The Google story is not that interesting. Some junior employee vents his sexist and racist feelings by trying to dress them up in transparent language, shares them with whole company, gets fired. Pretty straightforward. I dunno about you, but I've never had a job where I could have told all of my bosses and coworkers that I think women and racial minorities are biologically inferior without some pretty serious HR consequences.
Notice that the twitter account says HuffPo "spoke to 14 sources" but not that "14 sources confirmed" anything.
Perhaps you should go beyond the Twitter account, and read the actual article being sued over, which explains the nature of the sources and what they said in much greater detail.
OK settle down there genius. If you knew anything about the subject, you'd know it isn't always so easy to sum up a complex free speech question in eight words.
Protesting a speaker is absolutely free speech. At what point does that become "preventing" them from speaking? Wait - is it up to them? Like if a speaker leaves saying they feel uncomfortable because of 5 people in the back chanting, were they now "prevented" from speaking?
And how, exactly, is students protesting a speaker a violation of free speech, while creating rules to stop those students from protesting isn't?
Absolutist oversimplifications are not helpful here.
Think about it: would anyone have cared about the photo if he said he took it? I mean sure, it's a nice shot, but the only thing that truly *stands out* about it is the fact that it's the "monkey selfie". I can hardly imagine the world being swept by viral headlines about "Nature Photographer Takes Kinda Cool Photo Of Monkey"
He may want to have it both ways (photo made famous for being a monkey selfie, but belongs to him) but he can't.
Nah, in Soundcloud's case the original download format is preserved for the direct file link (though it's probably converted for *streaming*).
We have thought about using Opus, but it just hasn't seemed like there's significant enough demand for it. It's not as widely compatible as MP3 (we would likely still want to retain the main RSS feed as MP3, and Soundcloud doesn't let you offer multiple formats) and, as JoeCool noted, one of the main reasons we would ditch MP3 (patented technology) has disappeared.
We're totally open to offering an Opus version if there's a significant demand, but so far that hasn't really seemed to be the case.
Yup, the difference in headlines between the Linux/GNU communities and the rest of the web has been amusing. One side is all "MP3s are now free!" and the other is all "MP3s are now dead!"
Sure, yes, the other definition of peaceful is "tranquil".
If you want it to be the government's business to ensure everyone is tranquil all the time, fine. I'll pass, though. I'd rather live in a world where people are allowed to have some fun now and then, even if it means (gasp!) a couple cars have to slow down for five minutes.
I'd say that inasmuch as any new regulation really is necessary on that front (which is at least debatable), it's more important to get it right than to "get started now"
There's a single, simple problem with your whole argument on this post: you are relying on the incorrect idea that there is a **clear, bright line** between things that contradict the first amendment and things that don't.
But in fact there are 200 years of jurisprudence on the subject of free speech, all of it critical to determining what the first amendment actually means, and what it actually means to contradict it.
Nobody should willingly relinquish their rights just because there is some alternative, limited replacement. Copyright in its current form creates massive restrictions on free speech, and that's a problem regardless of the existence of the Commons.
The Commons is only 16 years old and forms only a fraction of our shared culture. Nobody is going to toss away their right to access and use the rest. While celebrating and promoting the Commons, they are also going to fight to fix the broken laws that made it necessary in the first place.
There's no contradiction there. I've known from the start what your "point" was, and it's extremely disingenuous, because I think you know that our objections to copyright are deeper and further-ranging and more complex than anything that can simply be solved by "avoiding" copyright works (as if that were even remotely possible in the modern world which, again, I think you know it's not).
Sure, it could be better - but if we attempted to write comprehensive, thorough responses to every troll who shows up with an attempted "gotcha" and other cheap rhetorical nonsense, we'd never get any posts written :) I concede however that it's usually wiser to ignore them entirely.
(Indeed, the *only* reason I bothered to write the list of problems with copyright in this comment is to provide a substantive answer for anyone else who might be paying attention. I'm not sure what you'd prefer me have done - this is Techdirt where we lay out the issues with copyright in great detail on a regular basis.)
Problems with copyright that are in no way lessened or fixed by a growing amount of CC content:
- Constant abuse of notice & takedown - A global push by copyright industries to upgrade this to notice & staydown - The constriction or complete lack of fair use and/or dealing around the world - DRM/TPM violating people's most basic property rights - The still-ongoing huge orphaned works problem - Oh wait I just remembered you don't actually care, you're just here to be an asshole
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: August 6th - 12th
Re: In the last week
Here's a challenge - present your ideas and allow others to present theirs, then defend your ideas.
Been doing that with tens of thousands of posts for 20 years.
So now here's a challenge for you - come up with counterarguments that intelligent people consider worthy of engagement or response.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: August 6th - 12th
Re:
On the post: Fox News Host Files SLAPP Suit Against Reporter Who Exposed His Sexting
Re:
Notice that the twitter account says HuffPo "spoke to 14 sources" but not that "14 sources confirmed" anything.
Perhaps you should go beyond the Twitter account, and read the actual article being sued over, which explains the nature of the sources and what they said in much greater detail.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/eric-bolling-fox-news-text-messages_us_5984d2bbe4b0cb15b1 be6d65
On the post: North Carolina Passes An Entirely Misguided Restore Campus Free Speech Act
Re:
OK settle down there genius. If you knew anything about the subject, you'd know it isn't always so easy to sum up a complex free speech question in eight words.
Protesting a speaker is absolutely free speech. At what point does that become "preventing" them from speaking? Wait - is it up to them? Like if a speaker leaves saying they feel uncomfortable because of 5 people in the back chanting, were they now "prevented" from speaking?
And how, exactly, is students protesting a speaker a violation of free speech, while creating rules to stop those students from protesting isn't?
Absolutist oversimplifications are not helpful here.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Case May Settle: PETA Knows It'll Lose, And The Photographer Is Broke
Re: Re: I guess it's too late now...
He may want to have it both ways (photo made famous for being a monkey selfie, but belongs to him) but he can't.
On the post: Daily Deal: 2017 Zero to Hero Game Developer Bundle
Re:
Fixed, thanks!
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Torvalds in fact created a kernel, not an OS
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 127: Copyright, Music & 'Theft'
Re: Re: Re:
We have thought about using Opus, but it just hasn't seemed like there's significant enough demand for it. It's not as widely compatible as MP3 (we would likely still want to retain the main RSS feed as MP3, and Soundcloud doesn't let you offer multiple formats) and, as JoeCool noted, one of the main reasons we would ditch MP3 (patented technology) has disappeared.
We're totally open to offering an Opus version if there's a significant demand, but so far that hasn't really seemed to be the case.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 123: No, The MP3 Isn't Dead
Re:
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 123: No, The MP3 Isn't Dead
Re:
I just finished producing an MP3 of this podcast a few minutes ago. And if you're listening, you're using it.
On the post: The MP3 Is About As 'Dead' As Pepe The Frog
Re: slashdot had it right.
On the post: Game Maker Sues Milwaukee Over Permit Requirement To Make Augmented Reality Games
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, yes, the other definition of peaceful is "tranquil".
If you want it to be the government's business to ensure everyone is tranquil all the time, fine. I'll pass, though. I'd rather live in a world where people are allowed to have some fun now and then, even if it means (gasp!) a couple cars have to slow down for five minutes.
On the post: Game Maker Sues Milwaukee Over Permit Requirement To Make Augmented Reality Games
Re: Re:
I'd say that inasmuch as any new regulation really is necessary on that front (which is at least debatable), it's more important to get it right than to "get started now"
On the post: Game Maker Sues Milwaukee Over Permit Requirement To Make Augmented Reality Games
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: No, President Trump Isn't Ditching The First Amendment, But He Is Undermining Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: huh?
But in fact there are 200 years of jurisprudence on the subject of free speech, all of it critical to determining what the first amendment actually means, and what it actually means to contradict it.
On the post: This Week In Creative Commons History
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody should willingly relinquish their rights just because there is some alternative, limited replacement. Copyright in its current form creates massive restrictions on free speech, and that's a problem regardless of the existence of the Commons.
The Commons is only 16 years old and forms only a fraction of our shared culture. Nobody is going to toss away their right to access and use the rest. While celebrating and promoting the Commons, they are also going to fight to fix the broken laws that made it necessary in the first place.
There's no contradiction there. I've known from the start what your "point" was, and it's extremely disingenuous, because I think you know that our objections to copyright are deeper and further-ranging and more complex than anything that can simply be solved by "avoiding" copyright works (as if that were even remotely possible in the modern world which, again, I think you know it's not).
On the post: This Week In Creative Commons History
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, it could be better - but if we attempted to write comprehensive, thorough responses to every troll who shows up with an attempted "gotcha" and other cheap rhetorical nonsense, we'd never get any posts written :) I concede however that it's usually wiser to ignore them entirely.
On the post: This Week In Creative Commons History
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: This Week In Creative Commons History
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: This Week In Creative Commons History
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
- Constant abuse of notice & takedown
- A global push by copyright industries to upgrade this to notice & staydown
- The constriction or complete lack of fair use and/or dealing around the world
- DRM/TPM violating people's most basic property rights
- The still-ongoing huge orphaned works problem
- Oh wait I just remembered you don't actually care, you're just here to be an asshole
Next >>