"Then you are an idiot, because you don't even truly understand what you support."
You're not being very helpful here, even by the low standards I've come to expect. Please could you tell us why you believe he doesn't truly understand what he supports? You might want to start by telling us what you believe he supports. Also of use would be whether you believe the above examples constitute piracy or not.
I went onto YouTube to find out more about the singer in "My Favorite Color" and noticed her comment on the remix, thanking Kutiman. Here's hoping she keeps that attitude if she becomes successful.
"If you had actually been around earlier on the internet, you would remember the tilde accounts that were very common at the start (domain.com/~Username), which were the personal areas of users of a given internet service"
Which were user's sites. In terms of the web, a site is pretty much a collection of related html documents. I have to wonder what your definition is and why you believe it is more relevant than the one everyone else uses.
'People can call them "sites", but really they are just cover addresses, a redirection'
Yes, there is a distinction between a DNS address, or a http server path, and a site. What you haven't explained is why that distinction matters where Mike is using the word. We already know that the domains were seized rather than the actual html files (it's even in the headline). But using the word site also tells us that the domains were referring to separate sites.
"From both a logical and technical standpoint, these were 84,000 DNS entries created by mooo.com. They were not much else."
Except for pointing to 84,000 separate websites, many owned by different people.
"it's to give them the less channels possible to advertise"
In the case of prostitution, how does that make anyone safer? The ones who stop just because they can't advertise on Craigslist are unlikely to be the ones most at risk. Those who don't stop will have less choice in how to advertise, potentially making them less safe.
"Because if prostitutes can't advertise, they can't get business, they can't be profitable, and the profession dries up."
As you point out, this is a flawed premise. Prostitution was around before Craigslist, but prostitutes were more likely to be walking the streets. Advertising via Craigslist would seem to me to be safer than walking the streets. Prostitution in itself is not a safety issue, but it has a lot of safety issues associated with it. Giving prostitutes more power to choose who they have contact with seems like a better way to deal with some of those issues than banning prostitution, which makes the issues worse for those who ignore the ban.
"Point taken, but IMHO subtlety is overrated in this case. Ugly behaviour begets ugly comment."
I get very emotional about these issues so I find it important to focus on what might achieve something rather than what makes me feel better. I'm fine with calling the guy names, but campaigns can become overly aggressive and do more harm than good if restraint isn't exercised (just look at PETA's attempts to make people feel guilty; I haven't noticed a positive effect but I have noticed people making fun of not eating meat).
'Ah... I was unaware of Charlie Sheen's violence issues. Apologies on the misunderstanding. My comment was directed entirely on the topic of "hookers n blow".'
No problem. I'm amazed that the guy is more notorious for two non issues than for being violent and abusive.
"Nobody's being forced to participate in Sheen's celebrations/self destruction."
That's not the issue, the issue is him being violent. Are you suggesting that his violence is mitigated by their choice to go near him? If so then can I use that as a defence against hitting misogynists? After all, if they come near someone who hates them then the violence doesn't really count.
"For some inexplicable reason, a womens' rights group is up in arms about Sheen's activities."
For activities read: allegedly hitting a girl in the head for refusing to have sex in 1994; allegedly knocking out and threatening to kill his then-girlfriend in 1996; allegedly throwing chairs at and threatening numerous times to kill his then-wife in 2006; allegedly strangling, holding a knife to the throat of, and threatening to kill his then-wife in 2009; allegedly put his hands around the neck of and threatening to kill a paid companion in 2010; and now allegedly threatening one of his ex wives again. Inexplicable indeed.
"The message from the womens' rights group is ambiguous at best"
Please expand on this statement.
"their goal is laughable as they are apparently attempting to stem the tide of popular culture."
So, you agree that popular culture encourages violence against women, yet find it laughable that people should try and change that?
"(PS - I try to make it a point to only harass AC shills, we cool?)"
I'm just discussing the issue. I'm perfectly fine with you disagreeing with me.
"Why doesn't she make a more blunt statement by pointing out the obvious: Mr. Sheen likes to beat up girls?"
Well, I'm no expert on defamation laws... but I'd start there. I prefer Kate's approach anyway as it's more likely to engage people. They're more likely to ask 'What do you have against Charlie?' than dismiss you as a walking billboard.
"Problem is that Sheen wants the publicity, just not factual publicity."
To be fair, I think it is perfectly plausible that whoever is working for him just saw that the merchandise mentions him and took action based on that alone. Perhaps the Streisand effect will be enough to tutor them to be more concious of free speech issues in future.
For anyone, like me, whose knowledge of Charlie Sheen was limited to a description of 'that guy the media won't shut up about' it may help to hear what he's done to earn such scorn.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Re:
You're not being very helpful here, even by the low standards I've come to expect. Please could you tell us why you believe he doesn't truly understand what he supports? You might want to start by telling us what you believe he supports. Also of use would be whether you believe the above examples constitute piracy or not.
On the post: If This Is 'Piracy' Then I Support Piracy
Positive feedback from one of the artists
On the post: Top Hacker Rejects Job Offer From Sony Over PS3 Jailbreak Legal Strategy
Re: Um...
Having an unconventional greeting, an uninspired department name and poor grammar doesn't seem like compelling evidence that something is fake.
On the post: Defending The Indefensible: Lawyers Who Love Loopholes Ignoring Serious Constitutional Issues In Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re:
It pretty much means that the government has to follow the law and adhere to the rights of an individual.
On the post: Defending The Indefensible: Lawyers Who Love Loopholes Ignoring Serious Constitutional Issues In Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then stop complaining when Mike does it.
"If you had actually been around earlier on the internet, you would remember the tilde accounts that were very common at the start (domain.com/~Username), which were the personal areas of users of a given internet service"
Which were user's sites. In terms of the web, a site is pretty much a collection of related html documents. I have to wonder what your definition is and why you believe it is more relevant than the one everyone else uses.
'People can call them "sites", but really they are just cover addresses, a redirection'
Yes, there is a distinction between a DNS address, or a http server path, and a site. What you haven't explained is why that distinction matters where Mike is using the word. We already know that the domains were seized rather than the actual html files (it's even in the headline). But using the word site also tells us that the domains were referring to separate sites.
"From both a logical and technical standpoint, these were 84,000 DNS entries created by mooo.com. They were not much else."
Except for pointing to 84,000 separate websites, many owned by different people.
On the post: Some Free Letter-Writing Advice For America's Toughest Sheriff
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I find it ironic that the dignified institution of Canine Copulation is more humorous to me than dogfuckers and I couldn't care less about swearing.
On the post: Some Free Letter-Writing Advice For America's Toughest Sheriff
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bravo
In the case of prostitution, how does that make anyone safer? The ones who stop just because they can't advertise on Craigslist are unlikely to be the ones most at risk. Those who don't stop will have less choice in how to advertise, potentially making them less safe.
On the post: Some Free Letter-Writing Advice For America's Toughest Sheriff
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bravo
As you point out, this is a flawed premise. Prostitution was around before Craigslist, but prostitutes were more likely to be walking the streets. Advertising via Craigslist would seem to me to be safer than walking the streets. Prostitution in itself is not a safety issue, but it has a lot of safety issues associated with it. Giving prostitutes more power to choose who they have contact with seems like a better way to deal with some of those issues than banning prostitution, which makes the issues worse for those who ignore the ban.
On the post: Am I Violating The DMCA By Visiting The NYTimes With NoScript Enabled?
Re:
I imagine the problem was that all the competent programmers told them the idea was stupid.
On the post: Am I Violating The DMCA By Visiting The NYTimes With NoScript Enabled?
Inducement
Also, the site appears to work in Links, which suggests that accessibility software would also work without running up against the paywall.
On the post: Am I Violating The DMCA By Visiting The NYTimes With NoScript Enabled?
Unwittingly
On the post: Charlie Sheen Reps Claim Publicity Rights To Shut Down Group Critical Of Sheen's Treatment Of Women
Re: Re: Re: Ahh Carlos...such a fool...
I get very emotional about these issues so I find it important to focus on what might achieve something rather than what makes me feel better. I'm fine with calling the guy names, but campaigns can become overly aggressive and do more harm than good if restraint isn't exercised (just look at PETA's attempts to make people feel guilty; I haven't noticed a positive effect but I have noticed people making fun of not eating meat).
On the post: Charlie Sheen Reps Claim Publicity Rights To Shut Down Group Critical Of Sheen's Treatment Of Women
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I didn't see...
No problem. I'm amazed that the guy is more notorious for two non issues than for being violent and abusive.
On the post: Charlie Sheen Reps Claim Publicity Rights To Shut Down Group Critical Of Sheen's Treatment Of Women
Re: Re: Re: What I didn't see...
That's not the issue, the issue is him being violent. Are you suggesting that his violence is mitigated by their choice to go near him? If so then can I use that as a defence against hitting misogynists? After all, if they come near someone who hates them then the violence doesn't really count.
"For some inexplicable reason, a womens' rights group is up in arms about Sheen's activities."
For activities read: allegedly hitting a girl in the head for refusing to have sex in 1994; allegedly knocking out and threatening to kill his then-girlfriend in 1996; allegedly throwing chairs at and threatening numerous times to kill his then-wife in 2006; allegedly strangling, holding a knife to the throat of, and threatening to kill his then-wife in 2009; allegedly put his hands around the neck of and threatening to kill a paid companion in 2010; and now allegedly threatening one of his ex wives again. Inexplicable indeed.
"The message from the womens' rights group is ambiguous at best"
Please expand on this statement.
"their goal is laughable as they are apparently attempting to stem the tide of popular culture."
So, you agree that popular culture encourages violence against women, yet find it laughable that people should try and change that?
"(PS - I try to make it a point to only harass AC shills, we cool?)"
I'm just discussing the issue. I'm perfectly fine with you disagreeing with me.
On the post: Charlie Sheen Reps Claim Publicity Rights To Shut Down Group Critical Of Sheen's Treatment Of Women
Re: Ahh Carlos...such a fool...
Well, I'm no expert on defamation laws... but I'd start there. I prefer Kate's approach anyway as it's more likely to engage people. They're more likely to ask 'What do you have against Charlie?' than dismiss you as a walking billboard.
On the post: Charlie Sheen Reps Claim Publicity Rights To Shut Down Group Critical Of Sheen's Treatment Of Women
Re: Re: What's it all about
To be fair, I think it is perfectly plausible that whoever is working for him just saw that the merchandise mentions him and took action based on that alone. Perhaps the Streisand effect will be enough to tutor them to be more concious of free speech issues in future.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Owning an idea
Why five years, please?
On the post: Charlie Sheen Reps Claim Publicity Rights To Shut Down Group Critical Of Sheen's Treatment Of Women
Re: What I didn't see...
On the post: Some Free Letter-Writing Advice For America's Toughest Sheriff
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bravo
How does disallowing the advertising of prostitution make anyone safer?
On the post: Charlie Sheen Reps Claim Publicity Rights To Shut Down Group Critical Of Sheen's Treatment Of Women
What's it all about
To that end I have found a clear piece from Jezabel detailing his 'exploits'; and two pieces from the NYT (whoops, I guess I don't have javascript on) about perceptions of the women involved and the lack of reaction by his employer.
Also of interest may be this observation from a feminist.
Here's hoping the attempted misuse of publicity rights bites him in the ass so hard that the Streisand effect gets renamed to the Sheen effect.
Next >>