Try to remember that legally defending someone is completely different from actually defending, condoning or supporting their actions. It's intellectually simplistic to attack defense lawyers, they're pretty easy targets after all, but they're absolutely vital to a functioning and just legal system. You do need to have some respect for them, even if you despise their clients.
"The real story is the vast sleaze and power in Hollywood."
That's not the "real" story, it's simply the story. There are other aspects that are just as real and more relevant to Techdirt's audience. There are dozens of other places you can go to read about sleaze and power in Hollywood if that's what gets you all hot and bothered.
"Masnick dodges that by twisting it toward the imminent defamation case."
Or maybe he talked about an aspect of the story that is a topic or regular discussion at Techdirt. No twisting required, except your logic in trying to find something, anything, to criticize.
He's the one that brought race into this. It's not racist to call out his bullshit claim that he's being persecuted because of his race. It's not racist to clarify that no, it's nothing to do with your race, it's because you're a pathological liar and a legal bully.
Re: Re: Re: Re: crypto fans are being disingenuous
"Holy crow, do you even understand what you are suggesting?"*
Clearly not. This is yet another person suffering from exactly the ignorance as Amber Rudd. If you don't trally understand the problem you're talking about, the solutions seem numerous and easy.
You just said that the court has not (yet) chosen to correct the problem, so assuming you're correct that they do have the ability to do so then they absolutely do deserve a big chunk of the blame. Personally I expect shitty laws from politicians, and I expect the courts to put them right when they can.
"And those are dollars that maybe could be used to have more police on the street."
That's a very simplistic argument that shows you forget (or don't know...) why there are Freedom of Information laws in the first place. They were enacted for very good reasons and are necessary to have, hence staff will be required to do the work.
"...add a boutique service for a month, binge the content of interest, and cancel."
Which chips away at the whole convenience thing that makes paid services appealing compared to piracy. I don't want to have to actively manage multiple services any more that I want to have to pay more to have them all at once.
The only reason for not picking a name to post under and sticking to it is so you can't be held to your previous statements. So do not bleat to us about having your position misrepresented because we're not remembering your earlier posts. It's your own stupid fault.
Re: Re: Re: Re: If clearly specific, you'd argue "ineffective"; if a bit broader, you'd argue "overbroad".
"I like copyright. It's a RIGHT that's in the US Constitution."
Why should anyone take you seriously where you spout such egregiously incorrect nonsense as this?
"I've stated that don't need to read to know Masnick's slant: it's always the same pro-corporate, here saying corps should not be in least responsible."
Again, when you make claims about Mike's position that are opposite of what's written in the article, you're only going to get laughed at and ridiculed.
"Keep supporting those regulations folks. they will only be used against you."
You mean the same way food safety regulations (to pick just one example) are used against you in your quest to be sick or dead? Damn those regulations...
On the post: Harvey Weinstein Tries Every Possible Response To Explosive NY Times Story
Re: Re: Whoa
On the post: Harvey Weinstein Tries Every Possible Response To Explosive NY Times Story
Re: Re: Lawyering
Try to remember that legally defending someone is completely different from actually defending, condoning or supporting their actions. It's intellectually simplistic to attack defense lawyers, they're pretty easy targets after all, but they're absolutely vital to a functioning and just legal system. You do need to have some respect for them, even if you despise their clients.
On the post: Harvey Weinstein Tries Every Possible Response To Explosive NY Times Story
Re: Yet you pirates still want his products.
"The real story is the vast sleaze and power in Hollywood."
That's not the "real" story, it's simply the story. There are other aspects that are just as real and more relevant to Techdirt's audience. There are dozens of other places you can go to read about sleaze and power in Hollywood if that's what gets you all hot and bothered.
"Masnick dodges that by twisting it toward the imminent defamation case."
Or maybe he talked about an aspect of the story that is a topic or regular discussion at Techdirt. No twisting required, except your logic in trying to find something, anything, to criticize.
On the post: The Latest On Shiva Ayyadurai's Failed Libel Suit Against Techdirt
Re:
On the post: UK Home Secretary Calls Tech Leaders 'Patronizing' For Refusing To Believe Her 'Safe Backdoors' Spiels
Re: Re: Re: Re: crypto fans are being disingenuous
On the post: UK Home Secretary Calls Tech Leaders 'Patronizing' For Refusing To Believe Her 'Safe Backdoors' Spiels
Re: Re: Re: Re: crypto fans are being disingenuous
"Holy crow, do you even understand what you are suggesting?"*
Clearly not. This is yet another person suffering from exactly the ignorance as Amber Rudd. If you don't trally understand the problem you're talking about, the solutions seem numerous and easy.
On the post: How The Supreme Court's Continued Misunderstanding Of Copyright Ruined Halloween
Re: Re: Re: Who's misunderstanding?
You just said that the court has not (yet) chosen to correct the problem, so assuming you're correct that they do have the ability to do so then they absolutely do deserve a big chunk of the blame. Personally I expect shitty laws from politicians, and I expect the courts to put them right when they can.
On the post: Police Chief Takes To Facebook To Complain About A Journalist Committing Journalism
Re: Re: Re:
"And those are dollars that maybe could be used to have more police on the street."
That's a very simplistic argument that shows you forget (or don't know...) why there are Freedom of Information laws in the first place. They were enacted for very good reasons and are necessary to have, hence staff will be required to do the work.
On the post: As 'Star Trek: Discovery' Shows, The Streaming Exclusivity Wars Risk Driving Users Back To Piracy
Re: Re: Is it a bad thing?
"...add a boutique service for a month, binge the content of interest, and cancel."
Which chips away at the whole convenience thing that makes paid services appealing compared to piracy. I don't want to have to actively manage multiple services any more that I want to have to pay more to have them all at once.
On the post: Republican Governors Association Sets Up Partisan News Site & Forgets To Tell Anyone As It Pumps Out 'News'
Re:
"Propaganda isn't fake news, it's controlled news. It's usually real..."
I'm going to chalk that claim up to a terrible decline in the quality of education, particularly history.
On the post: Mission Accomplished: Ajit Pai's FCC Declares Wireless Competition Issues Fixed
Re: Easy as Pai
On the post: Prepare For An Epic Bullshit Sales Pitch For The Competition-Killing Sprint, T-Mobile Merger
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: don't wory
The only reason for not picking a name to post under and sticking to it is so you can't be held to your previous statements. So do not bleat to us about having your position misrepresented because we're not remembering your earlier posts. It's your own stupid fault.
On the post: Prepare For An Epic Bullshit Sales Pitch For The Competition-Killing Sprint, T-Mobile Merger
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: don't wory
"the other problem is that you think I am advancing the notion that we need to completely deregulate, I am not."
The perhaps you should stop talking as if that's exactly what you want, and explain what your miracle third option is.
On the post: More Thoughts On The Senate's SESTA Hearing
Re: Re: Re: If clearly specific, you'd argue "ineffective"; if a bit broader, you'd argue "overbroad".
"This is not Masnick's nor your home: it's a PUBLIC forum on the internet run by a business that asked the public for permission to exist..."
You cannot possible be stupid enough to actually believe that. Gotta be trolling...
On the post: More Thoughts On The Senate's SESTA Hearing
Re: Re: Re: Re: If clearly specific, you'd argue "ineffective"; if a bit broader, you'd argue "overbroad".
"I like copyright. It's a RIGHT that's in the US Constitution."
Why should anyone take you seriously where you spout such egregiously incorrect nonsense as this?
"I've stated that don't need to read to know Masnick's slant: it's always the same pro-corporate, here saying corps should not be in least responsible."
Again, when you make claims about Mike's position that are opposite of what's written in the article, you're only going to get laughed at and ridiculed.
On the post: Insanity: Theresa May Says Internet Companies Need To Remove 'Extremist' Content Within 2 Hours
Re: Re: Re: Moral of the Story
On the post: EU Buried Its Own $400,000 Study Showing Unauthorized Downloads Have Almost No Effect On Sales
Re: Re: Yes, people would watch more movies if cheaper and better.
On the post: Alt-Right Twitter App Developers Sue Google After Gab.Ai App Is Kicked Out Of The Play Store
Re: Cheezus
""Alt-right" is the buzzword right now that SJWs use for anything they don't agree with..."
Bit like the term "SJW" right?
On the post: Senator Blumenthal Happy That SESTA Will Kill Small Internet Companies
Re: Shocker!!
"Keep supporting those regulations folks. they will only be used against you."
You mean the same way food safety regulations (to pick just one example) are used against you in your quest to be sick or dead? Damn those regulations...
On the post: Senator Blumenthal Happy That SESTA Will Kill Small Internet Companies
Re: Re: Re: We're screwed
Next >>