This proves that Masnick works for Google, because by speaking against Google he endangers the work he does for Google by never speaking against Google... wait...
Well, that was informative. I don't agree that it's always the user (pirate, whatever) who is in the wrong, but is somewhat comforting that at least an attempt to communicate is being made (instead of just nastygrams and lawsuits).
You ask people to be charitable with your posts? What the hell?
You accuse people of telling you how you feel? Of using "wild rethoric" to make some point. You've said that there is a lack of honest discussion here, that there is no talk of solutions. Accusing people here of distorting facts, of perpetuating the "entitlement" viewpoint. And then ask people to be charitable with you?
You've derailed a thread, trying to answer the question "what would Rob do", with a completely irrelevant answer, because you aren't capable of answering it (since you're not Rob) and instead find a soapbox to stand on and spout your views with a complete falsehood such as "nobody ever makes any good arguments" ignoring what, 5+ years of posts in Techdirt?
I apologize for James' derail, Rob. Thanks for your reply. I understand that you think that "the law is the law", however, that wasn't my exact question. I was wondering, after the "polite conversation" (not sure what the New Jersey bit meant, I hope it has nothing to do with breaking any legs ;)) what is your next step? Cease and desist letter? Lawsuit?
Now, agree or disagree with those arguments. They HAVE BEEN MADE. Stop pretending that they don't exist, or that you "have yet to happen upon a convincing argument that can't be reduced tot he absurd as to why" blah blah blah.
1) Why don't you let people answer questions that were actually asked, instead of hijacking them and turning them into strawman questions?
2) Why don't you at least make an EFFORT to read up on "arguments that people have made", instead of going around with blanket statements like "I've never read any convincing argument of X!". This is most definitely, the wrong place to go around with the old "why is nobody making any decent arguments! These are not the argument you are looking for!" (handwave) and thinking anyone will believe it.
3) Why don't you actually go up and read my response to what you DID say?
"Dude, I was just responding to what you said. My point was that your point is irrelevant. Whether the person who "reasons right back" has a compelling argument doesn't make it any less of an infringement. "
No, you were responding to an hypotethical. Your point, that what I said is irrelevant, IS DEAD WRONG, and a STRAWMAN. The question was, what do you do with the subject if he answers thusly. NOWHERE IN THE ARGUMENT WAS THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE ANSWER.
"2. In the context of copyright law, they're one in the same...unless you can show me a meaningful distinction."
WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. 255 times WRONG. You need to read more. Asking me to "show you a meaningful distinction" is LAZY, and just confirms to me that you haven't even bothered reading any single one of the THOUSANDS of times said distinction have been made in this site.
"Infringement refers to the carrying out of an act that only the copyright holder (or those he authorizes) has the right to do. "
Which does not MEAN THEFT. Does not even mean APPROPRIATION. "Doing something against the rules" or "doing something against my wishes" pretty much is what you mean. If that was so, EVERY SINGLE PERCEIVED WRONG WOULD BE THEFT.
Wait, so when Mike was saying "us", he meant him and James? I understand how James would take issue with that, but why would he do that in the first place?
On the post: RapidShare: It Ain't The Hosting, It's The Linking
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Emory University's Dishonest Data Reminds Us That Ethics Don't Come From A 'Policy'
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Launches Patent Attack On Apple In A Disappointing First For The Company
Re:
Durker durr...
On the post: This T-Shirt Has Been Seized
Re:
On the post: This T-Shirt Has Been Seized
Re: Re: Re: Kind of Like the Shirt
On the post: Judge Suggests Apple Is 'Smoking Crack' With Its Witness List In Samsung Dispute
Re: Re:
On the post: New Zealand High Court: FBI Must Release Its Evidence Against Kim Dotcom
Re:
It seems that the Anonymous Coward is condoning an illegal action, which would break extradition law.
It's not surprising coming from such a criminal Anonymous Coward.
On the post: Boston Shuts Down Uber Because Massachusetts Doesn't Approve Of The GPS
Re: Re: Re:
The common cold.
A dinosaur.
Ninety-nine.
On the post: Boston Shuts Down Uber Because Massachusetts Doesn't Approve Of The GPS
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Five apples.
The industrial revolution.
On the post: Boston Shuts Down Uber Because Massachusetts Doesn't Approve Of The GPS
Re: Re: Re:
Las Vegas.
I mean, pi times radius squared.
On the post: Boston Shuts Down Uber Because Massachusetts Doesn't Approve Of The GPS
Re: Re: Re:
That's easy! The answer is 1942.
Wait, no, the answer is "a polar bear".
On the post: Seizing Domains Is Only Training Criminals To Improve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jail (not really)
Thanks for sharing your point of view.
On the post: Seizing Domains Is Only Training Criminals To Improve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jail (not really)
You accuse people of telling you how you feel? Of using "wild rethoric" to make some point. You've said that there is a lack of honest discussion here, that there is no talk of solutions. Accusing people here of distorting facts, of perpetuating the "entitlement" viewpoint. And then ask people to be charitable with you?
You've derailed a thread, trying to answer the question "what would Rob do", with a completely irrelevant answer, because you aren't capable of answering it (since you're not Rob) and instead find a soapbox to stand on and spout your views with a complete falsehood such as "nobody ever makes any good arguments" ignoring what, 5+ years of posts in Techdirt?
Please.
On the post: Seizing Domains Is Only Training Criminals To Improve
Re: Re: Re: Jail (not really)
On the post: Seizing Domains Is Only Training Criminals To Improve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jail (not really)
Google results for 'copying is not theft'
Google hits for 'copying is not theft' in Techdirt alone
Now, agree or disagree with those arguments. They HAVE BEEN MADE. Stop pretending that they don't exist, or that you "have yet to happen upon a convincing argument that can't be reduced tot he absurd as to why" blah blah blah.
On the post: Seizing Domains Is Only Training Criminals To Improve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jail (not really)
1) Why don't you let people answer questions that were actually asked, instead of hijacking them and turning them into strawman questions?
2) Why don't you at least make an EFFORT to read up on "arguments that people have made", instead of going around with blanket statements like "I've never read any convincing argument of X!". This is most definitely, the wrong place to go around with the old "why is nobody making any decent arguments! These are not the argument you are looking for!" (handwave) and thinking anyone will believe it.
3) Why don't you actually go up and read my response to what you DID say?
On the post: Seizing Domains Is Only Training Criminals To Improve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jail (not really)
No, you were responding to an hypotethical. Your point, that what I said is irrelevant, IS DEAD WRONG, and a STRAWMAN. The question was, what do you do with the subject if he answers thusly. NOWHERE IN THE ARGUMENT WAS THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE ANSWER.
"2. In the context of copyright law, they're one in the same...unless you can show me a meaningful distinction."
WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. 255 times WRONG. You need to read more. Asking me to "show you a meaningful distinction" is LAZY, and just confirms to me that you haven't even bothered reading any single one of the THOUSANDS of times said distinction have been made in this site.
"Infringement refers to the carrying out of an act that only the copyright holder (or those he authorizes) has the right to do. "
Which does not MEAN THEFT. Does not even mean APPROPRIATION. "Doing something against the rules" or "doing something against my wishes" pretty much is what you mean. If that was so, EVERY SINGLE PERCEIVED WRONG WOULD BE THEFT.
On the post: Seizing Domains Is Only Training Criminals To Improve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jail (not really)
On the post: Seizing Domains Is Only Training Criminals To Improve
Re: Re: Re: Re: oy...
Next >>