdfunding sites do not tend towards some kind of oligopoly where they can fix the prices for those artists... dig in and set up tons of competition, wherever you can.
Next >>