Holy crap! Really? Wow, those Google thieves. Instead of saying "hey there's some cool news at news corp! go there and read it!" they actually index the story and tell you if it's about tanks, puppies or the economy! The scoundrels...
I'll make an example about sharing, finite goods, and morality:
Let's say there's a famine. You are a storekeeper, and you decide that since there's a shortage of food, you refuse to sell your food, because you know you'll be able to extort a better price at a later time (when everyone is desperate and starving). In this example, while nobody is claiming that you should give away your food, very few people would disagree that the previous hoarding of the food (instead of it being sold at whatever the market price should be or whatever) is immoral. Yet (unless there's a very specific anti-speculation law in your state), it is quite possible that the storekeeper is doing what is legal.
So, I hope everyone agrees, using your "legal rights" to refuse selling (or sharing, for a price) is immoral.
From the opening post, when something benefits humanity as a whole, INCLUDING the "holder", and he refuses to share, it could be argued not only that it is NOT WRONG to share, but that any rights to "refuse sharing" the holder uses is IMMORAL.
"Movies? Reviews are news, opinion, whatever. They are not directly derivative, just discussing the subject. It's the same as posting a comment on this blog."
Without A, no B. How hard is that to understand?
"News? Crap happens, people report crap happens. If crap stopped happening, there would be no news. But since the crap isn't copyright, no big deal. No deriviative issues here."
Without A, no B. How hard is that to understand?
"Notes? Not copyright - so derivative issues there either."
That's a bit like saying that you want to get somewhere, so instead of taking free public transportation, you throw yourself in front of the bus in the hopes that it will carry your dead carcass to where you want to go after running you through.
Ah, I see what you mean. By "middle ground" you mean the EXTREME maximalist response. And by extreme you mean, anything different than said EXTREME maximalist response.
"Everyone knows that facts are twisted to support the side of the observer, and the truth is somewhere in the middle."
I have to agree 100% with that. For example, some people in the USA think that Europe is somewhere in Florida, while others think that it is next to Asia. So clearly, it must be in the middle, floating in the pacific Ocean.
Here's a list of allowed things you can accuse us of:
- Running lots of web applications that never seem to get out of Beta.
- Installing silly slides and firemen poles in our offices.
- Rolling over whenever some bank has a judge tell us to block some user account thru no fault of said user.
Here are the things you don't get to accuse us of:
- Censorship
- Exiling the leader of the tibetan religion/state and placing your own puppet in his place
- Trying to run people over with tanks
- Communism
- Murdering women that have more than one child
- Accusing Richard Gere of murder.
- An horrible fashion sense.
On the post: Murdoch Says Fair Use Can Be Barred By Courts; Will Probably Remove Sites From Google
Re: Re:
On the post: Murdoch Reconsidering Paywalls? Delaying Implementation
On the post: Sarah Palin Joins Al Gore In Not Realizing That Everyone's A Reporter These Days
Re: Deniable
On the post: The Moral Argument In Favor Of File Sharing?
Let's say there's a famine. You are a storekeeper, and you decide that since there's a shortage of food, you refuse to sell your food, because you know you'll be able to extort a better price at a later time (when everyone is desperate and starving). In this example, while nobody is claiming that you should give away your food, very few people would disagree that the previous hoarding of the food (instead of it being sold at whatever the market price should be or whatever) is immoral. Yet (unless there's a very specific anti-speculation law in your state), it is quite possible that the storekeeper is doing what is legal.
So, I hope everyone agrees, using your "legal rights" to refuse selling (or sharing, for a price) is immoral.
From the opening post, when something benefits humanity as a whole, INCLUDING the "holder", and he refuses to share, it could be argued not only that it is NOT WRONG to share, but that any rights to "refuse sharing" the holder uses is IMMORAL.
On the post: Does The White House Have Any Legal Right To Demand No Modifications To Its Photos?
Re:
On the post: Venezuelan Government Blames Video Games For Violence, Implements Widespread Ban
Re:
On the post: Answers To Textbook Questions: Copyright Violation?
On the post: Answers To Textbook Questions: Copyright Violation?
Re: Re: Re:
Without A, no B. How hard is that to understand?
"News? Crap happens, people report crap happens. If crap stopped happening, there would be no news. But since the crap isn't copyright, no big deal. No deriviative issues here."
Without A, no B. How hard is that to understand?
"Notes? Not copyright - so derivative issues there either."
Without A, no B. How hard is that to understand?
On the post: Perfect Pitch Accused Of DMCA Abuse To Censor Criticism [Update]
Re: Stupid or smart?
On the post: Why Is NY, Not The FTC Or DOJ, Filing Antitrust Claims Against Intel?
Re:
On the post: Is It Really A Problem That 'Only' 31 Newspapers Sent Reporters To The World Series?
On the post: Results From Our CwF+RtB Business Model Experiment
Re:
Good luck trying to pirate a hoodie and a real autograph.
On the post: Law Professor (?!?) Claims Copyright Infringement Because Blog Uses Faculty Photo In Blog Post [Update]
On the post: Results From Our CwF+RtB Business Model Experiment
I Can Haz T-Shirt?
Now I'm gonna be l33t!
On the post: Gershwin Heirs Fight Over Copyright Royalties
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Property Rights.
On the post: Yet Another (Yes, Another) Study Shows File Sharers Buy More
Re: Re:
I have to agree 100% with that. For example, some people in the USA think that Europe is somewhere in Florida, while others think that it is next to Asia. So clearly, it must be in the middle, floating in the pacific Ocean.
On the post: That's Rich: China Accuses Google Of Censorship
Here's a list of allowed things you can accuse us of:
- Running lots of web applications that never seem to get out of Beta.
- Installing silly slides and firemen poles in our offices.
- Rolling over whenever some bank has a judge tell us to block some user account thru no fault of said user.
Here are the things you don't get to accuse us of:
- Censorship
- Exiling the leader of the tibetan religion/state and placing your own puppet in his place
- Trying to run people over with tanks
- Communism
- Murdering women that have more than one child
- Accusing Richard Gere of murder.
- An horrible fashion sense.
Sincerely,
The guys at Google corp.
On the post: Warner Bros. Shuts Down Harry Potter Themed Dinner For Infringement
Re:
Next >>