Any time you use the words "eliminating piracy" you're immediately on a fool's errand. The investment required to do so has rapidly diminishing returns. You only have to look at the decades of effort put into it that have achieved relatively little.
The only thing that has proven to be consistently effective is listening to your customers and meeting their needs. Anti-piracy laws do not ever do that. Legitimate customers invariably end up worse off, money is wasted, piracy continues.
Like most people I consumed a mix of legitimate and infringing content, but since the likes of Netflix and Spotify came along that infringing component has shrunk considerably. Laws did not change this. Moralizing advertising campaigns did not change this. Bleating from grotesquely corrupt studios and labels did not change this. Innovative and reasonably priced services did, because they meet my needs better than piracy even though I have to pay for them.
"Canada also does not have freedom of speech, unlike the USA."
Why do people say nonsense like this?! Many, many countries, including Canada, have freedom of speech enshrined into constitutions, bills of rights, laws, etc. Just because they're not named "The First Amendment" doesn't make them any less important.
Couple of questions for you then. (1) What, aside from the lack of burst or auto fire, makes the AR-15 not a military weapon considering it's developed directly from a military weapon, and (2) in the context of using one for a mass shooting what exactly makes "most hunting rifles" more dangerous than an AR-15?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censorin
We're all still wondering why you came to describe "laws" that are entirely a fiction from the depths of your mind should be called "Common Law". That term is already taken and means something completely different to what you use it for.
"There is little doubt Mike Masnick will burn in hell..."*
So you believe crap laws will magically stop copyright infringement without doing any harm to the internet, and you believe in Hell. Are there any other fantasies you blindly believe in without any rational explanation or proof?
I'm not sure how being charged with an offence, in this case destruction of evidence, is "toss[ing] out the whole of Western Law". Being charged with a crime is in fact Step 1 in most systems of "Western Law", whatever the hell that actually means.
Re: You don't know the truth are just smearing cops because hate
"Now, what's so difficult to believe that a 2nd person goes insane after first starts struggling?"
Most people would find that very difficult to believe without something solid to explain it. People don't just "go insane" and commit suicide as an immediate reaction to a stressful situation.
"Young people these days think they don't have to obey any laws at all."
Ignoring the grotesquely ridiculous and inaccurate generalization, what does that even have to do with this situation?
"And it's physically possible."
For most people it would be extremely difficult or practically impossible. Do you know something about this woman's physicality that we don't that would explain why she was able to?
"You don't even guess at a reason for police to shoot her."
So which is it you want Tim to do? Take a wild guess at an alternative explanation or "do some journalism"?
So just so we're clear, you're perfectly ok with someone dying in police custody in extremely unusual and unlikely circumstances, will accept any story form the police without and independent investigation, and anyone suggesting the official account might not be entirely truthful is a "punk". Sounds like the criticism is hitting a little close to home.
Your logic is not valid. If I throw a handful of sand at a crowd of people, that fact that I did not hit everyone with the same amount of sand does not suggest I deliberately aimed at the people I did hit.
Actually that labor is worth only as much as each individual decides it's worth. If you want to be paid more, then make content that more people want to pay for.
You're right, there is no contest. Both are valuable to users and nobody except those with vested interests and a lack of intelligence wants to pick one over the other.
"...we'll take away the right of the artist to make their own choices, and simply give all their money to the tech giants."
That would be a terrible thing to be happening. Lucky it's not even close to the truth. Artists have more choices available to them than ever before and can make more money than ever before. That's exactly why the legacy companies are freaking out and convincing gullible and/or corrupt politicians that Something Must Be Done.
"The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. You don't have to demonstrate that you weren't doing anything wrong; they have to prove that you were."
Yeah, in court, as you rack up thousands in legal fees.
"Maybe it's just me, but if I had some scammer try and come after me, and I became aware that it was a scam, I'd be proverbially licking my lips as I prepared to tear their entire world apart in court."
Well, I'm really impressed that you're ostensibly rich enough to be able to have that derring-do attitude to legal combat, but also disappointed you're apparently so out of touch with how most people live that you don't realise how financially damaging it could be. Or you're just an internet big-talker.
On the post: EU Puts An End To The Open Internet: Link Taxes And Filters Approved By Just 5 Votes
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Any time you use the words "eliminating piracy" you're immediately on a fool's errand. The investment required to do so has rapidly diminishing returns. You only have to look at the decades of effort put into it that have achieved relatively little.
The only thing that has proven to be consistently effective is listening to your customers and meeting their needs. Anti-piracy laws do not ever do that. Legitimate customers invariably end up worse off, money is wasted, piracy continues.
Like most people I consumed a mix of legitimate and infringing content, but since the likes of Netflix and Spotify came along that infringing component has shrunk considerably. Laws did not change this. Moralizing advertising campaigns did not change this. Bleating from grotesquely corrupt studios and labels did not change this. Innovative and reasonably priced services did, because they meet my needs better than piracy even though I have to pay for them.
On the post: EU Puts An End To The Open Internet: Link Taxes And Filters Approved By Just 5 Votes
Re: Re:
"My hope is that Article 13 will be enforced logically, not overburden any sites, allow for swift review of blocked content, etc..."
Why don't you just hope for something far likelier and easy to achieve, like world peace or reversing climate change.
On the post: New Zealand Censors Declare Christchurch Shooting Footage Illegal; Start Rounding Up Violators
Re: authoritarian impulse
"... current NZ Government seems decidedly authoritarian."
Not even close.
On the post: New Zealand Censors Declare Christchurch Shooting Footage Illegal; Start Rounding Up Violators
Re: Options
"Canada also does not have freedom of speech, unlike the USA."
Why do people say nonsense like this?! Many, many countries, including Canada, have freedom of speech enshrined into constitutions, bills of rights, laws, etc. Just because they're not named "The First Amendment" doesn't make them any less important.
On the post: Sheriff Decides The Best Way To Prep Teachers For School Shootings Is To Frighten And Injure Them
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Couple of questions for you then. (1) What, aside from the lack of burst or auto fire, makes the AR-15 not a military weapon considering it's developed directly from a military weapon, and (2) in the context of using one for a mass shooting what exactly makes "most hunting rifles" more dangerous than an AR-15?
On the post: MEPs Realizing How Bad Article 13 Could Be, Begin To Back Away From EU Copyright Directive
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, MM: who "authorizes" the censorin
We're all still wondering why you came to describe "laws" that are entirely a fiction from the depths of your mind should be called "Common Law". That term is already taken and means something completely different to what you use it for.
On the post: Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Article posted at 0013 pacific
"There is little doubt Mike Masnick will burn in hell..."*
So you believe crap laws will magically stop copyright infringement without doing any harm to the internet, and you believe in Hell. Are there any other fantasies you blindly believe in without any rational explanation or proof?
On the post: Rep. Devin Nunes Sues Internet Cow For Saying Mean Things About Him Online
Re: Re: Re: One person doesn't make The Law:
Loosen your tin foil hat, it's making your eyes bulge.
On the post: Rep. Devin Nunes Sues Internet Cow For Saying Mean Things About Him Online
Re: Re: Re:
"So the whole point was to make sure that tech companies don't have to follow the rules other companies have to follow."
Um, CDA 230 is the rules that all companies have to follow. It's an actual law and everything.
On the post: Officer's Body Cam Fails To Capture Footage Of Woman Shooting Herself In The Head While Her Hands Were Cuffed Behind Her
Re: Re: Cams
I'm not sure how being charged with an offence, in this case destruction of evidence, is "toss[ing] out the whole of Western Law". Being charged with a crime is in fact Step 1 in most systems of "Western Law", whatever the hell that actually means.
On the post: Officer's Body Cam Fails To Capture Footage Of Woman Shooting Herself In The Head While Her Hands Were Cuffed Behind Her
Re: You don't know the truth are just smearing cops because hate
"Now, what's so difficult to believe that a 2nd person goes insane after first starts struggling?"
Most people would find that very difficult to believe without something solid to explain it. People don't just "go insane" and commit suicide as an immediate reaction to a stressful situation.
"Young people these days think they don't have to obey any laws at all."
Ignoring the grotesquely ridiculous and inaccurate generalization, what does that even have to do with this situation?
"And it's physically possible."
For most people it would be extremely difficult or practically impossible. Do you know something about this woman's physicality that we don't that would explain why she was able to?
"You don't even guess at a reason for police to shoot her."
So which is it you want Tim to do? Take a wild guess at an alternative explanation or "do some journalism"?
So just so we're clear, you're perfectly ok with someone dying in police custody in extremely unusual and unlikely circumstances, will accept any story form the police without and independent investigation, and anyone suggesting the official account might not be entirely truthful is a "punk". Sounds like the criticism is hitting a little close to home.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 203: Crying Wolf Over Conservative Censorship
Re: Re: Re:
Your logic is not valid. If I throw a handful of sand at a crowd of people, that fact that I did not hit everyone with the same amount of sand does not suggest I deliberately aimed at the people I did hit.
On the post: Disaster In The Making: Article 13 Puts User Rights At A Disadvantage To Corporate Greed
Re: Re:
"That labor is not worthless."
Actually that labor is worth only as much as each individual decides it's worth. If you want to be paid more, then make content that more people want to pay for.
On the post: It Sure Sounds Like Elizabeth Warren Wants To Bring The EU Copyright Directive Stateside
Re: Re: Re:
You're right, there is no contest. Both are valuable to users and nobody except those with vested interests and a lack of intelligence wants to pick one over the other.
On the post: It Sure Sounds Like Elizabeth Warren Wants To Bring The EU Copyright Directive Stateside
Re: Re: Re:
"...we'll take away the right of the artist to make their own choices, and simply give all their money to the tech giants."
That would be a terrible thing to be happening. Lucky it's not even close to the truth. Artists have more choices available to them than ever before and can make more money than ever before. That's exactly why the legacy companies are freaking out and convincing gullible and/or corrupt politicians that Something Must Be Done.
On the post: One Person's Unsettling Experience With A $20k Higbee Copyright Troll Demand Letter
Re:
"The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. You don't have to demonstrate that you weren't doing anything wrong; they have to prove that you were."
Yeah, in court, as you rack up thousands in legal fees.
"Maybe it's just me, but if I had some scammer try and come after me, and I became aware that it was a scam, I'd be proverbially licking my lips as I prepared to tear their entire world apart in court."
Well, I'm really impressed that you're ostensibly rich enough to be able to have that derring-do attitude to legal combat, but also disappointed you're apparently so out of touch with how most people live that you don't realise how financially damaging it could be. Or you're just an internet big-talker.
On the post: Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation
Re:
"A red hat isn't automatically racist no matter how moronic a president is."
You really think it's the color of the hats that was the issue here? You that ignorant?
On the post: Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To be fair your stance deserves a little mockery. It's like you've never heard the phrase 'breaking news' before.
On the post: Deputies Sued After False ALPR Hit Leads To Guns-Out Traffic Stop Of California Privacy Activist
Re: Re: Re: NOT "wrongfully" detained, merely database mistake.
"The fault lies with the rental car agency for failing to report the vehicle as recovered."
You don't know that they didn't.
On the post: Fatal Houston PD Drug Raid Apparently Predicated On Drugs A Cop Had Stashed In His Car
Re: Love he idea..
I think it's safe to say you don't know how sewer systems work and you've watched too many movies featuring 'knock-out' gas.
Next >>