The circle representing lost 'ANY OLD TECHNOLOGY' jobs is noticeably larger than the circle for 'ANY NEW TECHNOLOGY' job gains. That sums up the 'REALITY' in this philosophy. The new industries are almost always more efficient than the industry they replace, including being able to do more work with fewer employees.
What makes newspaper jobs so special? Why should we do anything more to protect newspaper jobs that we have with countless other industries affected by disruptive technologies.
"If you have legit sources of income, you should be able to show them easily, and prove that at least part of the money is legit. You don't see Kim doing this, which is a clear indication that the money (and assets) are all as a direct result of the corrupt enterprise."
Dotcom can quite easily point to his legitimate source of income: MegaUpload. No court of law has ever proven it to be illegal. In fact several civil cases have failed to do just that. And if you want proof that at least part of the income was legit beyond a doubt, look at all the people lining up to regain access to their personal files that the government has taken from them.
"...and with most of the uploads being infringing material..."
Proof or STFU.
"Mega's attempt to gain access to the servers "for their defense" doesn't explain in any way how access to private user data files will help them fight the battle."
But of course the USG's access to the servers for their prosecution also required access to private user data files to help them fight the battle. So what's the difference?
"That is about the only logical conclusions."
That is about the only conclusion you're capable of making given your obvious vested interest in MU's downfall. None of of believe for a second that you're simply taking a moral stand here.
"Monies obtained by an alleged crime are generally not made available to fund a defense. It's not innocent until proven guilty, it is that this money is EXACTLY at the center of the criminal charges."
Can you provide a link to the forensic accountant's report that details how every single dollar Kim Dotcom and MegaUpload had, and now don't have, was "obtained by an alleged crime"? There is one right? How else could such a strong claim be made?
Seriously, MU critics like to claim, without evidence, that most of the content was illegal, but if that's true when why do they lose all their money and assets? Why don't they keep a proportion of the assets equivalent to the proportion of legitimate content? It could be tens of millions of dollars. Oh right, doing that would require the USG to actually know how much was legit and how much wasn't. The truth is they haven't got a clue, they're just blindly following the content industries' unsubstantiated claims.
"See the above drug dealer example..."
It's pretty obvious from your repeated drug dealer analogies that you consider copyright infringement equal in seriousness to drug crime. This clearly paints you as a copyright maximilist with rather extreme views. This is where you depart from most of sane society. Anybody died from copyright infringement lately?
"With 50k a month, plus any other assets that he has (and Kim has plenty, he has scammed his way to millions before), he can easily mount his defense."
The FBI failed utterly to prove these hidden assets exist, but you know better right? Who are you again? Why should we believe a word you say?
"Sure, you can find "blockages" in individual cases. But he overall arc is one of continued and increase progress, and nothing is slowing it down."
Nothing is slowing it down? Really? What about the millions, probably hundreds of millions, being spend by all the big tech players on patent litigation. Imagine if all these patent law suits simply disappeared. What do you think would then happen to all that money? Would these companies just leave it in the bank? Of course not! It would be spent on what these companies actually do: developing, innovating, engineering, and marketing products. How can you claim patents aren't slowing things down when so much money is diverted to lawyers because of them?
"Just because it's possible to spread the work to all corners of the globe with a click of the mouse doesn't change the fact that, as per the Constitution, we give authors property rights in the work and they can choose not to share it in the way that you would like them to share it."
The US Constitution only gives Congress the power to create copyright laws. It does not give anybody copyright. Copyright is not constitutionally guaranteed or protected.
"Sorry, but the words don't say that - the "for the nation" is something added by people like yourself."
I can't tell if you genuinely believe this or if you're just plain lying, but either way your self-serving position is quite wrong.
"The reality is that it is a two sided deal, not a one sided deal."
You're right that it is supposed to be a two-sided deal, where the copyright holder gets a limited-time (not life-time) monopoly on controlling their work and in return the public gets full, unfettered access to the works after that time. Unfortunately that's not how modern copyright law works; it's not totally twisted in favour of the copyright holder, and is not at all a two-sided deal.
Damn, aren't you the hypocrite. You accuse Mike of making an assumption that P2P traffic is being encrypted, and then unequivocally state that this is bullshit. You don't say "I think this is unlikely", you make a statement of fact that Mike is wrong. So if Mike is simply making an assumption, isn't that exactly what you're doing? You offer no proof, and simply fall back on the old child porn chestnut. Lame.
"A strike is like a traffic citation. If you did it, deal with the consequences. If you didn't, you're entitled to your day in court. I'm baffled as to why you don't understand this."
I'm genuinely happy for you that you earn enough money to so casually dismiss going to court as anything more than a mild inconvenience. In fact it seems you're so rich that you're actually baffled that someone wouldn't just go running off to court to clear their name.
Unfortunately for a lot of people going to court would cause a serious financial hardship that would deter them from even trying no matter how innocent they are. The court system may be legally available to all, but the reality is that for a lot of people it's not.
BTW, don't take my accusations of wealth too personally. I'm merely making the point that simply being entitled to go to court is not much use to a lot of people.
"Zachary, what do you do for a living. I think it's a very relevant question and I would appreciate an honest answer."
You first please. Given your support for a government-granted monopoly right during a discussion on the harm it's causing, I think your answer is more relevant than Zach's.
On the post: Yet Another Copyright Troll Case Kicked Out Of Court, With Excellent Reasoning From The Judge
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
Re: Re: Anonymous really are cowards
The same way they issued it. You really had to ask that?
On the post: No, Netflix Has NOT Formed A Pro-SOPA SuperPAC
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?
On the post: NY Public Radio Station WNYC Decides That Time Shifting = Piracy
Re:
You say Mike overuses the phrases, I say someone doesn't seem to like accurate descriptions.
On the post: How Disruption Works: Job Loss Isn't Really Job Loss
Re: Not quite that simple
The circle representing lost 'ANY OLD TECHNOLOGY' jobs is noticeably larger than the circle for 'ANY NEW TECHNOLOGY' job gains. That sums up the 'REALITY' in this philosophy. The new industries are almost always more efficient than the industry they replace, including being able to do more work with fewer employees.
What makes newspaper jobs so special? Why should we do anything more to protect newspaper jobs that we have with countless other industries affected by disruptive technologies.
On the post: Megaupload Points Out That The Feds Want To Destroy Relevant Evidence In Its Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dotcom can quite easily point to his legitimate source of income: MegaUpload. No court of law has ever proven it to be illegal. In fact several civil cases have failed to do just that. And if you want proof that at least part of the income was legit beyond a doubt, look at all the people lining up to regain access to their personal files that the government has taken from them.
"Feeling a little guilty about something?"
Not in the slightest.
On the post: Megaupload Points Out That The Feds Want To Destroy Relevant Evidence In Its Case
Re: Re:
On the post: Megaupload Points Out That The Feds Want To Destroy Relevant Evidence In Its Case
Re: Re:
Proof or STFU.
"Mega's attempt to gain access to the servers "for their defense" doesn't explain in any way how access to private user data files will help them fight the battle."
But of course the USG's access to the servers for their prosecution also required access to private user data files to help them fight the battle. So what's the difference?
"That is about the only logical conclusions."
That is about the only conclusion you're capable of making given your obvious vested interest in MU's downfall. None of of believe for a second that you're simply taking a moral stand here.
On the post: Megaupload Points Out That The Feds Want To Destroy Relevant Evidence In Its Case
Re: Re: but...
You need to stop making comments on this, because it's pretty clear to everyone reading them that you have no freaking clue about mass data storage.
On the post: Megaupload Points Out That The Feds Want To Destroy Relevant Evidence In Its Case
Re: Re: Re:
Can you provide a link to the forensic accountant's report that details how every single dollar Kim Dotcom and MegaUpload had, and now don't have, was "obtained by an alleged crime"? There is one right? How else could such a strong claim be made?
Seriously, MU critics like to claim, without evidence, that most of the content was illegal, but if that's true when why do they lose all their money and assets? Why don't they keep a proportion of the assets equivalent to the proportion of legitimate content? It could be tens of millions of dollars. Oh right, doing that would require the USG to actually know how much was legit and how much wasn't. The truth is they haven't got a clue, they're just blindly following the content industries' unsubstantiated claims.
"See the above drug dealer example..."
It's pretty obvious from your repeated drug dealer analogies that you consider copyright infringement equal in seriousness to drug crime. This clearly paints you as a copyright maximilist with rather extreme views. This is where you depart from most of sane society. Anybody died from copyright infringement lately?
"With 50k a month, plus any other assets that he has (and Kim has plenty, he has scammed his way to millions before), he can easily mount his defense."
The FBI failed utterly to prove these hidden assets exist, but you know better right? Who are you again? Why should we believe a word you say?
On the post: Nathan Myhrvold's Delusions: Patent Wars 'Vindicate' The Importance Of Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nothing is slowing it down? Really? What about the millions, probably hundreds of millions, being spend by all the big tech players on patent litigation. Imagine if all these patent law suits simply disappeared. What do you think would then happen to all that money? Would these companies just leave it in the bank? Of course not! It would be spent on what these companies actually do: developing, innovating, engineering, and marketing products. How can you claim patents aren't slowing things down when so much money is diverted to lawyers because of them?
On the post: How Can You Be Register Of Copyrights If You Don't Even Understand Copyright's Most Basic Purpose?
Re: Re: Re:
The US Constitution only gives Congress the power to create copyright laws. It does not give anybody copyright. Copyright is not constitutionally guaranteed or protected.
On the post: How Can You Be Register Of Copyrights If You Don't Even Understand Copyright's Most Basic Purpose?
Re:
I can't tell if you genuinely believe this or if you're just plain lying, but either way your self-serving position is quite wrong.
"The reality is that it is a two sided deal, not a one sided deal."
You're right that it is supposed to be a two-sided deal, where the copyright holder gets a limited-time (not life-time) monopoly on controlling their work and in return the public gets full, unfettered access to the works after that time. Unfortunately that's not how modern copyright law works; it's not totally twisted in favour of the copyright holder, and is not at all a two-sided deal.
On the post: Hadopi Accused Of 'Massaging' The Numbers To Make Anti-Piracy Activity Look Better
Re: Re: Just as I predicted...
I missed that confession. Can you point out where he said that?
On the post: Hadopi Accused Of 'Massaging' The Numbers To Make Anti-Piracy Activity Look Better
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Damn, aren't you the hypocrite. You accuse Mike of making an assumption that P2P traffic is being encrypted, and then unequivocally state that this is bullshit. You don't say "I think this is unlikely", you make a statement of fact that Mike is wrong. So if Mike is simply making an assumption, isn't that exactly what you're doing? You offer no proof, and simply fall back on the old child porn chestnut. Lame.
On the post: Hollywood Continues To Kill Innovation, Simply By Hinting At Criminal Prosecution Of Cyberlockers
Re: Re:
I think you mean "people have voted against you 41 billion times." ;)
On the post: Time To Start Again On 'Six Strikes' And Let Internet Users Have A Seat At The Table
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm genuinely happy for you that you earn enough money to so casually dismiss going to court as anything more than a mild inconvenience. In fact it seems you're so rich that you're actually baffled that someone wouldn't just go running off to court to clear their name.
Unfortunately for a lot of people going to court would cause a serious financial hardship that would deter them from even trying no matter how innocent they are. The court system may be legally available to all, but the reality is that for a lot of people it's not.
BTW, don't take my accusations of wealth too personally. I'm merely making the point that simply being entitled to go to court is not much use to a lot of people.
On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously?! Read the damn article!
"If a work is released under copyright is society not better off than if the work had never been released at all"
Your question is based on the entirely false premise that nobody would release work without copyright.
On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You first please. Given your support for a government-granted monopoly right during a discussion on the harm it's causing, I think your answer is more relevant than Zach's.
Next >>