Then you haven't been paying attention to the real-world consequences that have come about as a direct result of that ruling.
As far as I can see, all of the problems arising from Citizens could be fixed with campaign finance reform, so I don't really see it as a corporate personhood problem myself.
Anyways, my original comment was directed at your absolute statement that non-human legal-fictional entities having Constitutional rights is inherently wrong and ridiculous. If you deny corporations *all rights* (for example the right to own property) then corporations could not exist. What would you replace them with? Government ownership of everything?
Insofar as any argument that a legal-fiction entity that is not a human being has Constitutional rights is inherently wrong and ridiculous...
Why? Corporations have always had some rights that could be considered "Constitutional rights" and not others. For example, corporations have (and have always had) the right own property and right to legally enter into contracts. On the other hand, corporations have never had the right to vote.
I don't think that the Citizens United did anything more than clarify that one specific right can apply to corporations. It's not this huge boogeyman you seem to think it is.
And not just from the IT guys. From the accountants and managers too. I work at a small shop for a guy who used to be an accountant. I've attempted to persuade him that going the GNU route on our workstations would be beneficial in the long run, but I'm always met with the attitude of "if it doesn't cost a lot of money then it cannot be of any value" from him. It's a pretty difficult mindset to combat sometimes.
Courts and lawyers are unreliable protectors of the public's interest...
That's pretty funny considering this case revolves around Fair Use. Does your definition of "public" include anyone other than copyright holders?
Copyright is precisely to protect all commercial exploitation of works...
Umm, no. To quote the actual ruling we are talking about:
The ultimate goal of copyright is to expand public knowledge and understanding...
Since the Fair Use doctrine has been around almost as long as copyright here in the US and it does allow commercial use, copyright has never been "to protect all commercial exploitation of works".
You really need to stop pulling up these arbitrary rules out of your ass.
...and partly because there's no collapse function...
I'm of the mind that Techdirt should add switch for this in the personal settings with three options:
1) Hide reported comments - works like it does presently
2) Collapse reported comments - hides reported comments and all responses to the reported comments
3) Show all - doesn't hide anything (but does indicate somewhere which comments have reached the hide threshold)
That way everyone could be happy.
I actually like it when comment threads go off topic here. It's not very often in real life that one has to limit their conversation to a specific topic when talking amongst their peers, so I just don't see why it's such a issue for some people when threads veer off-topic here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vastly better way to prevent abuse is get rid of billionaires. Tax them out of existence. Easy to do, popular, guaranteed to work, and would have good effects every way.
If that is the definition..
I paraphrased a little, but yes, that's the definition:
Here is Merriam-Webster's definition:
a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies
...then there is not and has never been a socialist nation
China certainly attempted to become a socialist society. Unfortunately, it forced them to isolate their country from the world to try to achieve it. It seems that the experiment failed seeing that they have since embraced capitalism with a fever.
And yes, I agree that that there never has been or will ever be a truly socialistic nation. It doesn't seem to be realistic possibility to me. Humans need not only reward for hard work, but also the possibility of a better personal future.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Vastly better way to prevent abuse is get rid of billionaires. Tax them out of existence. Easy to do, popular, guaranteed to work, and would have good effects every way.
Most of Europe seems to be doing as well as anyone and they're socialist. Canada is trucking along just fine as far as I can tell and they're certainly more socialist than the US...
None of those are true socialist systems, they are capitalist systems with socialistic tendencies. You can still raise capitol, start a manufacturing business and accumulate personal wealth in those places. In a true socialist system everything is owned by everyone and profits are distributed equally. In a communistic system everything is owned by the state and living wages are (supposedly) equal.
China has given up on their great socialistic experiment and has been slowly embracing capitalism because it gives the masses something to work towards.
The USSR failed because the workers did as little as possible since there was no additional rewards for going the extra mile.
PS: I am not a student of economics at all, so I could be way wrong here, but this is how I see it.
Vastly better way to prevent abuse is get rid of billionaires. Tax them out of existence. Easy to do, popular, guaranteed to work, and would have good effects every way.
"Easy to do"... LOL.
You still have never explained where or how you would determine what constitutes "too much wealth" other than the inference that it is more wealth than you currently have.
You also have never explained how you would spin this notion so it wouldn't be construed as a "success tax".
Re: Re: Vastly better way to prevent abuse is get rid of billionaires. Tax them out of existence. Easy to do, popular, guaranteed to work, and would have good effects every way.
I have no idea what the solution is but I think getting rid of capitalism would be a start.
What would you replace capitalism with? Communism? Socialism?
Both of those systems tend to fail because of ingrained human instincts of self preservation. Capitalism uses those instincts to it's advantage.
The reason I asked the question the way I did is because here in the US we have very little legal expectation of privacy while in a public space.
I'm also not sure your statement of "privacy includes the privacy of your communications" is as absolute as you make it out to be. Posting a notice on public bulletin board is a form of communication that has no expectation privacy whatsoever. Wouldn't posting a comment to a website be similar?
On a similar vein concerning snail mail, mail sealed within an envelope has an expectation of privacy, but a postcard does not.
I'm not trying to argue here. Like I said I mostly agree with your sentiments, I'm just trying to figure out in my own mind, where the line between "private" and "public" is concerning activities online.
The same as you aren't allowed to put cams on my home to spy what I do, the same applies to the internet. Or should apply.
I don't necessarily disagree with you or your comment, but I do have question concerning the sentence I quoted:
Does this privacy right you speak of extend to when you are in public areas? IE: Could I legally photograph you walking down the street? If so, wouldn't most your activities on the internet also be considered to be happening in a public space?
My point is that someone who is a bit above that -- not an expert, but can do basic things like use an email program -- are being called "tech-savvy" now.
I used to use the term "application idiot" for someone who could do all the basic stuff and even some advanced stuff within a specific program they used everyday, but were completely lost when the desktop icon for that program was inadvertently deleted.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The real problem is you want to blame someone else
At some point, sites which provide more than just a "dumb pipe" service need to bear at least some responsibility to keep their sites and services from becoming cesspools and legal blinds from which hateful and illegal "speech" can be lobbed like grenades.
Personally, I don't think assigning more liability to websites for user content will achieve what you are aiming for. What will happen is that those sites will stop allowing user content and those commenters will move to encrypted, distributed platforms (like Freenet or the next generation of that type of platform that comes along) where locating them is even more difficult then it is now.
The internet has, for the first time in history, allowed the average person to have a far-reaching platform for speech that doesn't require going through a gatekeeper. I don't believe human nature will allow you to stuff that genie back into it's bottle.
On the post: CBS Radio Says That It Doesn't Play Pre-1972 Music, Because All Its Old Songs Are Remastered
Re: Re: Re:
As far as I can see, all of the problems arising from Citizens could be fixed with campaign finance reform, so I don't really see it as a corporate personhood problem myself.
Anyways, my original comment was directed at your absolute statement that non-human legal-fictional entities having Constitutional rights is inherently wrong and ridiculous. If you deny corporations *all rights* (for example the right to own property) then corporations could not exist. What would you replace them with? Government ownership of everything?
On the post: CBS Radio Says That It Doesn't Play Pre-1972 Music, Because All Its Old Songs Are Remastered
Re:
Why? Corporations have always had some rights that could be considered "Constitutional rights" and not others. For example, corporations have (and have always had) the right own property and right to legally enter into contracts. On the other hand, corporations have never had the right to vote.
I don't think that the Citizens United did anything more than clarify that one specific right can apply to corporations. It's not this huge boogeyman you seem to think it is.
On the post: Slate Informs Its Readers That Confusing, Unnecessary, Anti-Competitive Broadband Usage Caps Are Simply Wonderful
Re: Re:
So that is where they have disappearing to!
On the post: IRS Still Working To Complete Computer Upgrade From Windows XP To Windows 7
Re: Re: Re: Why not go GNU?
And not just from the IT guys. From the accountants and managers too. I work at a small shop for a guy who used to be an accountant. I've attempted to persuade him that going the GNU route on our workstations would be beneficial in the long run, but I'm always met with the attitude of "if it doesn't cost a lot of money then it cannot be of any value" from him. It's a pretty difficult mindset to combat sometimes.
On the post: Appeals Court Gives Google A Clear And Total Fair Use Win On Book Scanning
Re: Re:
I consider myself to be a copyright minimalist based on the definitions laid out by longtime Techdirt commenter Karl
On the post: Appeals Court Gives Google A Clear And Total Fair Use Win On Book Scanning
Re:
That's pretty funny considering this case revolves around Fair Use. Does your definition of "public" include anyone other than copyright holders?
Copyright is precisely to protect all commercial exploitation of works...
Umm, no. To quote the actual ruling we are talking about:
Since the Fair Use doctrine has been around almost as long as copyright here in the US and it does allow commercial use, copyright has never been "to protect all commercial exploitation of works".
You really need to stop pulling up these arbitrary rules out of your ass.
On the post: Viacom Once Sued YouTube For A Billion Dollars; Now It's Just Released Over 100 Movies For Free On YouTube
Re: Re: Re: 77% of the comments go to the troll
I'm of the mind that Techdirt should add switch for this in the personal settings with three options:
1) Hide reported comments - works like it does presently
2) Collapse reported comments - hides reported comments and all responses to the reported comments
3) Show all - doesn't hide anything (but does indicate somewhere which comments have reached the hide threshold)
That way everyone could be happy.
I actually like it when comment threads go off topic here. It's not very often in real life that one has to limit their conversation to a specific topic when talking amongst their peers, so I just don't see why it's such a issue for some people when threads veer off-topic here.
On the post: Guy Who Won Original Right To Be Forgotten Case Loses His Attempt To Have New Story About His Past Forgotten
Re: Re: Thomas Goolnik
On the post: Guy Who Won Original Right To Be Forgotten Case Loses His Attempt To Have New Story About His Past Forgotten
Re:
It's almost like Blue is jealous of Mike because none of his silly (and usually incoherent) phrases have ever became popular.
On the post: Mother Jones Wins Ridiculous SLAPP Suit Filed By Billionaire... Who Still Claims Victory
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vastly better way to prevent abuse is get rid of billionaires. Tax them out of existence. Easy to do, popular, guaranteed to work, and would have good effects every way.
I paraphrased a little, but yes, that's the definition:
Here is Merriam-Webster's definition:
Communism is basically an extreme version of socialism where no property ownership exists whatsoever. Here is a good comparison:
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism
...then there is not and has never been a socialist nation
China certainly attempted to become a socialist society. Unfortunately, it forced them to isolate their country from the world to try to achieve it. It seems that the experiment failed seeing that they have since embraced capitalism with a fever.
And yes, I agree that that there never has been or will ever be a truly socialistic nation. It doesn't seem to be realistic possibility to me. Humans need not only reward for hard work, but also the possibility of a better personal future.
On the post: Mother Jones Wins Ridiculous SLAPP Suit Filed By Billionaire... Who Still Claims Victory
Re: Re: Re: Re: Vastly better way to prevent abuse is get rid of billionaires. Tax them out of existence. Easy to do, popular, guaranteed to work, and would have good effects every way.
None of those are true socialist systems, they are capitalist systems with socialistic tendencies. You can still raise capitol, start a manufacturing business and accumulate personal wealth in those places. In a true socialist system everything is owned by everyone and profits are distributed equally. In a communistic system everything is owned by the state and living wages are (supposedly) equal.
China has given up on their great socialistic experiment and has been slowly embracing capitalism because it gives the masses something to work towards.
The USSR failed because the workers did as little as possible since there was no additional rewards for going the extra mile.
PS: I am not a student of economics at all, so I could be way wrong here, but this is how I see it.
On the post: Mother Jones Wins Ridiculous SLAPP Suit Filed By Billionaire... Who Still Claims Victory
Re:
"Easy to do"... LOL.
You still have never explained where or how you would determine what constitutes "too much wealth" other than the inference that it is more wealth than you currently have.
You also have never explained how you would spin this notion so it wouldn't be construed as a "success tax".
On the post: Mother Jones Wins Ridiculous SLAPP Suit Filed By Billionaire... Who Still Claims Victory
Re: Re: Vastly better way to prevent abuse is get rid of billionaires. Tax them out of existence. Easy to do, popular, guaranteed to work, and would have good effects every way.
What would you replace capitalism with? Communism? Socialism?
Both of those systems tend to fail because of ingrained human instincts of self preservation. Capitalism uses those instincts to it's advantage.
On the post: The Coming Collision Between EU Privacy Regulation And American Free Speech
Re:
I'm also not sure your statement of "privacy includes the privacy of your communications" is as absolute as you make it out to be. Posting a notice on public bulletin board is a form of communication that has no expectation privacy whatsoever. Wouldn't posting a comment to a website be similar?
On a similar vein concerning snail mail, mail sealed within an envelope has an expectation of privacy, but a postcard does not.
I'm not trying to argue here. Like I said I mostly agree with your sentiments, I'm just trying to figure out in my own mind, where the line between "private" and "public" is concerning activities online.
On the post: The Coming Collision Between EU Privacy Regulation And American Free Speech
Re:
I don't necessarily disagree with you or your comment, but I do have question concerning the sentence I quoted:
Does this privacy right you speak of extend to when you are in public areas? IE: Could I legally photograph you walking down the street? If so, wouldn't most your activities on the internet also be considered to be happening in a public space?
On the post: The Coming Collision Between EU Privacy Regulation And American Free Speech
Re:
Still making up arbitrary rules for the rest of us, huh Blue?
I dunno about anyone else, but personally, I wouldn't want to live in a society that's governed by your "rules". Just sayin'
On the post: Cops Dodge Warrant Requirement By Grabbing Two Weeks Of Data, But Entering Only 6 Hours Of It As Evidence
Re: Re: Not the Cops this time.... with some background
On the post: ISP Announces It's Blocking All Facebook And Google Ads Until Companies Pay A Troll Toll
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I used to use the term "application idiot" for someone who could do all the basic stuff and even some advanced stuff within a specific program they used everyday, but were completely lost when the desktop icon for that program was inadvertently deleted.
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: The real problem is you want to blame someone else
Personally, I don't think assigning more liability to websites for user content will achieve what you are aiming for. What will happen is that those sites will stop allowing user content and those commenters will move to encrypted, distributed platforms (like Freenet or the next generation of that type of platform that comes along) where locating them is even more difficult then it is now.
The internet has, for the first time in history, allowed the average person to have a far-reaching platform for speech that doesn't require going through a gatekeeper. I don't believe human nature will allow you to stuff that genie back into it's bottle.
On the post: Here's The Ridiculous Texas Law That Allows Law Enforcement To Pretend A Digital Clock Is A Hoax Bomb
Re:
Care to elaborate on which facts you feel are distorted?
Next >>