I think this is the best argument against the original assertion above. It is at best silly to argue that people need IP monopolies as an incentive to innovate. It completely ignores years and years of history, where such protections did not exist.
Here's the thing. Paywalls may work for some sites and those sites will have to be content with a very lo-growth population of users. But it will never work for all because the economics don't work out--people aren't going to pay for access to everything, they won't even pay for access to most things. They'll pay for access to one or two things.
So, as long as the content providers are willing to accept that along with the pendulum swinging completely the other way, that many of them will go under (for the good of the market, of course), all will be well.
And your profile name hasn't been changed because...
I mean Dark Helmet has history, but Awesomeballs McVagina Cheese has well, Awesomeballs and McVagina Cheese.
Regarding your first post, I'm with you. The moment I can tell that a robocall is starting or about to start, I either press delete on my voicemail or make them eat dialtone.
Whew, and I thought you were going to tell me that a judge was just going to guess at why I forwarded a particular link. Instead, they are going to read my mind to determine why.
Now that I know there will be 100% accuracy, I'll have no qualms whatsoever about communicating with other people about topics that might stray into the realm of defamation.
Good point. I mean think about it, what format does a classroom setting follow when studying a book? You read it, then DISCUSS it in the class. How is interacting on the Internet any different? People are reading and absorbing information and then attempting to gain deeper understanding through discourse.
Yes, there is a lot of chaff, and many people are not seeking understanding, only yelling, but Carr's claim doesn't pass the smell test.
Good point. The tabloids should be submitting amicus briefs because a win here would very likely become the template for celebrities restricting free press (of course, only when they didn't like the press/attention they're getting).
All of which is Habbo's problem. Habbo created the world, Habbo created the terms of service, Habbo created the economy. If there is monetary harm that is inflicted on someone due to activities that occur in that environment--the problem is Habbo's.
Are we going to investigate someone for murder if they kill someone's character in the game? Remember, that character (and their belongings) cost money. I'll help... the answer is absolutely not.
Well said. This is what frustrates so much about TAM--I don't care if he or others disagree, in fact, I'm very interested in different perspectives.
Unfortunately, he, technopolitical, etc. offer no thoughtful counterarguments. They only offer fallacious interpretations that literally ignore facts and logic. It worries me that there are people that don't see through their rhetorical tricks. If Mike said 2+2=4, TAM would still figure out some way to deflect and distract: Mike isn't a mathematician, not if we assume 2=3, there is no spoon, the cake is a lie, etc.
I'm convinced that TAM was not only a former lawyer, but also foreign counterintelligence.
If you have proof that it is a moral panic, then present it.
Otherwise, your post is a hand-waving tactic intended to distract. You could make your point about EVERY single article ever written, because no third party ever has all of the facts.
In fact, I could say this about every point you have ever made... TAMs posts are easy to create, but posts that have substantiated facts are quite another.
It absolutely is ad hominem. You attacked his writing style, not the content of the article.
The folks here are defensive of Mike, not necessarily the issues at hand. If you debated content rather than style, you would find the forum much more welcoming.
Don't get distracted by folks like TAM who try to spin the debate as being one-sided and close-minded. Notice that *never* do they present an opposing view that includes sound logic or evidence. They simply throw names and belittle everyone hoping that no one will see through their efforts.
On the post: Major Labels Begin Major Astroturfing Campaign To Get 3 Strikes In The US
Re:
- Imply large numbers of citizenry are contacting you
- Create organization that is associated with your movement, but does not openly declare to be
I'd say you point fails on both counts. It's not astroturfing if there isn't an organization pretending to be something its not.
But you knew that.
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re:
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re:
On the post: Financial Times Looks To Put Its Blogs Behind Paywalls Too
Re: Re:
On the post: Financial Times Looks To Put Its Blogs Behind Paywalls Too
Re:
So, as long as the content providers are willing to accept that along with the pendulum swinging completely the other way, that many of them will go under (for the good of the market, of course), all will be well.
On the post: California Judge In Charge Of Enforcing Laws Against Robocalls, Using Robocalls Herself
Re:
On the post: The Government And Silicon Valley: Lead, Follow Or Get Out Of The Way?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: California Judge In Charge Of Enforcing Laws Against Robocalls, Using Robocalls Herself
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean Dark Helmet has history, but Awesomeballs McVagina Cheese has well, Awesomeballs and McVagina Cheese.
Regarding your first post, I'm with you. The moment I can tell that a robocall is starting or about to start, I either press delete on my voicemail or make them eat dialtone.
On the post: Defining Success: Were The RIAA's Lawsuits A Success Or Not?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Terrible Ruling: Forwarding A Link Can Be Considered Defamation
Re:
Now that I know there will be 100% accuracy, I'll have no qualms whatsoever about communicating with other people about topics that might stray into the realm of defamation.
No chilling effects here, thank goodness.
On the post: Bulgarian Chess Tournament Organizers Sue Website For Reporting Chess Moves, Claim Copyright Infringement
Re:
On the post: Is The Internet Making People Dumber... Or Is Nick Carr Reminiscing For Days That Never Existed
Re:
Yes, there is a lot of chaff, and many people are not seeking understanding, only yelling, but Carr's claim doesn't pass the smell test.
On the post: Convicted Serial Rapist Goes To Court To Forbid Newspapers From Reporting On His Whereabouts
Re: Why is this any different ....
On the post: Yet Again, Real Police Called Into Virtual World Over (Not Really) Theft Of Virtual Items
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are we going to investigate someone for murder if they kill someone's character in the game? Remember, that character (and their belongings) cost money. I'll help... the answer is absolutely not.
Civil complaint, not criminal, sorry.
On the post: EFF, Public Citizen And ACLU Ask Judge To Quash Mass Subpoenas From US Copyright Group
Re: Re: Re:
Unfortunately, he, technopolitical, etc. offer no thoughtful counterarguments. They only offer fallacious interpretations that literally ignore facts and logic. It worries me that there are people that don't see through their rhetorical tricks. If Mike said 2+2=4, TAM would still figure out some way to deflect and distract: Mike isn't a mathematician, not if we assume 2=3, there is no spoon, the cake is a lie, etc.
I'm convinced that TAM was not only a former lawyer, but also foreign counterintelligence.
On the post: Would A Moron In A Hurry Be Confused Between A Huge Luxury Retailer And A Small Roadside Cafe?
Re: Hollands Cafe: Your Luxury Destination For Beauty, Fragrance, & Meatloaf
On the post: Patents Now Getting In The Way Of Important Brain Research
Re:
Otherwise, your post is a hand-waving tactic intended to distract. You could make your point about EVERY single article ever written, because no third party ever has all of the facts.
In fact, I could say this about every point you have ever made... TAMs posts are easy to create, but posts that have substantiated facts are quite another.
On the post: James Murdoch Lectures On Copyright, But Still Seems Confused
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Debate... (part 2)
The folks here are defensive of Mike, not necessarily the issues at hand. If you debated content rather than style, you would find the forum much more welcoming.
Don't get distracted by folks like TAM who try to spin the debate as being one-sided and close-minded. Notice that *never* do they present an opposing view that includes sound logic or evidence. They simply throw names and belittle everyone hoping that no one will see through their efforts.
On the post: James Murdoch Lectures On Copyright, But Still Seems Confused
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Debate... (part 2)
Oh, and if you keep using that word, you're going to go blind.
On the post: Company Sues MPEG-LA, Claiming Antitrust Violations Over Patents
Re: Re:
Next >>