Yes, blissfully thinking that the entire world is filled with pirates when things like Soundcloud, Youtube, and Turntable enable customers and artists alike.
I've been quite critical of his position before. If there's something specific that I have to say about his position, link me and I'll be sure to analyze and critique what he's saying. I just have no interest in looking up his latest articles when his logic and reasoning have been getting worse and worse since the beginning of the year.
*yawn* Wake me up when he has a better opinion not mired in disingenuous arguments, complex readings of law, and don't support the mpaa, eparasites, and the destruction of innovation to support their old business models.
This is getting a little farther from the main point that I'm trying to say. There's always options for various projects, be it digital, tangible or anything else. As I see it, if the widget is physical, then there's ways to try to find investment capital and try something new. The AC's argument is very lopsided because of the scenario presented. It confuses the libertarian belief of less governance with capitalist cronyism, which is to make profit for whatever means.
You're correct that they could use pricing to keep others out of the market, but it would hurt them, possibly causing lower profit margins for themselves. Also, there are companies that could work under a different business structure. I recall a bread making company where the 15-20 employees also own stock in the company, so whatever happens to the employees, it also affects the company. I don't believe the old ways of doing business would greatly affect the marketplace without government competition, I just think the AC is confusing some concepts to try to "dirty" the ideals of libertarianism.
I can't answer every question professed, because if you look at the rules of patent law and copyright law themselves, they greatly limit how people could work. It's costing us jobs and research into new genes, technology, and even new ways to use music and movies, to adapt to what the trade industries want. As I've heard, property rights should only apply to scarce resources. Well, what happens when what was once scarce is no longer so?
So if we think of libertarianism as less governance, it would work that more people would advocate for less copyright as Kinsella does above.
What I don't get is that you wrote that, ignoring completely that this post about Rep. Blackburn is nothing more than a hit piece, designed to try to attack the Representative on a personal level. It doesn't address the content of the bill, it attacks her record.
... Where she advocates from injunctive relief by using Youtube for her message. And yet her platform (in this case, Youtube) would be taken away based on the bill she's sponsoring. I guess the hypocrisy of her stance is lost on you in your attack on Mike. Funny, I don't see Mike going to the lengths of political pundits in saying she's a "hippie, no good dirty Republican, who likes her guitar from the South." I see he wrote explicitly she doesn't understand what she's co-sponsoring:
That said, what her comments apply much more to is the bill that Blackburn herself co-sponsored, which definitively regulates the internet -- including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter -- by putting a massive burden on them to proactively monitor the internet, to stop infringement.
All this to name call me. Do you write this stuff with a straight face? It's clear that you are unable to even follow your own guidelines.
Obviously, actions speak louder than words. It seems you've denigrated yourself to trying for attacks on others. Try harder to keep up with the argument.
This is the second hit piece on a bill sponsor, and that pretty much shows that he is no longer debating issues, and rather has sunk down to the muck slinging level of politics that he purports to dislike.
I'd probably say it's more muckraking since you've yet to answer why you use personal attacks. How she can argue for one regulatory process over another is quite unclear. That reeks of hypocrisy. How or why you fail to see that is entirely up to you.
Re: Re: Re: No contradiction: Net Neutrality* was against corporate interests.
Just curious, when has this ever happened?
Let's take the context of broadband. With the FCC regulating, they're enforcing laws that support a duopoly. If the market were actually competitive, most people would be using the lines as a common resource, offering broadband at cheaper prices because they can compete with AT&T's pricing and national influence. This keeps regulation in check because if AT&T started trying to spy on people, they could, but people would move to smaller channels or other national channels that wouldn't want those type of deals.
If you notice, the deregulation is a misnomer which allows for strict rules on newcomers while the ones near the top gain added benefits. Whether that's tax loopholes, choice of competitors or what have you, it's not actual "deregulation" where the government stops trying to enforce laws. They just pick who to stop regulating.
At any time, the people making the widgets could go on to form their own widgets or making a watchit for a price that the market would bear. By all means, the widgit maker could try to stop them, but if he sabotages the company, he's using violence, not exactly a libertarian ideal. The main things you're ignoring is that libertarians advocate a voluntary contract. When the contract is over, so is the deal. This does not stop other competitors, nor does it stop other competitors from offering better conditions, higher wages, or lower priced products.
I'm looking through her profile. I'm amazed on this video how she discusses the Gibson raid through her promotion of the RELIEF act. Here is the video. Her advocacy for E-PARASITE makes NO sense! She wants to take away regulations for imported wood, but tax the internet?
Second, the two methods are exclusive of each other. Either it's all influence based, or it's all "independent". Any mix of the two would kill the indepenent concept, because there would clearly be influence. If you think the independent is the way to go, it cannot happen honestly if there is influence.
While some reports are calling this "novel," Boirum discovered, after he'd already invented this himself, that others had done so decades ago... but nothing much had come from it. There's even a 1938 issue of Mechanics and Handicraft Magazine that featured a really similar device on its cover
Here's the idea: Is Nosferatu truly independent, or is it just a variation on Dracula, influenced by the original work? Clearly they used Dracula in the earlier takes, so it isn't an independent thing, it's "influenced from" and almost a "copy plus some things" of Dracula.
Culture works by taking something from another time, figuring out what works and doesn't work, then making it your own. This concept is not new at all. It's been in movies such as Finding Forrester as well as folktales such as those of aquamen, werewolves, vampires, zombies, swamp things, or even Steamboat Willie... Er, Mickey Mouse. The point is, you still can't create from a vacuum.
Trolling, as used in this case, is to show an action. This makes the context "to troll", a verb. It means you can go elsewhere for the ad hom attacks that add nothing to the conversation. Further, you have used a baseless attack merely to launch into a derogatory statement on others (namely Mike). So while I have not called you a troll, your actions speak otherwise.
If you can attack the argument, feel free. But spouting off about the problems of this bill, where the elements such as the Congress' past thoughts on this bill, the bill itself, and the economic effects are indeed relevant to the conversation. Shooting the messenger because he points out these problems is not.
He made money off of success on Youtube, and has come out openly against the antistreaming bill. Obviously, Bieber's good name is not being damaged by pointing out how the way he paved for success is being taken away for others.
Re: No contradiction: Net Neutrality* was against corporate interests.
Net Neutrality has been a look at the wrong issues anyway.
If we had more competition in broadband instead of AT&T versus TWC for their duopoly, they wouldn't NEED to be regulated. If someone doesn't like them, there would be other competitors. The market would regulate itself.
On the post: Justin Bieber: Senator Klobuchar Should Be Locked Up For Felony Streaming Bill
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why should someone else do your research for you? If you want to troll, the least you could do is educate yourself on other's positions.
On the post: US Copyright Office Still Out Of Touch; Supports PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE & Felony Streaming Bills
Re: Re: Re:
Wake up! Life is calling.
On the post: US Copyright Office Still Out Of Touch; Supports PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE & Felony Streaming Bills
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Copyright Office Still Out Of Touch; Supports PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE & Felony Streaming Bills
Re:
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not competition. GRRR...
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're correct that they could use pricing to keep others out of the market, but it would hurt them, possibly causing lower profit margins for themselves. Also, there are companies that could work under a different business structure. I recall a bread making company where the 15-20 employees also own stock in the company, so whatever happens to the employees, it also affects the company. I don't believe the old ways of doing business would greatly affect the marketplace without government competition, I just think the AC is confusing some concepts to try to "dirty" the ideals of libertarianism.
I can't answer every question professed, because if you look at the rules of patent law and copyright law themselves, they greatly limit how people could work. It's costing us jobs and research into new genes, technology, and even new ways to use music and movies, to adapt to what the trade industries want. As I've heard, property rights should only apply to scarce resources. Well, what happens when what was once scarce is no longer so?
So if we think of libertarianism as less governance, it would work that more people would advocate for less copyright as Kinsella does above.
On the post: E-PARASITE's Sponsor, Lamar Smith, Was Against Massive Regulatory Compliance The Day Before He's For It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: E-PARASITE Bill: 'The End Of The Internet As We Know It'
No rebuttal?
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
... Where she advocates from injunctive relief by using Youtube for her message. And yet her platform (in this case, Youtube) would be taken away based on the bill she's sponsoring. I guess the hypocrisy of her stance is lost on you in your attack on Mike. Funny, I don't see Mike going to the lengths of political pundits in saying she's a "hippie, no good dirty Republican, who likes her guitar from the South." I see he wrote explicitly she doesn't understand what she's co-sponsoring:
That said, what her comments apply much more to is the bill that Blackburn herself co-sponsored, which definitively regulates the internet -- including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter -- by putting a massive burden on them to proactively monitor the internet, to stop infringement.
All this to name call me. Do you write this stuff with a straight face? It's clear that you are unable to even follow your own guidelines.
Obviously, actions speak louder than words. It seems you've denigrated yourself to trying for attacks on others. Try harder to keep up with the argument.
This is the second hit piece on a bill sponsor, and that pretty much shows that he is no longer debating issues, and rather has sunk down to the muck slinging level of politics that he purports to dislike.
I'd probably say it's more muckraking since you've yet to answer why you use personal attacks. How she can argue for one regulatory process over another is quite unclear. That reeks of hypocrisy. How or why you fail to see that is entirely up to you.
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
Re: Re: Re: No contradiction: Net Neutrality* was against corporate interests.
Let's take the context of broadband. With the FCC regulating, they're enforcing laws that support a duopoly. If the market were actually competitive, most people would be using the lines as a common resource, offering broadband at cheaper prices because they can compete with AT&T's pricing and national influence. This keeps regulation in check because if AT&T started trying to spy on people, they could, but people would move to smaller channels or other national channels that wouldn't want those type of deals.
If you notice, the deregulation is a misnomer which allows for strict rules on newcomers while the ones near the top gain added benefits. Whether that's tax loopholes, choice of competitors or what have you, it's not actual "deregulation" where the government stops trying to enforce laws. They just pick who to stop regulating.
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I sure as hell wouldn't pay $800 for Rosetta Stone. So why should someone else pay for overpriced software, music, or games?
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wonder when certain ACs will actually have information to back up the claims that piracy is causing damage to the economy.
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At any time, the people making the widgets could go on to form their own widgets or making a watchit for a price that the market would bear. By all means, the widgit maker could try to stop them, but if he sabotages the company, he's using violence, not exactly a libertarian ideal. The main things you're ignoring is that libertarians advocate a voluntary contract. When the contract is over, so is the deal. This does not stop other competitors, nor does it stop other competitors from offering better conditions, higher wages, or lower priced products.
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
What the...?
On the post: How Copyright Infringement Turned Vampires Into Big Business
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok... Then how do you explain this?
Here's the idea: Is Nosferatu truly independent, or is it just a variation on Dracula, influenced by the original work? Clearly they used Dracula in the earlier takes, so it isn't an independent thing, it's "influenced from" and almost a "copy plus some things" of Dracula.
Culture works by taking something from another time, figuring out what works and doesn't work, then making it your own. This concept is not new at all. It's been in movies such as Finding Forrester as well as folktales such as those of aquamen, werewolves, vampires, zombies, swamp things, or even Steamboat Willie... Er, Mickey Mouse. The point is, you still can't create from a vacuum.
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
If you can attack the argument, feel free. But spouting off about the problems of this bill, where the elements such as the Congress' past thoughts on this bill, the bill itself, and the economic effects are indeed relevant to the conversation. Shooting the messenger because he points out these problems is not.
On the post: Justin Bieber Sends Cease & Desist To FreeBieber Campaign
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He made money off of success on Youtube, and has come out openly against the antistreaming bill. Obviously, Bieber's good name is not being damaged by pointing out how the way he paved for success is being taken away for others.
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
Re: Re: Has anyone else noticed lately...
On the post: Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible
Re: No contradiction: Net Neutrality* was against corporate interests.
If we had more competition in broadband instead of AT&T versus TWC for their duopoly, they wouldn't NEED to be regulated. If someone doesn't like them, there would be other competitors. The market would regulate itself.
That won't happen because the FCC is confused on how to regulate
Next >>