I understood your suggestion just fine. Your snarky tone suggests you'd be quite all right if geoblocking were the reason for this, which would lump you in with others who don't realise how stupid and counter-productive it is.
Perhaps if you were a little less rude people wouldn't assume the worst about you.
This petty attitude amuses me. Unless you're braindead, there's an obvious difference between a citation and a reference to a previous discussion. If a TD writer or commenter made reference to an earlier post without providing a link I'm sure you'd bitch about that too.
If that's your definition of being a "complete fucking asshole", then I struggle to find words to describe the way you act towards Mike and others here. Your behaviour is far worse, and far more childish. Your hypocrisy is galling.
I laughed at the commenter stating "...you can�t use the % spent of entertainment in a music (or film) business argument because it includes video games." These guys really don't understand what they're competing against.
Honestly, Joe, attacking Mike's credibility (which you do in nearly every post you comment on) and being so incredibly hostile and degrading because you disagree (which you also do in nearly every post you comment on) just makes you look bad. Ever wonder why you're seen as an extremist? It's because of stuff like this.
I'm amazed you irony alarm wasn't set of as you were typing that.
What Mike said was "...Mossoff appears to have a total blindspot, common to someone in academia with no experience in the real world", which is a not ad hom, but a generalisation with a strong basis in fact. It's certainly not "hostile and degrading".
"It's a trade agreement. The focus is on trade and it's not illogical that the position of US companies engaged in trade are emphasized."
It's a trade agreement that's supposed to benefit each country as a whole, not just a few companies. It's completely illogical to try so hard to prevent the public being involved.
"What if I told you that no US copyright law would change? Would that shut you up?"
No, because (a) I'm not subject to US copyright law and (b) I never mentioned copyright.
"I wonder if you can point out to me precisely where any of your heavily researched examples says that it is legal for a government office to give their letterhead to private third parties?"
Never mind legal, how about moral? Joe's been up on his moral high horse a lot lately, so perhaps he can explain how it's moral or ethical for DA's to allow private parties to obviously impersonate them for the sole purpose of intimidation?
"I don't know why you continue to pretend to not understand the way treaties and diplomacy works."
And I don't know why you continue to pretend to not understand that the public has grown sick and tired the way treaties and diplomacy works.
Governments are supposed to be negotiating for what's best for their country, but it's pretty obvious they're negotiating for what's best for the companies that spend millions on lobbying them. Just like in past international agreements, the public's needs come last and they get shafted.
Unfortunately the worldwide communications platform that is the Internet is making it much easier for the public to discuss these treaties, and we want to know what's going in them and how it will directly affect us. It's telling that you think this is a bad thing. Are you one of those under a bit more public scrutiny these days?
I have no doubt that your pathological obsession with Mike, which is getting quite creepy, prevents you from realising how obnoxiously rude it is to butt in with a comment completely unrelated to the post above. Is it really worth having everyone here think you're an asshole?
As I suspected, you thought about it for about a second, just long enough for a knee-jerk response with zero thought of the disastrous ramifications of your fantasies being carrying out.
And in case you missed it, extremist Muslims already feel safe in doing whatever the hell they want. That whole Paradise thing, remember?
Keep up the great comments! If there's anything that'll get people to stop pirating and part with their hard-earned cash, it's being called an immoral thief! When you describe potential customers using words like disgusting and despicable, I just want to run out and start buying CD's again!
"Nothing beyond making the most desirable product."
Great idea! When does that start?
"When you start to understand that nobody is forcing you to buy..."
What a nonsense statement! Nobody actually thinks they're being forced to buy anything. Why would we start to understand that when it's completely self-evident? Pure straw man.
"...then you will start to understand why your pirating actions are self-serving and self- justifying."
And again, why would we start to understand something completely self-evident? Whether you buy or pirate, it's always self-serving. You listen to music because you enjoy it. You watch a movie because you enjoy it. These are self-serving acts. The decision you make is whether you also do something for the content creators. It's up to the content creators or rightholders (rarely one and the same) to convince consumers to give them our money or spend it on something else.
"You are confusing someone's opinion and their self-justification for being fact."
That quote is based entirely on facts, even if they're facts you don't like. From an artist's point of view there is no difference in income between piracy and "doing without". It's zero in both cases. That's a FACT. Piracy also puts content in front of more eyes and ears that doing without, which is always beneficial to the artist. That's a FACT. You may strongly prefer payment over non-payment, and that's understandable, but you can't honestly claim that artists prefer obscurity to piracy.
"Unfortunately there are so many cheap people like yourself that feel entitled to free content, that you think it's some sort of crime to have to pay a dime for anything."
Wow, two completely fabricated claims with absolutely zero evidence to back them up. You work for the MPAA?
"Does it really hurt to take a step that may diffuse an inflammatory situation that has already cost American lives?"
Except that removing or blocking the video from YouTube would not diffuse the situation in the slightest, because the video is spread all over the internet. Did you even read the article?
"YouTube is a private company they have no free speech obligation."
There's a difference between obligation and standing up for the principles you believe in.
On the post: Dreamforce Official Livestream... Shut Down By 'Content' Bots
Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy to tell legit?
Perhaps if you were a little less rude people wouldn't assume the worst about you.
On the post: Wikimedia Scandal: Proof Of Unreliability Or Confirmation That Crowdsourcing Works?
Re:
On the post: Dreamforce Official Livestream... Shut Down By 'Content' Bots
Re: Re: Easy to tell legit?
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Filesharing Index Shows Filesharing Is Now Mainstream
Re:
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
Re:
I'm amazed you irony alarm wasn't set of as you were typing that.
On the post: Anyone Who Says Copyright Cannot Be Used For Censorship Has No Credibility
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re: Re:
It's a trade agreement that's supposed to benefit each country as a whole, not just a few companies. It's completely illogical to try so hard to prevent the public being involved.
"What if I told you that no US copyright law would change? Would that shut you up?"
No, because (a) I'm not subject to US copyright law and (b) I never mentioned copyright.
On the post: Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors
Re: Re:
Never mind legal, how about moral? Joe's been up on his moral high horse a lot lately, so perhaps he can explain how it's moral or ethical for DA's to allow private parties to obviously impersonate them for the sole purpose of intimidation?
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re:
And I don't know why you continue to pretend to not understand that the public has grown sick and tired the way treaties and diplomacy works.
Governments are supposed to be negotiating for what's best for their country, but it's pretty obvious they're negotiating for what's best for the companies that spend millions on lobbying them. Just like in past international agreements, the public's needs come last and they get shafted.
Unfortunately the worldwide communications platform that is the Internet is making it much easier for the public to discuss these treaties, and we want to know what's going in them and how it will directly affect us. It's telling that you think this is a bad thing. Are you one of those under a bit more public scrutiny these days?
On the post: This Is Not Transparency: TPP Delegates Refuses To Reveal Text, Refuse To Discuss Leaked Text
Re: Re:
On the post: YouTube Restricts Access To Anti-Islam Movie Trailer In Egypt And Libya
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And in case you missed it, extremist Muslims already feel safe in doing whatever the hell they want. That whole Paradise thing, remember?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: Lowestofthekeys' Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Great idea! When does that start?
"When you start to understand that nobody is forcing you to buy..."
What a nonsense statement! Nobody actually thinks they're being forced to buy anything. Why would we start to understand that when it's completely self-evident? Pure straw man.
"...then you will start to understand why your pirating actions are self-serving and self- justifying."
And again, why would we start to understand something completely self-evident? Whether you buy or pirate, it's always self-serving. You listen to music because you enjoy it. You watch a movie because you enjoy it. These are self-serving acts. The decision you make is whether you also do something for the content creators. It's up to the content creators or rightholders (rarely one and the same) to convince consumers to give them our money or spend it on something else.
On the post: Lowestofthekeys' Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That quote is based entirely on facts, even if they're facts you don't like. From an artist's point of view there is no difference in income between piracy and "doing without". It's zero in both cases. That's a FACT. Piracy also puts content in front of more eyes and ears that doing without, which is always beneficial to the artist. That's a FACT. You may strongly prefer payment over non-payment, and that's understandable, but you can't honestly claim that artists prefer obscurity to piracy.
On the post: Don't Quit Your Day Job: Creativity Is About Passion, Not Paychecks
Re:
Wow, two completely fabricated claims with absolutely zero evidence to back them up. You work for the MPAA?
On the post: YouTube Restricts Access To Anti-Islam Movie Trailer In Egypt And Libya
Re: Re: Re:
You really didn't think that idiotic statement through did you?
On the post: YouTube Restricts Access To Anti-Islam Movie Trailer In Egypt And Libya
Re:
Except that removing or blocking the video from YouTube would not diffuse the situation in the slightest, because the video is spread all over the internet. Did you even read the article?
"YouTube is a private company they have no free speech obligation."
There's a difference between obligation and standing up for the principles you believe in.
On the post: Google's Autocomplete Dilemma: Every Concession Makes It Easier For The Next Person To Complain
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>