Who the hell has a tossed salad at the Thanksgiving dinner table? That is just a craven excuse to promote the vegan agenda of dominating the world by the slow introduction of anemia.
Barbara Streisand should put out a PSA to help people like Comins. Maybe if enough people in the position to sue to quiet others' opinions see how getting even continues to ruin reputations long after they've been tarnished they'll get the idea and stop insisting on silencing others by torturing the law.
I like "probably cause" better. It sounds more realistic probably cause the police probably cause a lot of "probable cause." And it allows me to gratuitously over use probably and probable.
This is a good thing: the AP will hemorrhage all their good writers to the internet and become even less relevant. Perhaps twitter should sue them using the hot news doctrine (dropping the case last minute of course, who wants a piece of legal garbage like the hot news doctrine looming over their head) a few times to get them to tone down their devolutionary approach toward reporting and teach them some humility.
This is actually a smarter means of protecting kids than presumptively lumping all pron into its own TLD. TLDs may act in an exclusionary sense (notice any .edu domains dedicated to porn?) but there will always be those who branch out and use other TLDs for the same purpose (like howthingswork.com and whitehouse.com). You can create a TLD with strict requirements for use to limit the chaff (.edu, .mil, .gov, .us, etc), but to pretend that creating a porn TLD will automatically remove the porn from the other TLDs is just plain stupid.
After all, the internet is for porn, not just that little area of it with all the red lights and friendly women.
Maybe instead of focusing on things like the weather (weather channel), what hollywood loser just puked on which overpriced couch (entertainment channel, E!), the latest food craze (food network), or any of a dozen other redundant topics with their own respectively devoted channels, there might be enough time in the hour to talk about real news and to provide real journalistic insight into what is being covered. By attempting to stretch their brand over the entirety of the viewers attention span, they are cheapening what they do find time to cover (the <=30 second blips their stories are) or burying information that might actually be useful to society (their viewers).
Yes, many of my stories are amusing. But, I find it awkward that you keep running into so many since (taking this one as your identified example) they are easily avoided.
First off, if they take the time up front to "know their customer"
Clearly, you must not be paying much attention to the MPAA or RIAA. Ya know, the ones paying for SOPA to pass into law.
and to structure their service so that they aren't anything but a pure host
Under laws like SOPA, even ISPs and hosting services are screwed. Besides, if every single business is simply selling hosting, who the hell is gonna sell me anything besides some redundant overpriced server space?
they won't have as many issues.
Clearly, this is not the case.
In other words, if they don't do anonymous
HILARIOUS coming from an anonymous coward. See how being anonymous is keeping myself and others from lending you sufficient individual credence to warrant acquainting ourselves with your personal and professional capacity to entertain any of the thought being discussed? Its like being anonymous is somehow protecting you from having to have balls...
and they make sure they know who they are dealing with
I don't know about you, but I certainly have a spare five minutes each day to regularly kick back and hangout out individually with 800,000 different people.
then they have showed the sort of good faith in actions that gives them space to work.
How's that change working out for ya. If having a recognized, legitimate name and being elected to the highest position in this country (President Obama, if you missed the bitter humor) can not guarantee event the flimsiest levels of true customer confidence (which alludes to his wonderful whistle blower policy for those of us looking at the two way street), how can you possibly invest any time entertaining the (VERY APPARENT) logical fallacy that a registered pseudonym (linked to some form of verifiable identity) somehow magically grants a user with any form of trustworthiness beyond anonymity without consulting a user's actions? With widespread acceptance of such poor judgement, you end up with book burnings and witch hunts.
Further, they could easily write a small bot to check all pages for certain phrases or words
WMG, hotfile, failure.
and investigate those pages and flag them good or bad.
I flag your haircut bad, because my pattern recognition software (brain --> arbitrary word association) says that's what crazy people look like.
So rather than checking 800,000 pages, they would be looking at maybe a few dozen a day.
Because only a few dozen would be left.
Sort of changes everything
Yes it does. Destruction is a form of change we can believe in.
The scale of complying isn't as the EFF tries to paint it.
I believe they used words and consistent logical conclusions from historical facts. I suppose that shade of paint is pretty expensive nowadays.
Scaremongering is apparently their best service
No, they make great waffles. Scaremongering is a side hobby that came about when their standup comedy scene lapsed during a heckling incident involving a sea of live ferrets and a misplaced hamburger.
they do it very well!
Its kind of you to pat them on the back after whipping it.
We'll start with numbers that take a little less bending the fabric of space-time to make sense:
It turns out 800000 is a great number to get a sense of the ridiculous burden of liability SOPA will create. Supposing, for sake of because I can, that each store places exactly one infringing piece of work up for sale per day and it takes exactly one hour to locate and verify the infringing status of said work, knowing exactly which store it is likely located in, there now exists exactly 800000 man-hours of new work that Etsy has to perform per day to ensure that no single complaint ruins their entire website. That's (800000 hours) / (24 hours/day) / (365.25 days/year) ~= 91.262 man-years of new labor the website would need per day. Or, put another way, that's (800000 hours) / (8 hours/employee) = 100000 employees needed to come in 7 days a week, every day of the year, for 8 hours. Now, those numbers say two things to me. The first is that maybe SOPA can create a whole new industry of staring blankly at a computer monitor looking for infringement because, as everyone knows, "you just know it when you see it." The other is that the new liability introduced, using those bogus numbers as a far-fetched proxy, will bring the internet to a screeching halt in the name of a few incompetent and lazy middlemen seeking to place the burden of proof on the wrong side of a table yanked out of the rightful setting of the courtroom. Copyright and patent infringement take an adversarial trial to determine, and that is all there is too it.
But, wait, let's look at the numbers again... 800000 new court cases per day from one company might actually get something done right since the people who actually committed the infringement would get punished instead of the platform in similarly idealistic circumstances. That, and it might alert congress to the widespread abuses and problems with the current system, and how cranky judges get after witnessing a groundhogs day moment once too often before age 65. It is the copyright owner's right to the rights provided by copyright and it is also the copyright owner's burden to defend said rights. I could see why the MAFIAA gets so up set since they are in a somewhat similar position with their large catalog of weaslingly pilfered copyrights to scour the universe with, looking for revenue. And let's be honest about it, the MPAA and RIAA care about artists and the supporting staff only as far the copyright can pay over time. And they've been demonstrating less than even that low bar of loyalty lately.
Why are they using Creative Commons music when they should be supporting the incredibly hard working artists' labels, collection societies, copyright attorneys, random pop-rocks vendors, and everyone else who doesn't actually contribute to our culture. I feel as though these income leeching harpies need to be smothered to be removed, much the dug-in ticks they are. Even after they're supposedly removed, they're infecting the activities of others who want nothing to do with them with an arbitrary tax on entertainment; the product of an unholy matrimony of laziness and abdicated culpability. I am loathe to ever contribute to these maleficent weasels through any means again. They are the ruin symptomatic of a fundamental cognitive defect: the attempt to remove the personal choice to engage in basic human nature, the drive to spontaneously communicate novelty through abstraction. These cretins are incapable of original thought let alone restraint and should be shunned and branded with a scarlet F.
Perhaps we just need to form an independent group of dedicated mock trolls to entertain us (for free) to draw in the others. Its not likely, but it is possible that by promoting logic to often, we have effectively driven the trolls into hiding. We need to coax them out from under the interwebz bridges with unprotected children, err, minutely flawed arguments. Hell, if we wanted any trolls with serious talent, we might have to pay them to show up. I know the MAFIAA already sends in the shilltards, but they are like scabs in a union strike (save the part where they actually leave). No real talent or expertise there.
Or, better yet, maybe there should be some sort of contest for user generated content to be put up for sale encompassing the freetard vs shilltard debates that are making their rounds through the comments.
On the post: Mike Masnick's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Thanksgiving
On the post: If At First You Fail In Suing A Blogger For Defamation Over His Description Of You Shooting Two Dogs, Try, Try Again
Anti-SLAPP PSA?
On the post: Kellogg Settles Toucan Trademark Dispute With Mayan Archaeology Group
D.S.D.D.
On the post: Court Says Warrantless Mobile Phone Tracking Is Unconstitutional
Re: Re:
On the post: Aaron deOliveira's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
Oh ya, and [Citation needed].
On the post: Finns And Norwegians Argue Over Who Owns The Northern Lights
Downright Ridiculous
On the post: AP Scolds Reporters For Breaking News On Twitter
A Cynical View
On the post: Universities Buying Up .xxx Domains To Stop Porn Sites Showing, Once Again, That .xxx Is A Pure Money Grab
Re: .xxx
After all, the internet is for porn, not just that little area of it with all the red lights and friendly women.
On the post: NY Times Discovers The Coming Legal Battle Over 3D Printing
Re: A reluctant defense of media
On the post: A Look At Three Popular Sites That May Be In Trouble Under SOPA
Re: Re: Doing the Math for Etsy, MPAA/RIAA Style
On the post: A Look At Three Popular Sites That May Be In Trouble Under SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Just one SOPA post today please...
On the post: A Look At Three Popular Sites That May Be In Trouble Under SOPA
Re: Re: Profit
On the post: A Look At Three Popular Sites That May Be In Trouble Under SOPA
Doing the Math for Etsy, MPAA/RIAA Style
It turns out 800000 is a great number to get a sense of the ridiculous burden of liability SOPA will create. Supposing, for sake of because I can, that each store places exactly one infringing piece of work up for sale per day and it takes exactly one hour to locate and verify the infringing status of said work, knowing exactly which store it is likely located in, there now exists exactly 800000 man-hours of new work that Etsy has to perform per day to ensure that no single complaint ruins their entire website. That's (800000 hours) / (24 hours/day) / (365.25 days/year) ~= 91.262 man-years of new labor the website would need per day. Or, put another way, that's (800000 hours) / (8 hours/employee) = 100000 employees needed to come in 7 days a week, every day of the year, for 8 hours. Now, those numbers say two things to me. The first is that maybe SOPA can create a whole new industry of staring blankly at a computer monitor looking for infringement because, as everyone knows, "you just know it when you see it." The other is that the new liability introduced, using those bogus numbers as a far-fetched proxy, will bring the internet to a screeching halt in the name of a few incompetent and lazy middlemen seeking to place the burden of proof on the wrong side of a table yanked out of the rightful setting of the courtroom. Copyright and patent infringement take an adversarial trial to determine, and that is all there is too it.
But, wait, let's look at the numbers again... 800000 new court cases per day from one company might actually get something done right since the people who actually committed the infringement would get punished instead of the platform in similarly idealistic circumstances. That, and it might alert congress to the widespread abuses and problems with the current system, and how cranky judges get after witnessing a groundhogs day moment once too often before age 65. It is the copyright owner's right to the rights provided by copyright and it is also the copyright owner's burden to defend said rights. I could see why the MAFIAA gets so up set since they are in a somewhat similar position with their large catalog of weaslingly pilfered copyrights to scour the universe with, looking for revenue. And let's be honest about it, the MPAA and RIAA care about artists and the supporting staff only as far the copyright can pay over time. And they've been demonstrating less than even that low bar of loyalty lately.
On the post: NY Times Discovers The Coming Legal Battle Over 3D Printing
You Wouldn't Download a Car...
On the post: GEMA, Once Again, Demands Royalties From Creative Commons Music It Has No Rights Over
Ruining Another Industry
On the post: Gamex Pulls The Welcome Mat Out From Under The Pirate Party
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: The Trolls Aren’t What They Used To Be
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
FTFY xD
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>