The logic error here is that child pornography is illegal, in and of itself. On the other hand, the music and movies and such are not, in and of themselves illegal. There is no "fair use" for child porn, no danger of suppressing free speech.
So, maybe I'm less than a third grader, but I can easily see a difference between the two.
As an aside: If you're cracking down on child porn sites by simply hijacking the domain name, you might as well not waste your time. The damage to some child has already been done at that point, and all the site blocking in the world won't stop it. The idea would be to prevent the CP from being made, not just from being viewed. So, to me, it seems to be a better idea to keep the sites up and catch the sickos uploading the videos.
Maybe I'm reading the wrong "Trollz for teh lulz" book, but mine explicitly states that if you don't use the exact preapproved phrases, it doesn't count.
-2 pts for not mentioning "broad brush".
-5 for not using the term "apologist"
-10 for not going for the obvious "for the children"
+ 25 for your name.
What I mean to say is that, sure, copyright infringement might (might!) reduce potential sales, but it also has other potential benefits. So, it is also possible that it's a wash or maybe even a net positive.
I agreed with all your post until you stated as a fact that they make less profit.
Re: Actually, you're in the "group giggling childishly",
1. Between you and me, those 7 words being banned by the FCC is not long for this world. Interesting side note: cable TV has no such restrictions, by law, but angry soccer moms make it a business decision to not use those words.
2. In times of high volume, text messages get lost or delayed here in America, where there is no censor overhead. If you're suggesting that adding a find and reject routine to a system that already fails won't make it more prone to fail, then you're ignorant.
3. I'm glad "woosh" isn't a banned word, or I wouldn't be able to snarkily explain that you've missed the entire point.
This is an already debunked logical fallacy. They don't have to react this way. No one is forcing them to fight piracy instead of working around, or with, it. Their mistakes belong only to them.
On the post: Lamar Smith Proposes New Version Of SOPA, With Just A Few Changes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, maybe I'm less than a third grader, but I can easily see a difference between the two.
As an aside: If you're cracking down on child porn sites by simply hijacking the domain name, you might as well not waste your time. The damage to some child has already been done at that point, and all the site blocking in the world won't stop it. The idea would be to prevent the CP from being made, not just from being viewed. So, to me, it seems to be a better idea to keep the sites up and catch the sickos uploading the videos.
On the post: Lamar Smith Proposes New Version Of SOPA, With Just A Few Changes
Re:
On the post: Don't Roll Your Eyes At This Post, Or You Might Violate An Anti-Bullying Law
Re:
On the post: Don't Roll Your Eyes At This Post, Or You Might Violate An Anti-Bullying Law
Re: Re: sheep
Careful there, pal, all those straw men can be a fire hazard.
On the post: Don't Roll Your Eyes At This Post, Or You Might Violate An Anti-Bullying Law
sheep
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2011/12/05/gay-teen-jonah-mowry-says-bullying-made-him-stronger/
On the post: Don't Roll Your Eyes At This Post, Or You Might Violate An Anti-Bullying Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scum, the lotta you
On the post: Don't Roll Your Eyes At This Post, Or You Might Violate An Anti-Bullying Law
Re: Re: Re: Scum, the lotta you
Also, make a profile with name, or I will. ;-)
On the post: Don't Roll Your Eyes At This Post, Or You Might Violate An Anti-Bullying Law
Re: Re: Re: Scum, the lotta you
I'm using the third edition.
On the post: Don't Roll Your Eyes At This Post, Or You Might Violate An Anti-Bullying Law
Re: Scum, the lotta you
-5 for not using the term "apologist"
-10 for not going for the obvious "for the children"
+ 25 for your name.
On the post: D.C. Libraries Offering Free, DRM-Free MP3 Downloads From Sony Music
Tricky
On the post: How Much Does File Sharing Really Cost Hollywood?
Re: Re: Re: Simple Answer
I agreed with all your post until you stated as a fact that they make less profit.
On the post: How Much Does File Sharing Really Cost Hollywood?
Re: Two major flaws: only US traffic, of only Bittorrent.
How would you describe the record labels, with respect to the artists and the public?
On the post: How Much Does File Sharing Really Cost Hollywood?
Re: Simple Answer
You state this as a fact, when it's not even popular opinion. Citations/work?
On the post: May The Dolphin Be Unflogged: Paskistani Government Censors Texting
Re: Re:
On the post: May The Dolphin Be Unflogged: Paskistani Government Censors Texting
Re: Actually, you're in the "group giggling childishly",
2. In times of high volume, text messages get lost or delayed here in America, where there is no censor overhead. If you're suggesting that adding a find and reject routine to a system that already fails won't make it more prone to fail, then you're ignorant.
3. I'm glad "woosh" isn't a banned word, or I wouldn't be able to snarkily explain that you've missed the entire point.
On the post: May The Dolphin Be Unflogged: Paskistani Government Censors Texting
I have needs.
Go.
On the post: Kansas Governor Apologizes After Staff Gets High School Student In Trouble For Tweet About The Governor
Kids these days and their fancy jargon.
I'm usually pretty caught up on the lingo, but who, or what, is "heblow salot"?
/s
On the post: When Even The Strongest Copyright Defenders Recognize That SOPA Goes Too Far...
Re: So, Mike, just doing nothing:
On the post: When Even The Strongest Copyright Defenders Recognize That SOPA Goes Too Far...
Re: Intended Consequences
On the post: New Research Shows Movie And Game Piracy On The Rise, But Won't Tell Us How It Knows
Re: 'it also shows a reduction in music piracy over the same period'
Next >>