Actually, he said: It's not related to the article, it has zero basis in fact and it's actually pretty insulting for a whole bunch of people on here...
There are fewer comments that are uncensored(by the community) that meet all of those characteristics.
So to be clear, you're not okay with Sony asserting its legal rights because such rights happen to be associated with copyright law. I guess this means you would deny Sony the right to proceed in an action against this user of excerpts from its music portfolio.
Oh, abso-freaking-lutely. I would go farther. I would assert that Sony should lose their copyright as a penalty for this abuse of the legal system. Maybe then they would use caution and thought before threatening or taking legal action.
Re: Finally, it's a bit silly to argue that all lobbying is "corruption."
You just don't understand how Washington works. Fortunately the code has been leaked:
public class Washington extends Republic implements corruption{
private Discussion backRoomDealings;
private Discussion jobOffers;
private Discussion retreat;
public Discussion lunch;
public Discussion pressReleases;
private Funding bribe;
private CorporatePocket pocket;
public Funding donation;
public Servent politician;
public boolean passed = false;
public Lobbying getInfluence(Servent politician){
Lobbying sucessfulLobbying = true;
The truth is that we've already taken back copyright because IP maximalists have abused it for decades(centuries?). We are just now getting around to making those changes a part of law.
It's the old camel analogy. You know the one. Let a camel stick his nose in your tent and soon you'll have the whole camel. In this case, it was our idiot elected servants who let the camel in and now the owner of the tent is using a stick to beat it back outside again.
Stop whining. It's your own fault. Stay out of my tent.
The result would be the internet running the world at the lowest common denominator level of law.
Because the lowest common denominator is always something to aim for, right?
Your ideas are completely untenable and shows an absolute lack of comprehension of the reality of a worldwide internet. You should really step back and think of a few flaws in your own argument before you hit submit. You might just rethink a few things. Like:
How many lawyers versed in how many different countries laws will your company have to have on retainer to figure out what laws you are breaking?
How many of those countries are you offering a service which is legal until someone else (completely separate from you and without your knowledge) does something illegal with it? How do you control the actions of millions of users? (Keep in mind that BILLIONs of dollars have been unsuccessfully thrown at the question.)
Why is it so unreasonable for someone to just be responsible for obeying the laws of the country they are in, but it's reasonable for someone to be responsible for obeying all laws everywhere?
Why are internet storage lockers more liable than their physical world equivalents?
I really think you should ask yourself some of those questions. If you already have, just acknowledge that you want to kill the world wide internet and replace it with smaller intranets that don't inter-operate with incompatible jurisdictions.
This is what I was going to post. Asking for social networking should already be illegal based solely upon the information available in most profiles and any company that is doing this is opening itself up for legal and/or civil action.
.com's are not for exclusive US use. They are international in nature, as are .org, .net, and .info. The US claiming jurisdiction over them is just moronic.
"SOPA would have no effect whatsoever on such crazy ass claims."
Ha! SOPA is all about bending over for crazy ass claims. It was introduced to congress based almost entirely on crazy assed claims (and "donations")
Now, shut your sputtering gob, you tit. You scum sucking pig, you son of a motherless goat, warthog faced buffoon, English bed-wetting type. Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee nosed, malodorous pervert!
So you admit that JB could possibly be prosecuted criminally for his little YouTube videos, and your defense is that the judge possible might give him a light sentence? That might be the lamest argument I've read here all day. And I read *TWO* OotB posts!
I can see both civil and criminal actions coming from it.
Wow, that's what it looks like in your crystal ball? Nice thought.
However, using hindsight, I hereby predict that no such actions will result from filing froudulant and false SOPA claims, as none have arisen from false DMCA claims.
Techdirt has already received many false DMCA claims. Right now, he has the power to reject them. The same cannot be said for SOPA where the decision to reject or defend is made by a 4th party who has a very real disincentive to reject it.
But you know this. Your goals are to spread disinformation, libel, and fud. You should be a spelunker. Your natural coat of slime would enable you to squeeze through some very tight places.
Perhaps I learned a different language from Pallante, but that's hardly "limited."
It is *very* limited. It includes no language that permits armed military response or tactical nukes. In fact if any content owner took those steps it would be frowned upon and and could possible (but not definately) have serious consequences like a fine or something.
On the post: Why Do The People Who Always Ask Us To 'Respect' Artists Seem To Have So Little Respect For Artists?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are fewer comments that are uncensored(by the community) that meet all of those characteristics.
On the post: Sad State Of Copyright: Guy Using Short Clips Of Music In Viral Videos Accused Of Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Infringement and theft
Oh, abso-freaking-lutely. I would go farther. I would assert that Sony should lose their copyright as a penalty for this abuse of the legal system. Maybe then they would use caution and thought before threatening or taking legal action.
On the post: Australian Government Plans To Continue Holding Secret Anti-Piracy 'Stakeholder' Meetings With Industry; No Consumer Advocates Allowed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Corruption Responsible For 80% Of Your Mobile Phone Bill? No, Not Really
Re: Finally, it's a bit silly to argue that all lobbying is "corruption."
public class Washington extends Republic implements corruption{
private Discussion backRoomDealings;
private Discussion jobOffers;
private Discussion retreat;
public Discussion lunch;
public Discussion pressReleases;
private Funding bribe;
private CorporatePocket pocket;
public Funding donation;
public Servent politician;
public boolean passed = false;
public Lobbying getInfluence(Servent politician){
Lobbying sucessfulLobbying = true;
if (politician.isCorrupt() && backRoomDealings.schedule(politician)){
try{
politician. add(jobOffers);
politician.add(bribe);
pocket.add( politician);
return sucessfulLobbying;
}catch(NotEnoughOffered yet){
getInfluence(politician);
}
}else{
& nbsp; try{
politician.add(donation);
po litician.add(lunch);
politician.add(retreat);
pock et.add(politician);
return successfulLobbying;
}catch(NotEnoughOffered yet){
getInfluence(politician);
}
}
}
public void passLaw(){
Law proposedLaw;
//maybe implement this as multi-threaded...
while(proposedLaw != passed){
for(Servent politician : congress){
getInfluence(politician);
}
}
& nbsp;}
public boolean isABribe(){
if (donation > 0 && politician.HadDiscussionWith() == true){
return true;
}else{
return false;
}
}
}
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um no. It doesn't. That's kind of the point.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Try To Regroup And Figure Out How To 'Fight Back' Against The Public
Re: Big Search is the anti-democratic evildoer here
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Try To Regroup And Figure Out How To 'Fight Back' Against The Public
Can you use a different name?
The truth is that we've already taken back copyright because IP maximalists have abused it for decades(centuries?). We are just now getting around to making those changes a part of law.
It's the old camel analogy. You know the one. Let a camel stick his nose in your tent and soon you'll have the whole camel. In this case, it was our idiot elected servants who let the camel in and now the owner of the tent is using a stick to beat it back outside again.
Stop whining. It's your own fault. Stay out of my tent.
On the post: Judge Preserves Megaupload Evidence For Now, While Gov't Tries To Pin Blame On Hosting Company
Your logic is not the same as our Earth logic
Because the lowest common denominator is always something to aim for, right?
Your ideas are completely untenable and shows an absolute lack of comprehension of the reality of a worldwide internet. You should really step back and think of a few flaws in your own argument before you hit submit. You might just rethink a few things. Like:
How many lawyers versed in how many different countries laws will your company have to have on retainer to figure out what laws you are breaking?
How many of those countries are you offering a service which is legal until someone else (completely separate from you and without your knowledge) does something illegal with it? How do you control the actions of millions of users? (Keep in mind that BILLIONs of dollars have been unsuccessfully thrown at the question.)
Why is it so unreasonable for someone to just be responsible for obeying the laws of the country they are in, but it's reasonable for someone to be responsible for obeying all laws everywhere?
Why are internet storage lockers more liable than their physical world equivalents?
I really think you should ask yourself some of those questions. If you already have, just acknowledge that you want to kill the world wide internet and replace it with smaller intranets that don't inter-operate with incompatible jurisdictions.
On the post: Our Gift To The Author's Guild: An Ad For Brick & Mortar Book Stores
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Should We Outlaw Employers From Asking For Social Networking Logins?
Re:
On the post: Parent Claims 'Ender's Game' Is Pornographic; Teacher Who Read It To Students Put On Temporary Leave
Re:
On the post: TSA Continues To Embarass The Elderly With Unnecessarily Degrading Search Procedures
Re: Re: Re: Re: Existential...
Both of which could have been prevented if only we had been in the habit of humiliating the elderly prior to the attacks.
On the post: Wikipedia Considers Blackout To Protest SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain
On the post: Wikipedia Considers Blackout To Protest SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ha! SOPA is all about bending over for crazy ass claims. It was introduced to congress based almost entirely on crazy assed claims (and "donations")
Now, shut your sputtering gob, you tit. You scum sucking pig, you son of a motherless goat, warthog faced buffoon, English bed-wetting type. Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee nosed, malodorous pervert!
On the post: Wikipedia Considers Blackout To Protest SOPA
Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Our_social_policies_are_not_a_suicide_pact
http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules
On the post: Harvard Law Professor Explains Why Felony Streaming Provisions Do Put Justin Bieber At Risk Of Jail
Re:
So you admit that JB could possibly be prosecuted criminally for his little YouTube videos, and your defense is that the judge possible might give him a light sentence? That might be the lamest argument I've read here all day. And I read *TWO* OotB posts!
On the post: A Look At The Testimony Given At Today's SOPA Lovefest Congressional Hearings... With A Surprise From MasterCard
Re: Re: Mastercard?
Because the SOPA take downs should be processed instantly by a machine, amirite?
On the post: A Look At The Testimony Given At Today's SOPA Lovefest Congressional Hearings... With A Surprise From MasterCard
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, that's what it looks like in your crystal ball? Nice thought.
However, using hindsight, I hereby predict that no such actions will result from filing froudulant and false SOPA claims, as none have arisen from false DMCA claims.
On the post: A Look At The Testimony Given At Today's SOPA Lovefest Congressional Hearings... With A Surprise From MasterCard
Re: Re: Re:
But you know this. Your goals are to spread disinformation, libel, and fud. You should be a spelunker. Your natural coat of slime would enable you to squeeze through some very tight places.
On the post: A Look At The Testimony Given At Today's SOPA Lovefest Congressional Hearings... With A Surprise From MasterCard
It is *very* limited. It includes no language that permits armed military response or tactical nukes. In fact if any content owner took those steps it would be frowned upon and and could possible (but not definately) have serious consequences like a fine or something.
Next >>