Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What if wrecking the internet is exactly the
And libel law is just wrong about public figures, they should be more PROTECTED, not more vulnerable.
I don't want to live in country where it's more difficult to criticize those in power. If you do, move to North Korea.
The legal requirement of "actual malice" comes from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) which was needed because southern officials were using defamation lawsuits as a means of preventing critical coverage of civil rights issues and it has worked pretty well in curtailing such egregious behavior since then.
Ok, so now we know that Blue sucks at math as well as English.
20,000 x $0.10 = $2,000.00 and that's a bit more than "hundreds"
$200 is only going to get you 2,000 pages, but you are conveniently leaving out the search fees, which are also $0.10 each even for searches with zero results. With a system as sucky as PACER you are most likely going get a lot of zero result searches before you find what you need.
You believe everyone should share everything, and that laws that protect works of original authors for original authors are evil, right?
Do you realize that copyright is relatively new (300 years or so) in the context of all human history, right? For thousands of years prior to copyright technological advances were made, music was composed, stories were written and paintings were painted - all with out the benefit of copyright.
Personally, I do believe modern copyright is approaching evil status. The original notion of copyright in the US was to give authors exclusive rights FOR A LIMITED TIME so we would produce more works to eventually share with everyone. It was never designed to lock up works in perpetuity as it does now.
So the whole point was to make sure that tech companies don't have to follow the rules other companies have to follow.
Also, I would like to point out that you are comparing apples to orangutans here.
What is the percentage of user generated content in a traditional publication, like a newspaper or magazine compared to the user generated content on a platform like YouTube or Facebook? They are completely different beasts that require different handling.
That "tool" is actually an active, well-funded participant making editorial decisions to promote and enforce an agenda, NOT being mere passive tool.
Not really sure what that has to do with the "whole point of CDA 230". The purpose of CDA 230 was to place liability where it belongs while simultaneously encouraging platforms to keep themselves from becoming cesspools of human interaction.
If we had retained publisher liability concerning user generated content on the internet, we would have ended up with either no UGC whatsoever or completely unmoderated UGC. Neither of those options appeal to me at all, so what is your solution in lieu of CDA 230?
You need some actual substantive argument against DMCA. This and all similar mistakes ain't.
This IS a substantive argument against the DMCA, in my opinion. When there is a conflict between copyright and freedom of speech, I will choose free speech everyday and twice on Sundays.
To paraphrase William Blackstone and Benjamin Franklin:
It is better 100,000 copyright infringements go unpunished than that one innocent person's free speech is abridged.
Congratulations!
From here you'll go far.
After trials and tribulations
You've finally passed the Bar.
You spent years in Law School
Listening to every Law Scholar
You are not anyone's fool
You are now an IP Lawyer
Everything is new, it's a brand new day
Then reality hits and you start to moan
You have to figure out a way
To repay all those student loans
You fire up your 'puter and look around
You see gatekeepers who need savin'
Against the evil pirates who abound
And think to yourself. I'll be the next Righthaven!
Oh, The People You Will Sue
As the plan forms in your mind
You'll sue mothers and printers
You'll sue anyone you can find
You'll leave the net in splinters
You'll sue anyone who utters "Fair Use!"
and companies who use Safe Harbors
'cause in your mind that's all just abuse
And that's just for starters
Oh, The People You Will Sue
With patents and trademark abuses
You'll sue anyone who innovates
Or dares to produce something with uses
And every single company who creates
You'll file class action suits
For artists against labels, it's true
You'll work hard on these pursuits
Because no one gets the money, well, except you.
You've become an IP Lawyer
You knew what you were doing
There's infringers out there
So...get suing!
Re: this is not the first time in history this has been proposed
In both of your examples it worked for a little while but eventually went right back being huge companies controlling the majority of the markets. The small oil companies eventually merged or were bought out to become ExxonMobil and all the little phone companies eventually became AT&T.
MY BOTTOM LINE: IF WANT COMPETITION, MUST BREAK UP THE BIG ONES. NO OTHER WAY HAS EVER WORKED OR CAN.
You have been ranting about this on this site for years, but still have not put forth any valid ideas on HOW this should be done, Blue. At least Mike is presenting his ideas and not just shouting "Break them up!".
I know you have tossed out the idea of taxing companies that get "too big" at 90 some-odd percent, but have never clarified what is to be considered "too big". You have also never addressed the fact that such a tax rate would simply be a "success tax" that would stifle the natural growth of companies in order to remain below your arbitrary threshold.
Come on Blue, you criticize others for not having substance to their comments, so lets hear your grandiose ideas on this.
The point of copyright is to protect the hard work of a content creator...
Nope. The granting of additional rights via copyright is the means, not the purpose. The purpose of copyright is to promote progress and enrich society.
It's funny how pro-copyright people always overlook this. The purpose of copyright has never been about making sure the creator (or his great-great grandchildren) get paid. The public agreed to give up some of their property rights for a limited time to promote a more robust public domain. The pro-copyright side has reneged on this deal with ever expanding copyright terms.
How about reports of false hate crimes (Smollett)? Should he be banned in the same manner Rosanne was banned?
Smollett was also fired from his TV series - just like Rosanne was.
Is there anyone here that is worried that THEY might be fired in they say the wrong thing? Is there a “chilling effect” that took place after Rosanne was fired?
Nope. Conduct clauses in employment contracts are nothing new - especially in the entertainment business.
On this very article where Blue criticizes a commentor because they have a sparse comment history, Blue also attempts to obscure his own long history of commenting under the moniker "out_of_the_blue".
But laws like this don't make them accountable to the President; they make them accountable to the people, by way of the courts.
But THIS laws seems to make the platforms accountable to an "independent regulator" who, in actual practice, will be loyal to those who sign his paycheck.
Much the same way that "independent arbitrators" in contract disputes side with the company paying the arbitrator in something like 97% of the cases.
Will they call it the Ministry of Love, or the Ministry of Truth?
Ministry of Magic since they will have to pull a reasonable, workable definition of "harmful content" out of thin air that covers speech that is currently legal.
On the post: Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What if wrecking the internet is exactly the
I don't want to live in country where it's more difficult to criticize those in power. If you do, move to North Korea.
The legal requirement of "actual malice" comes from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) which was needed because southern officials were using defamation lawsuits as a means of preventing critical coverage of civil rights issues and it has worked pretty well in curtailing such egregious behavior since then.
On the post: PACER, Or Your First Amendment Right To Go Fuck Yourself For $0.10/Page
Re:
Ok, so now we know that Blue sucks at math as well as English.
20,000 x $0.10 = $2,000.00 and that's a bit more than "hundreds"
$200 is only going to get you 2,000 pages, but you are conveniently leaving out the search fees, which are also $0.10 each even for searches with zero results. With a system as sucky as PACER you are most likely going get a lot of zero result searches before you find what you need.
On the post: Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet
Re: Re: Re:
Do you realize that copyright is relatively new (300 years or so) in the context of all human history, right? For thousands of years prior to copyright technological advances were made, music was composed, stories were written and paintings were painted - all with out the benefit of copyright.
Personally, I do believe modern copyright is approaching evil status. The original notion of copyright in the US was to give authors exclusive rights FOR A LIMITED TIME so we would produce more works to eventually share with everyone. It was never designed to lock up works in perpetuity as it does now.
On the post: Tell The EU Not To Wreck The Internet
Re: Re:
If you can define "crap" in a way that is acceptable to every single human on the planet then you might actually have an argument here.
One man's garbage is another man's art.
On the post: Rep. Devin Nunes Sues Internet Cow For Saying Mean Things About Him Online
Re: Re: Re:
Also, I would like to point out that you are comparing apples to orangutans here.
What is the percentage of user generated content in a traditional publication, like a newspaper or magazine compared to the user generated content on a platform like YouTube or Facebook? They are completely different beasts that require different handling.
On the post: Rep. Devin Nunes Sues Internet Cow For Saying Mean Things About Him Online
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not really sure what that has to do with the "whole point of CDA 230". The purpose of CDA 230 was to place liability where it belongs while simultaneously encouraging platforms to keep themselves from becoming cesspools of human interaction.
If we had retained publisher liability concerning user generated content on the internet, we would have ended up with either no UGC whatsoever or completely unmoderated UGC. Neither of those options appeal to me at all, so what is your solution in lieu of CDA 230?
On the post: Rep. Devin Nunes Sues Internet Cow For Saying Mean Things About Him Online
Re: Re: Re:
No. The point was to place liability on the person doing the actual speaking, not on the tool being used.
Do you also think that pencil manufacturers are liable for everything written with their pencils?
On the post: Bogus DMCA Takedown Targeting Indian Copyright Blog Demonstrates The Problems Of Notice And Takedown
Re:
This IS a substantive argument against the DMCA, in my opinion. When there is a conflict between copyright and freedom of speech, I will choose free speech everyday and twice on Sundays.
To paraphrase William Blackstone and Benjamin Franklin:
It is better 100,000 copyright infringements go unpunished than that one innocent person's free speech is abridged.
On the post: Big Fair Use Win For Mashups: 'Oh, The Places You'll Boldly Go!' Deemed To Be Fair Use
Oh, The People You Will Sue
A repost of my comment from 2012 seems appropriate:
Oh, The People You Will Sue
Congratulations!
From here you'll go far.
After trials and tribulations
You've finally passed the Bar.
You spent years in Law School
Listening to every Law Scholar
You are not anyone's fool
You are now an IP Lawyer
Everything is new, it's a brand new day
Then reality hits and you start to moan
You have to figure out a way
To repay all those student loans
You fire up your 'puter and look around
You see gatekeepers who need savin'
Against the evil pirates who abound
And think to yourself. I'll be the next Righthaven!
Oh, The People You Will Sue
As the plan forms in your mind
You'll sue mothers and printers
You'll sue anyone you can find
You'll leave the net in splinters
You'll sue anyone who utters "Fair Use!"
and companies who use Safe Harbors
'cause in your mind that's all just abuse
And that's just for starters
Oh, The People You Will Sue
With patents and trademark abuses
You'll sue anyone who innovates
Or dares to produce something with uses
And every single company who creates
You'll file class action suits
For artists against labels, it's true
You'll work hard on these pursuits
Because no one gets the money, well, except you.
You've become an IP Lawyer
You knew what you were doing
There's infringers out there
So...get suing!
On the post: How To Actually Break Up Big Tech
Re: this is not the first time in history this has been proposed
In both of your examples it worked for a little while but eventually went right back being huge companies controlling the majority of the markets. The small oil companies eventually merged or were bought out to become ExxonMobil and all the little phone companies eventually became AT&T.
On the post: How To Actually Break Up Big Tech
Re:
You have been ranting about this on this site for years, but still have not put forth any valid ideas on HOW this should be done, Blue. At least Mike is presenting his ideas and not just shouting "Break them up!".
I know you have tossed out the idea of taxing companies that get "too big" at 90 some-odd percent, but have never clarified what is to be considered "too big". You have also never addressed the fact that such a tax rate would simply be a "success tax" that would stifle the natural growth of companies in order to remain below your arbitrary threshold.
Come on Blue, you criticize others for not having substance to their comments, so lets hear your grandiose ideas on this.
On the post: More Copyright Policy Should Be As Boring As This Supreme Court Decision
Re:
Nope. The granting of additional rights via copyright is the means, not the purpose. The purpose of copyright is to promote progress and enrich society.
It's funny how pro-copyright people always overlook this. The purpose of copyright has never been about making sure the creator (or his great-great grandchildren) get paid. The public agreed to give up some of their property rights for a limited time to promote a more robust public domain. The pro-copyright side has reneged on this deal with ever expanding copyright terms.
On the post: It Sure Sounds Like Elizabeth Warren Wants To Bring The EU Copyright Directive Stateside
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Above comment is mine.
On the post: EU Moves Forward With Agreement To Fundamentally Change The Internet From Open To Closed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For any new readers: "morganwick" has ODD 6
Yes
On the post: The Tyranny Of Copyright: How A Once-Humble Legal Issue Has Tormented A Generation Of Speech
Re:
Since when does discussing law require a degree?
Based on your silly logic, you will now have to show proof of your BS in Information Technology in order to keep posting on this tech site.
On the post: Company Wants New Hampshire Supreme Court To Let It Sue Anyone Who Calls It A Patent Troll
Re: Re: Re: they won't
Smollett was also fired from his TV series - just like Rosanne was.
Nope. Conduct clauses in employment contracts are nothing new - especially in the entertainment business.
On the post: Company Wants New Hampshire Supreme Court To Let It Sue Anyone Who Calls It A Patent Troll
Re: Re: Re:
Too funny. You can't make this shit up.
On this very article where Blue criticizes a commentor because they have a sparse comment history, Blue also attempts to obscure his own long history of commenting under the moniker "out_of_the_blue".
Hypocrisy is thy name, Blue.
On the post: Beware The Rise Of Censorship Under The Guise Of Stopping Fake News: UK Regulators Push For Dangerous Plan
Re: Re: Re:
But THIS laws seems to make the platforms accountable to an "independent regulator" who, in actual practice, will be loyal to those who sign his paycheck.
Much the same way that "independent arbitrators" in contract disputes side with the company paying the arbitrator in something like 97% of the cases.
On the post: Beware The Rise Of Censorship Under The Guise Of Stopping Fake News: UK Regulators Push For Dangerous Plan
Re: Now, for the big question:
Ministry of Magic since they will have to pull a reasonable, workable definition of "harmful content" out of thin air that covers speech that is currently legal.
On the post: ICE Set Up A Fake College To Bust Immigrants For Trying To Legally Stay In The Country While They Earned Degrees
Re: Deja Vu
Sometimes they're still connected to the tree:
https://weather.com/news/trending/video/freak-ghost-apples-appear-in-michigan-orchard
Next >>