Simple question: who does the fact-checking of Wikileaks documents? Is it Wikileaks itself, or is the work outsourced to other news organisations such as The NY Times, El Spiegel and The Guardian?
And one more thing. Should someone start posting fake leaks, will the buck stop with Wikileaks, or will everyone start asking the obvious: WHO is uploading fake leaks and WHY?
There are dozens of Wikileaks clones, including many new ones being created by reputable news organisations! Should Wikileaks lose credibility, others will quickly rise to take its place -- and they'll have learned from Wikileaks' mistakes.
That's what you don't seem to understand: you don't look at Anonymous, leak-sites, P2P etc as ideologies, you look at the individual manifestations/implementations of those ideologies and think that if the those can be destroyed, the ideologies will be destroyed.
But their strength is in numbers. Perhaps you can take 4chan, Wikileaks and TPB off the internet, but that won't kill the ideologies behind them -- the people are still there, and the problems those people have with the current state of affairs are only made worse.
Think about it. Is there a way to convince the people in Anonymous that Mubarak is actually good for Egypt? Is there a way to convince whistleblowers that leaking torture accounts is a bad thing? Is there a way to make pirates less disillusioned with copyright law?
Re: I haven't really crunched any numbers but ....
I think it'll happen eventually, but it may not even happen in our lifetimes. Perhaps it all depends on what strategy China decides to use to usurp the US's position...
"The manufacturing sector works perfectly, except for one very basic problem: US workers are unwilling to work for $1 an hour."
Hello? You are in a country with 10% unemployment and about 15% of the population living below the poverty line. People want the work!
The strength of the dollar as a reserve currency has made it cheaper for companies to invest outside the country and import more. Exports are suffering for the same reason. Your most recent governments have done nothing to mitigate the problems, leading to the death of your manufacturing sector.
"The US is not a producer nation of hardgoods for the most part"
Which is why wasting time propping up IP with more and more draconian laws is precisely the wrong strategy.
Fix your manufacturing sector if you really care about your country's long-term economic viability, because the IP bubble could pop any time just like the housing bubble did!
As for the lobbyists, they are the ones working to convince your government to ignore basic economics and go for more and more enforcement. You cannot possibly claim the lobbyists have no impact on your government's decisions -- if they had no impact, then they and their multi-million dollar campaigns wouldn't exist in the first place!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could invoke a law change
Violate? No. But that we have laws that can be so easily abused, against virtually anyone on the internet, has a major chilling effect on how people choose to express themselves.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could invoke a law change
I don't know how it works in the US, but afaik in the UK it's legal to film on private property, but if cameras are not allowed and they catch you, they are legally allowed to throw you out for trespassing.
Or, would a shameless copyright maximalist* such as yourself have the audacity to claim that quoting part of an article on the Democratic Underground forums justifiably warrants the invocation of copyright law?
* Really, just a wannabe lawyer who wishes the litigation never ends.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could invoke a law change
"Did you watch the super bowl?"
No.
"Without the ability to sell the broadcast rights, without the ability to sell advertising"
BS.
Selling live broadcast rights is a matter of who you let bring a camera crew through the door, which is not a matter of copyright but a matter of contract law.
The ability to sell advertising is amplified by broadcasting to a wider audience, because advertisers get more bang for their buck. Limiting views also limits your ability to sell advertising (and merchandise).
"those are all things that allow content creators to earn income from their product"
Copyright is ONE of the ways to do that, but not THE way. In today's world copyright is certainly the most intrusive way to remunerate creators.
"Did you go see a movie lately? Watch network or cable TV? Did you download something?"
Actually, no. I don't like to waste much time on things like that. I do download open source software and visit techdirt and twitter and such, but I couldn't claim those exist because of copyright. Actually, I could say they exist in spite of it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could invoke a law change
Oh please. Copyright is a suspension of the rights of the many to grant a privilege to the few.
That's entirely based on the assumptions that creation needs incentives from the government, and that the privilege granted won't interfere too much with the rights of the public (with computers and the internet, definitely no longer the case).
Yes. It's a law that tells me which files I'm not allowed to copy, because that makes a lot of sense in this day and age.
"Aren't people in fact incentivized to create via copyright"
[citation needed]
"and don't we all enjoy really nice things thanks to copyright?"
Copyright lets you enjoy the art that some corporate execs decided is worth releasing. Meanwhile, there's about a hundred years worth of culture rotting away because people copyright prevents us from copying it.
"I enjoyed the Super Bowl last night, brought to me via copyright"
Wasn't it advertising?
"I'm enjoying some tunes right now on MOG, brought to me via copyright."
Streaming services are essentially a hack to get around the interference of copyright with users' ability to make copies. Moreover, the actual artists make no money from streaming even though streaming services pay through their nose for licensing content from the labels.
"The joys of copyright are all around us."
Quoth the copyright fanboi, who is looking forward to a career in copyright litigation and hopes the current preposterous situation lasts forever for him to take advantage of.
Re: Re: Re: Re: This word you keep using, Google does not think it means what you think it means
You missed my point, I think. Perhaps you want to read the conversation between me and Marcus Carab in the previous related article.
"User searches for a word or phrase in Google or any other search engine and then clicks on links A, B, and F (having decided that C, D, and E are just blog spam)."
But what miraculous process put relevant results in positions A, B and F? Google's algorithm, we can presume. If another search engine copies the results of the algorithm, it means they can fake improved search performance but don't know how it was actually done. They improve their search, but contribute nothing to the users or to search engine technology -- not innovation, in my opinion.
"using a bullshit scenario that would never happen in real life they were only able to trick Bing a whopping 6% of the time."
Which means Bing couldn't absorb all the data the 20 engineers were feeding it and nothing else. As to why, it's anybody's guess. My guesses are, it's either to keep the sparse document vectors smaller (by ignoring rarer terms) and thus cut costs, or maybe they were clever enough to have a safeguard so spammers can't exploit their exploit and Google-bomb them (literally) with fake/dangerous websites for common terms.
Re: Re: This word you keep using, Google does not think it means what you think it means
And yes, "counterfeited" is a loaded word, but I can't think of a word that applies to this situation.
It's not copying in the traditional sense, it's not counterfeiting and it's definitely not stealing.. "Cheating" and "plagiarism" are the only words that I can think of that sound harmless enough to describe this, but even they are overkill.
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Wants More Censorship, More IP Protectionism
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Come on guys, no need to get riled up over a missing sarcasm tag :)
On the post: Leaked HBGary Documents Show Plan To Spread Wikileaks Propaganda For BofA... And 'Attack' Glenn Greenwald
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Leaked HBGary Documents Show Plan To Spread Wikileaks Propaganda For BofA... And 'Attack' Glenn Greenwald
Re: Re: Re:
And one more thing. Should someone start posting fake leaks, will the buck stop with Wikileaks, or will everyone start asking the obvious: WHO is uploading fake leaks and WHY?
On the post: Leaked HBGary Documents Show Plan To Spread Wikileaks Propaganda For BofA... And 'Attack' Glenn Greenwald
Re: Re: Re:
That's what you don't seem to understand: you don't look at Anonymous, leak-sites, P2P etc as ideologies, you look at the individual manifestations/implementations of those ideologies and think that if the those can be destroyed, the ideologies will be destroyed.
But their strength is in numbers. Perhaps you can take 4chan, Wikileaks and TPB off the internet, but that won't kill the ideologies behind them -- the people are still there, and the problems those people have with the current state of affairs are only made worse.
Think about it. Is there a way to convince the people in Anonymous that Mubarak is actually good for Egypt? Is there a way to convince whistleblowers that leaking torture accounts is a bad thing? Is there a way to make pirates less disillusioned with copyright law?
On the post: EU: ACTA Is A Binding Treaty; US: ACTA Is Neither Binding, Nor A Treaty
Re: I haven't really crunched any numbers but ....
On the post: IP Czar Report Hits On All The Lobbyist Talking Points; Warns Of More Draconian Copyright Laws To Come
Re: Re:
On the post: IP Czar Report Hits On All The Lobbyist Talking Points; Warns Of More Draconian Copyright Laws To Come
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: IP Czar Report Hits On All The Lobbyist Talking Points; Warns Of More Draconian Copyright Laws To Come
Re: Re: Re:
Hello? You are in a country with 10% unemployment and about 15% of the population living below the poverty line. People want the work!
The strength of the dollar as a reserve currency has made it cheaper for companies to invest outside the country and import more. Exports are suffering for the same reason. Your most recent governments have done nothing to mitigate the problems, leading to the death of your manufacturing sector.
As for the "IP bubble" concept, see here.
On the post: IP Czar Report Hits On All The Lobbyist Talking Points; Warns Of More Draconian Copyright Laws To Come
Re:
Which is why wasting time propping up IP with more and more draconian laws is precisely the wrong strategy.
Fix your manufacturing sector if you really care about your country's long-term economic viability, because the IP bubble could pop any time just like the housing bubble did!
As for the lobbyists, they are the ones working to convince your government to ignore basic economics and go for more and more enforcement. You cannot possibly claim the lobbyists have no impact on your government's decisions -- if they had no impact, then they and their multi-million dollar campaigns wouldn't exist in the first place!
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could invoke a law change
It's an immoral lawyer's wet dream.
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could invoke a law change
So what you are arguing is offtopic, sorry.
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could invoke a law change
http://righthavenvictims.blogspot.com/
Or, would a shameless copyright maximalist* such as yourself have the audacity to claim that quoting part of an article on the Democratic Underground forums justifiably warrants the invocation of copyright law?
* Really, just a wannabe lawyer who wishes the litigation never ends.
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could invoke a law change
No.
"Without the ability to sell the broadcast rights, without the ability to sell advertising"
BS.
Selling live broadcast rights is a matter of who you let bring a camera crew through the door, which is not a matter of copyright but a matter of contract law.
The ability to sell advertising is amplified by broadcasting to a wider audience, because advertisers get more bang for their buck. Limiting views also limits your ability to sell advertising (and merchandise).
"those are all things that allow content creators to earn income from their product"
Copyright is ONE of the ways to do that, but not THE way. In today's world copyright is certainly the most intrusive way to remunerate creators.
"Did you go see a movie lately? Watch network or cable TV? Did you download something?"
Actually, no. I don't like to waste much time on things like that. I do download open source software and visit techdirt and twitter and such, but I couldn't claim those exist because of copyright. Actually, I could say they exist in spite of it.
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could invoke a law change
That's entirely based on the assumptions that creation needs incentives from the government, and that the privilege granted won't interfere too much with the rights of the public (with computers and the internet, definitely no longer the case).
Your bias is that you are convinced the need for copyright is self-evident, while most people here are highly skeptical about that.
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Could invoke a law change
Yes. It's a law that tells me which files I'm not allowed to copy, because that makes a lot of sense in this day and age.
"Aren't people in fact incentivized to create via copyright"
[citation needed]
"and don't we all enjoy really nice things thanks to copyright?"
Copyright lets you enjoy the art that some corporate execs decided is worth releasing. Meanwhile, there's about a hundred years worth of culture rotting away because people copyright prevents us from copying it.
"I enjoyed the Super Bowl last night, brought to me via copyright"
Wasn't it advertising?
"I'm enjoying some tunes right now on MOG, brought to me via copyright."
Streaming services are essentially a hack to get around the interference of copyright with users' ability to make copies. Moreover, the actual artists make no money from streaming even though streaming services pay through their nose for licensing content from the labels.
"The joys of copyright are all around us."
Quoth the copyright fanboi, who is looking forward to a career in copyright litigation and hopes the current preposterous situation lasts forever for him to take advantage of.
On the post: Mass P2P Porn Lawyer Tries Filing A Class Action Lawsuit... In Reverse
Legal innovation
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
On the post: Microsoft Highlights Why Google's 'Cheater' Accusations Ring Hollow
Re: Re: Re: Re: This word you keep using, Google does not think it means what you think it means
"User searches for a word or phrase in Google or any other search engine and then clicks on links A, B, and F (having decided that C, D, and E are just blog spam)."
But what miraculous process put relevant results in positions A, B and F? Google's algorithm, we can presume. If another search engine copies the results of the algorithm, it means they can fake improved search performance but don't know how it was actually done. They improve their search, but contribute nothing to the users or to search engine technology -- not innovation, in my opinion.
"using a bullshit scenario that would never happen in real life they were only able to trick Bing a whopping 6% of the time."
Which means Bing couldn't absorb all the data the 20 engineers were feeding it and nothing else. As to why, it's anybody's guess. My guesses are, it's either to keep the sparse document vectors smaller (by ignoring rarer terms) and thus cut costs, or maybe they were clever enough to have a safeguard so spammers can't exploit their exploit and Google-bomb them (literally) with fake/dangerous websites for common terms.
On the post: Music Publisher Discovers A Song In Its Catalog Has Been Heavily Sampled For Decades... Sues Everyone
Can anyone find any info on "Drive-In Music"? It seems non-existent, except for this lawsuit.
On the post: Microsoft Highlights Why Google's 'Cheater' Accusations Ring Hollow
Re: Re: This word you keep using, Google does not think it means what you think it means
It's not copying in the traditional sense, it's not counterfeiting and it's definitely not stealing.. "Cheating" and "plagiarism" are the only words that I can think of that sound harmless enough to describe this, but even they are overkill.
Next >>