An apalling obvious hit piece (not journalism of any kind).
The bile and hatred is laid on so thick as to be laughable (not written by professional WSJ editors, I'll bet).
Google "wants to make money". As if that were unusual and evil (OMG a company that wants to make money while providing a useful service!) Horrors! What next - will they want to have fun while doing it?
They use the phrases "making money off other people’s content" and "profiting from the property of others", implying they'e doing something improper.
This from the Wall Street Journal, which like all newspapers, makes money from reporting on the activity of others!
Gah. The resentment and entitlement hurts to look at.
It's about making it difficult - more in terms of paperwork, bother, and legal risk, than money - for individuals running websites and blogs.
Because independent voices are harder to control and make trouble for the powers-that-be. They'd shut them down entirely (or license a few for show) if the First Amendment didn't prevent that (thank your 250 year old white male slave-owning founding fathers for that).
They've been doing the same thing with independent non-employee workers for 100 years - piling on the taxes, paperwork, and legal risk until the vast majority give up and become easily-controlled employees.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
The Republicans can't put forward a better candidate than Trump for pretty much the same reasons the Democrats can't put forward a better candidate than Clinton.
Re: the real differences in dangers in terms of distribution of the images and/or more permanent embarrassment
Why should there be any "permanent embarrassment" in the first place? And what "dangers in terms of distribution" really exist?
Nothing ought to be shocking about human bodies, or normal sexual development. It's our culture that's messed up.
We spend an awful lot of effort trying to fight biology, and losing.
Once kids are old enough to father and bear children (well before age 18), ridiculously powerful hormones kick in.
Our culture keeps saying our kids should have no sexuality until age 18, but that's not how biology works. Maybe we'd all be better off accepting reality instead of trying to fight it.
Please close the door and roll down your window, sir
That's all he had to do to confirm or falsify his suspicions.
Rental cars are generally new and the windows work. If the guy didn't/wouldn't/couldn't roll down the window, I'd say the cop had reasonable suspicion at that point.
Re: Re: not to exclude competing transportation services.
Your argument isn't totally unreasonable. But it's wrong.
Yes, medallions had considerable market value - before. But they were never real property in the first place. They were only tokens of political corruption.
Medallion values were based on continuing to bamboozle the public. For a while, it worked, but nobody should have counted on the status quo lasting forever. The risk was *always* there that eventually the public would wise up. It's finally happened.
No property rights have been violated. Medallion owners took a gamble on a corrupt system and lost - that's all.
If you want the law to protect your property rights, invest in something honest.
When slavery was abolished, some said slaveowners should be compensated for their loss. The slaveowners had a stronger argument than taxi medallion owners do now - slaves were, legally, legitimate property.
Who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing?
If the rule is that we can't post any photo the subject thinks is embarrassing, then we can't safely post any photos of people at all.
That's an unreasonable standard.
If we must have a legal standard, it ought to be whether a reasonable person would think it's embarrassing.
Few people think photos of naked babies are embarrassing (some think they're obscene, but that's not the same thing).
Babies don't look much like the adults they'll become. And babies have no choice about what happens to them.
Probably that's why baby photos can't be embarrassing. Nobody (except maybe the parents) can tell which adult the photos show, and even if one could, whatever is shown in the photo doesn't reflect on the adult.
Teenagers, of course, can be embarrassed about anything. There's no fixing that.
I think eventually (decades) history will vindicate him and he'll get a pardon from some future president.
But even if that happens, it's not clear the "intelligence community" is really under the control of the executive, or the law. I won't be a bit surprised to see Mr. Snowden have a fatal accident, even after a presidential pardon.
Even Eisenhower felt the "military-industrial complex" was out of his control as president, and that was almost 60 years ago. Things have only gotten worse since then.
Professional journalists are trained to worry about “fairness”, not truth. Reality, they are told, is socially constructed, and there is no such thing as objective truth.
Fairness means reporting “both sides” of a story even when there are 3 or 4 sides, or when it’s obvious who is lying and who isn’t.
If journalists were interested in truth, they wouldn’t pretend to be impartial (they’re human, of course they have opinions of their own). Instead they’d openly admit their viewpoint and let the reader judge their arguments.
There are still countless newspapers in the US with “Republican” or “Democrat” in their title. I suspect the relatively high esteem which journalists enjoy is a legacy from the era when these newspapers were founded.
Before the rise of “professional” journalism in the middle of the 20th century, truth was assumed to exist (even if it was difficult to find), and publishers were proud to announce their political allegiance.
On the post: Take Note: Copyright Troll Gets Stiff Response From Someone It Tried To Bully, Immediately Runs Away
Re: "bullies tend to run away when someone stands up to them"
The necessary text is a Google search away - TechDirt is a good source, as is dietrolldie.com and similar sites.
If you want to have rights, you need to be willing to defend them. Rights that aren't exercised and defended quickly cease to exist.
Grow some balls.
On the post: Wall Street Journal Error Filled Editorial Buys Into Ridiculous Copyright Office Conspiracy Theory
"making money off other people’s content"
The bile and hatred is laid on so thick as to be laughable (not written by professional WSJ editors, I'll bet).
Google "wants to make money". As if that were unusual and evil (OMG a company that wants to make money while providing a useful service!) Horrors! What next - will they want to have fun while doing it?
They use the phrases "making money off other people’s content" and "profiting from the property of others", implying they'e doing something improper.
This from the Wall Street Journal, which like all newspapers, makes money from reporting on the activity of others!
Gah. The resentment and entitlement hurts to look at.
On the post: Copyright Office Fucks Over Thousands Of Sites With Plans To Remove Their DMCA Safe Harbors
It's all about making it hard for the little guys
It's about making it difficult - more in terms of paperwork, bother, and legal risk, than money - for individuals running websites and blogs.
Because independent voices are harder to control and make trouble for the powers-that-be. They'd shut them down entirely (or license a few for show) if the First Amendment didn't prevent that (thank your 250 year old white male slave-owning founding fathers for that).
They've been doing the same thing with independent non-employee workers for 100 years - piling on the taxes, paperwork, and legal risk until the vast majority give up and become easily-controlled employees.
Nothing new, really.
On the post: The FBI Seems To Be Leaking Like A Sieve Concerning Details Of Clinton Email Invesgitation
Re: sharp downward slope
Every election I say to myself "it has never been this bad".
Every election it seems that's correct.
Time to get liquid and ready to run for our lives.
On the post: CNN Tells Viewers It's Illegal For Them To Read Wikileaks Document Dumps. CNN Is Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad
Both parties are fucked.
On the post: Judge Tears Apart Law Enforcement's Ridiculous Assertions About 'Suspicious' Behavior
Re: Re: Please close the door and roll down your window, sir
On an older car, I agree that inability to roll down the window shouldn't constitute reasonable suspicion.
On the post: Stepdad Goes To Police With Stepdaughter's Sexts, Asks Them To Intervene, Is Prosecuted For Child Porn
Re: the real differences in dangers in terms of distribution of the images and/or more permanent embarrassment
Nothing ought to be shocking about human bodies, or normal sexual development. It's our culture that's messed up.
We spend an awful lot of effort trying to fight biology, and losing.
Once kids are old enough to father and bear children (well before age 18), ridiculously powerful hormones kick in.
Our culture keeps saying our kids should have no sexuality until age 18, but that's not how biology works. Maybe we'd all be better off accepting reality instead of trying to fight it.
On the post: Judge Tears Apart Law Enforcement's Ridiculous Assertions About 'Suspicious' Behavior
Please close the door and roll down your window, sir
Rental cars are generally new and the windows work. If the guy didn't/wouldn't/couldn't roll down the window, I'd say the cop had reasonable suspicion at that point.
Short of that, he's got nothing.
On the post: Judge Posner Smacks Around Cabbies For Thinking That Cities Allowing Uber Violates Their 'Property Rights'
Re: Re: not to exclude competing transportation services.
Yes, medallions had considerable market value - before. But they were never real property in the first place. They were only tokens of political corruption.
Medallion values were based on continuing to bamboozle the public. For a while, it worked, but nobody should have counted on the status quo lasting forever. The risk was *always* there that eventually the public would wise up. It's finally happened.
No property rights have been violated. Medallion owners took a gamble on a corrupt system and lost - that's all.
If you want the law to protect your property rights, invest in something honest.
When slavery was abolished, some said slaveowners should be compensated for their loss. The slaveowners had a stronger argument than taxi medallion owners do now - slaves were, legally, legitimate property.
On the post: Stupid Design Patent Of The Month: Rectangles On A Screen
Typo in the 2nd line
On the post: DOJ To Anti-Muslim Troll Pam Geller: You're Suing The Wrong Entity, Genius
The lawyers involved should be disbarred
On the post: Austrian Teenager Sues Parents For Posting Pictures From Her Childhood To Facebook
Re: Re: Who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing?
On the post: Before Forfeiture Is Finalized, Sheriff Racks Up 54k Miles On Seized Vehicle, Sells It To Private Buyer
Re: What we deserve.
On the post: Austrian Teenager Sues Parents For Posting Pictures From Her Childhood To Facebook
Who is to say what pictures my grown-up son might eventually come to feel is embarrassing?
That's an unreasonable standard.
If we must have a legal standard, it ought to be whether a reasonable person would think it's embarrassing.
Few people think photos of naked babies are embarrassing (some think they're obscene, but that's not the same thing).
Babies don't look much like the adults they'll become. And babies have no choice about what happens to them.
Probably that's why baby photos can't be embarrassing. Nobody (except maybe the parents) can tell which adult the photos show, and even if one could, whatever is shown in the photo doesn't reflect on the adult.
Teenagers, of course, can be embarrassed about anything. There's no fixing that.
On the post: Before Forfeiture Is Finalized, Sheriff Racks Up 54k Miles On Seized Vehicle, Sells It To Private Buyer
Re: Unfortunately, it is the taxpayers who will pay the price
They deserve to pay.
On the post: Math Is Not A Crime
Re: Re: Idiot
A digital file is just a string of bits.
If we're serious that "math is not a crime", there should be no forbidden bit strings.
I'm OK with that. Creating child porn should be illegal. Exploiting children should be illegal. Bit strings - in and of themselves - should not.
On the post: House Intel Committee Says Snowden's Not A Whistleblower, 'Cause He Once Emailed His Boss's Boss
Re: Snowden is done for
I think eventually (decades) history will vindicate him and he'll get a pardon from some future president.
But even if that happens, it's not clear the "intelligence community" is really under the control of the executive, or the law. I won't be a bit surprised to see Mr. Snowden have a fatal accident, even after a presidential pardon.
Even Eisenhower felt the "military-industrial complex" was out of his control as president, and that was almost 60 years ago. Things have only gotten worse since then.
On the post: ACLU Launching Campaign To Have President Obama Pardon Snowden
Re: He doesn't need a pardon.
I think what he did was ethically and morally right, indeed heroic. I think Obama ought to give Snowden the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
But what he did was in clear violation of the letter of the law. So he needs a pardon (or a fair trial, which is even less likely).
Rosa Parks violated the law by refusing to sit at the back of the bus. It was the law that was wrong, not her action.
When the law is wrong, doing the morally right thing means violating the law.
On the post: If You're A Journalist Who Thinks That Pointing Out Lies Shows Bias, You're Not A Journalist
This is what they're trained to do in j-school
Fairness means reporting “both sides” of a story even when there are 3 or 4 sides, or when it’s obvious who is lying and who isn’t.
If journalists were interested in truth, they wouldn’t pretend to be impartial (they’re human, of course they have opinions of their own). Instead they’d openly admit their viewpoint and let the reader judge their arguments.
There are still countless newspapers in the US with “Republican” or “Democrat” in their title. I suspect the relatively high esteem which journalists enjoy is a legacy from the era when these newspapers were founded.
Before the rise of “professional” journalism in the middle of the 20th century, truth was assumed to exist (even if it was difficult to find), and publishers were proud to announce their political allegiance.
On the post: Thanks, Google, For Fucking Over A Bunch Of Media Websites
A screwup
They noticed it and fixed it.
Big deal - is there anybody on Earth this doesn't happen to once in a while?
I don't see anything Google-specific about it.
Am I missing something?
Next >>