It's even more funny watching you desperately, DESPERATELY try to appear much smarter and superior to everyone else, especially Mike.
I can honestly say I haven't encountered anyone like you since High School, possibly middle school. For your own sake, you might want to consider growing up.
First, they do not exist solely to republish classified information. They exist to republish information that governments, corporations, or other organizations do not wish to share with those they impact or affect.
That is very different and highly fundamental to journalism.
And to your point about discretion--many journalists would argue that discretion often perverts independence and therefore undermines the objectives of journalism.
Unfortunately, I think that human nature and the propensity to gamble works against any hope that IV and its business model will die.
We've all experienced it, you keep playing blackjack (or insert other game here)hands over and over way past when you should have stopped because you think you're only one hand away from the big payoff. I think that as long as there is a potential gamble that people perceive could pay off big, there will be fools pursuing it.
Re: Re: Re: But will the computers be put in jail for theft?
But you're missing the point--the speech is still protected, but the CRIME is not. This is no different for Google. If they did break a law, they would be liable for that, but not the SPEECH.
Re: But will the computers be put in jail for theft?
Ummmm... you do know that speech is used to infringe upon copyright, help people buy illegal drugs, spy on citizens, etc.? and yet it is still protected, right?
Dammit, I guess I'll have to settle for the robot ocelot now. I mean, it just isn't done for two disembodied brains to come the same party in the same robot bodies, now is it?
She's really railing against the hypocritical "Mine! Mine!" culture of some content creators. If they had a less self-centric view, they might see that if there was a default perspective of sharing, everyone would be better off.
You could also equally argue that the laws as they are written "attack" artists that want to create because they can barely avoid infringing, or infringe without knowing, or try not to infringe but the courts say they do anyway (or retroactive laws say they do), and so on.
That doesn't seem to make much sense. The passengers must be trying to get somewhere on the other side of the bridge, yes?
Or are you suggesting that the passengers are just people hanging out on one side of the bridge that are willing to get in a car with a stranger to drive across the bridge, only to turn around and walk back?
First,.... my name is attached to my profile. (I'll assume that the silence I hear after you read that is you blushing in embarrassment).
Second, my position on violence should be clear--I am against all forms of violence and abuse especially from those that have greater power than others. For example, lawyers that should know and support the law, rather than find ways to pervert it to stifle speech.
I am also for the proper application of liability. I don't think baseball bat makers should be accountable for ruffians beating people with them, video games for violence, movies for smoking, or discussion forums for the exchange of illicit information. Nor do I think that those that take advantage of free expression should be held accountable when others engage in bad acts that may or may not be related.
I believe in free will and a bad act is the responsibility of those engaging in it and words do not suffice as a proximate cause.
I will ignore the rest of your post other than to point out that for someone so focused on "ad hominem" you might want to a) note that there was no such "attack on the person" in my prior post, b) there were plenty of "attacks on the person" in your own post, and c) "check yourself before you wreck yourself."
I want to agree with you, but so far there has been absolutely no evidence that either the legislative or judicial branches have any appetite for acknowledging abuse of the copyright system by any copyright or possible copyright holders. They seem to have an acceptance that collateral damage is just something to accept.
No, I don't unless those rules also apply to Mr. Carron and his attempts to stifle expression (however positive or negative) with baseless legal threats.
So, let's make some rules that cover cyberbullying and mob incitement and make sure cyberbullying includes making threats designed to intimidate someone to stop using their constitutionally-guaranteed rights to free expression.
Unassailable logic on your part. My two year old even understands logic as strong as that. I ask him why he doesn't like something and he tells me, "I don't like it because I don't like it."
He's a douchebag because he's a douchebag. Simple, yet compelling.
You're right of course, I'm just saying that in the absence of other input (or with limited input), we fall back to price as a proxy for value. Even if you have someone to ask, there's nothing that guarantees you'll value that input.
I value my friend's opinions on music b/c I know they will have my best interests at heart, but others may have different motives, like trying to sell or market specific goods.
I think a lot of it has to do with what information you have available from your social network. If you are going to a new area and don't know anybody (or have access to the net), you might use price to decide the quality of the food in your area.
Same goes for music, if you have no other proxy for value, price will fill the gap. In the case of the apps example Leigh used, the market has stabilized enough that there is a lot of social feedback on the best apps and price is no longer a useful metric.
Since those that send DMCA notices only have to assert that the notice is factual and correct, why not let those users just simply assert that their downloads do not infringe?
And since that requirement of the DMCA notices appears to be completely toothless, the same should be for these.
Mike, you yourself have pointed out the dimensions of competition. We all know they are price, service/features, and perhaps scarcity.
The brand names would never throw away their brand value (e.g., compete on price), so they have to compete on innovative features. Whether they could patent their features or not and minimize copying (theoretically), they would, IMO, still behave the way they are now. Perhaps even more so.
I do agree, though, that it would be interesting to see what the prices would be in a patent-free market.
And that is a particularly weak analysis since you have no evidence of such. It would be equally valid to claim that Mike is only stupid when you disagree with him and brilliant when you do.
But you already knew that. You prefer to peacock and try to make yourself feel superior to everyone else, without actually demonstrating any grasp of the material.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
I can honestly say I haven't encountered anyone like you since High School, possibly middle school. For your own sake, you might want to consider growing up.
On the post: Congress Has Lost All Perspective When It Considers Prosecuting Journalists As Spies
Re: Re: Re:
That is very different and highly fundamental to journalism.
And to your point about discretion--many journalists would argue that discretion often perverts independence and therefore undermines the objectives of journalism.
On the post: Intellectual Ventures Loses Its Shine: Will Its Business Model Ever Work?
Psychology works against reason
We've all experienced it, you keep playing blackjack (or insert other game here)hands over and over way past when you should have stopped because you think you're only one hand away from the big payoff. I think that as long as there is a potential gamble that people perceive could pay off big, there will be fools pursuing it.
On the post: Speech-Via-Algorithm Is Still Speech, And Censoring It Is Still Censorship
Re: Re: Re: But will the computers be put in jail for theft?
On the post: Speech-Via-Algorithm Is Still Speech, And Censoring It Is Still Censorship
Re: But will the computers be put in jail for theft?
On the post: Speech-Via-Algorithm Is Still Speech, And Censoring It Is Still Censorship
Re:
On the post: Carreon Admits His Original Threat Letter Was A Mistake, But Keeps On Digging Anyway
My prediction came true...
On the post: Nina Paley Explains Intellectual Disobedience
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Photographers photograph things like nature, people, buildings, all of which help make their art unique.
Painters rely on centuries of painting techniques. Musicians rely on many many influences.
But utilizing any of those things can run you afoul of infringement.
On the post: Nina Paley Explains Intellectual Disobedience
Re:
She's really railing against the hypocritical "Mine! Mine!" culture of some content creators. If they had a less self-centric view, they might see that if there was a default perspective of sharing, everyone would be better off.
You could also equally argue that the laws as they are written "attack" artists that want to create because they can barely avoid infringing, or infringe without knowing, or try not to infringe but the courts say they do anyway (or retroactive laws say they do), and so on.
On the post: Police Ticketing Informal Rideshare Participants Based On No Law, But To Protect Port Authority Revenue
Re: Re:
Or are you suggesting that the passengers are just people hanging out on one side of the bridge that are willing to get in a car with a stranger to drive across the bridge, only to turn around and walk back?
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Second, my position on violence should be clear--I am against all forms of violence and abuse especially from those that have greater power than others. For example, lawyers that should know and support the law, rather than find ways to pervert it to stifle speech.
I am also for the proper application of liability. I don't think baseball bat makers should be accountable for ruffians beating people with them, video games for violence, movies for smoking, or discussion forums for the exchange of illicit information. Nor do I think that those that take advantage of free expression should be held accountable when others engage in bad acts that may or may not be related.
I believe in free will and a bad act is the responsibility of those engaging in it and words do not suffice as a proximate cause.
I will ignore the rest of your post other than to point out that for someone so focused on "ad hominem" you might want to a) note that there was no such "attack on the person" in my prior post, b) there were plenty of "attacks on the person" in your own post, and c) "check yourself before you wreck yourself."
On the post: Once More, With Feeling: Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' Under The Law
Re:
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, let's make some rules that cover cyberbullying and mob incitement and make sure cyberbullying includes making threats designed to intimidate someone to stop using their constitutionally-guaranteed rights to free expression.
So are we agreed?
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer Charles Carreon Just Keeps Digging: Promises He'll Find Some Law To Go After Oatmeal's Matt Inman
Re: I love this show!
He's a douchebag because he's a douchebag. Simple, yet compelling.
On the post: The Role Of 'Perceived Value' In Music Is Small And Fading Fast
Re: Re: Re: price != value
I value my friend's opinions on music b/c I know they will have my best interests at heart, but others may have different motives, like trying to sell or market specific goods.
On the post: The Role Of 'Perceived Value' In Music Is Small And Fading Fast
Re: price != value
Same goes for music, if you have no other proxy for value, price will fill the gap. In the case of the apps example Leigh used, the market has stabilized enough that there is a lot of social feedback on the best apps and price is no longer a useful metric.
On the post: MPAA Ok With Allowing Users To Get Back Their Megaupload Files If 0% Infringement Can Be Guaranteed
Handle this like DMCA notices...
And since that requirement of the DMCA notices appears to be completely toothless, the same should be for these.
On the post: Do You Owe Your Crappy Shave To Patents?
Not convinced patents have anything to do with it
The brand names would never throw away their brand value (e.g., compete on price), so they have to compete on innovative features. Whether they could patent their features or not and minimize copying (theoretically), they would, IMO, still behave the way they are now. Perhaps even more so.
I do agree, though, that it would be interesting to see what the prices would be in a patent-free market.
On the post: Unfortunate: Appeals Court Revives Misguided Rosetta Stone Lawsuit Against Google
Re: Re: Re:
But you already knew that. You prefer to peacock and try to make yourself feel superior to everyone else, without actually demonstrating any grasp of the material.
BTW, its not working.
Next >>