Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but a gangster is someone who uses threats and intimidation to extort money out of people, right?
And Mr. Trkulja and his mouthpiece Gibson appear to be doing just that, to Techdirt and also Google. So doesn't that make them gangsters? By definition? Am I confused?
Also, reviewing the comments here it does seem that they are both receiving a great deal of ridicule for the incompetent way in in which they're going about it.
So, again by definition, that makes them ridiculous, no?
At this point Google has gone as far as technically possible to accommodate the MoT and thoughtcrime (oops; I mean RTBF).
I don't see how the EU can ask any more without *completely* breaking the Internet.
If country A says Google *must not* do X, and country B says they *must* do X (and that will surely happen), there's no way to accommodate both if Google can't split the baby somehow.
It will be interesting to see what the EU tries next.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: if democracy isn't "majority rules", then what is it?
Courts are not answerable to a democratically elected body.
If a court finds my guilt or innocent, the legislature can't overrule them.
I don't have a problem with that - IF, that is, the court is setup in an open and transparent way, with avenues for appeal, etc., such that we can reasonably expect to get justice out of the system.
As often as humanly possible, anyway.
Corporations, like Soylent Green, are made of people. [Old Charlton Heston joke...nevermind]. My wife and I own and run a corporation. It employs 11 people.
Corporations are just groups of people who get together to do things that are too big for one person to do. I don't see any reason that people in groups shouldn't have the same rights that people have one-by-one.
One of the purposes of law is to make life more predictable.
So people can know what will and won't be punished.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If the voting public doesn't support the TPP at all, why are we continuing to pursue it?
They should - I agree.
But investors who follow the rules shouldn't have the rug pulled out from under them.
It's fine to change the rules and say "new factories, starting today, must pay for their pollution". I support that.
But if somebody follows the rules, then the rules change after they've invested, they should be compensated.
Suppose I build a fancy pool in my backyard. I get all the permits, follow all the code, etc. I do things by the book. I invest a lot of money.
Then, afterward, the city decides to ban pools because mosquitoes breed there.
This is for the public good. I accept that. The city should have that power - I accept that. But the homeowner, who followed all the rules, should be compensated for their loss.
I don't see it as fair that the pool builder gets to pay a "tax" for the public good that everyone else doesn't have to pay - why should that unlucky guy be the only one who loses?
If it's for the public good, it should be paid for out of general tax revenue - the pool-builder should be compensated out of that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If the voting public doesn't support the TPP at all, why are we continuing to pursue it?
If (hypotheically) raising the minimum wage benefits the public more than than it costs employers (in the case of ISDS, only *foreign* employers), then there should be no problem paying the damages - the public is ahead of the game after paying them, and the employers are no worse off than before.
Same for nuclear power - if the benefit to the public exceeds the losses to private parties then the public is ahead even after paying compensation.
To me it's simple fairness - particular private parties should be compensated when they suffer losses for the benefit of the public as a whole.
In my view it ought to apply to everyone (not just foreign investors), but reducing injustice a little at a time is still progress.
Re: Re: Re: Re: If the voting public doesn't support the TPP at all, why are we continuing to pursue it?
I'm no expert on ISDS or TPP.
My understanding is that ISDS is meant to compensate foreign investors if they invest based on existing law, then the government arbitrarily changes the rules afterwards, harming them.
If my understanding is correct, and if it's done in an open and transparent way (some commenters say it's not, and if so that's worrying), then I do support it.
It's effectively another limitation on the arbitrary powers of government. Which I think we have too few of.
If you think the idea of the Bill of Rights is a good one, then you agree with me that at least some restrictions on what governments are allowed to do - even with majority support - are good.
My view is we need more restrictions on the arbitrary power of governments.
ISDS doesn't even say governments can't do what they want - it just says if they do, they have to compensate (some of) the losers.
Every government action has winners and losers. If the gains of the winners are bigger than the losses of the losers, it's a good thing to do. That doesn't mean that the losers should pay for the gains of the winners - losers should be compensated.
If the compensation is too much, then that's a sign that the gains of the winners are not large enough to pay the losses - so it's bad policy and shouldn't be implemented.
Re: if democracy isn't "majority rules", then what is it?
Democracy is part of a larger system that includes inviolate rights (rights that can't be overridden by a majority), limits on the power of governments, and mechanisms (like representative government) meant to cool passions and allow time for reason and debate.
What exactly is ironic about it, and does the irony result from the fact that it's me asking the question?
I'd really like to know.
As I just said in my other reply, this will "haunt the kid at school" only because our culture makes such a big effing deal about these stupid photos. For no good reason that I can see.
But if the law didn't care, then this boy wouldn't have been blackmailed, wouldn't have been on TV, wouldn't be suing anybody, and we wouldn't be talking about it here.
So how the hell does the law caring help anybody at all?
Yes, I understand that. Kids are stupid and gullible.
(I have raised a couple of my own, so I've personal experience).
I'm not asking about that.
I'm asking about our culture. Why does our culture go nuts (no pun intended) over dick pics?
Why does everyone, including the TV station, the viewers, the police, the law, and commenters here on Techdirt, make such a big effing deal about DICK PICTURES?
Who the hell cares? It's a penis. They all look pretty much the same. Half of the people in the world have one. It's no crime!
Jesus H. Christ, people. Can't you find something more important to get upset over?
Every single person on the planet has genitals. We all know what they look like.
So why are photos of them such a big effing deal?
HOW can one successfully threaten a 15 year old boy over a picture of his erect penis?
WHAT terrible thing would happen to him if that photo was released? (Presumably it doesn't even show his face, so it could be ANYBODY'S dick in the picture.)
Blackmail is a threat to reveal illicit behavior. Cheating on one's spouse. Crimes. Immoral acts.
But every 15 year old boy had a penis, and it gets erect sometimes. There's nothing illicit or even unusual about that.
No, Toyota is the actual owner of the Monkey Selfie.
The guy drove there in a Toyota.
If the Toyota didn't exist, there would be no Monkey Selfie, thus Toyota is the rightful owner of the picture and copyright.. Not sure why this isn't evident...
On the post: Our Response To Yet Another Bogus Legal Threat From Australia: Go Learn Some Law
It seems to me they're both gangsters
And Mr. Trkulja and his mouthpiece Gibson appear to be doing just that, to Techdirt and also Google. So doesn't that make them gangsters? By definition? Am I confused?
Also, reviewing the comments here it does seem that they are both receiving a great deal of ridicule for the incompetent way in in which they're going about it.
So, again by definition, that makes them ridiculous, no?
On the post: Google Partially Caves To French Demands For More Global Censorship Of 'Forgotten' Links
This is the end?
I don't see how the EU can ask any more without *completely* breaking the Internet.
If country A says Google *must not* do X, and country B says they *must* do X (and that will surely happen), there's no way to accommodate both if Google can't split the baby somehow.
It will be interesting to see what the EU tries next.
On the post: Google Partially Caves To French Demands For More Global Censorship Of 'Forgotten' Links
Re: Re: Not sure if this has been suggested before
Government can.
That's a big difference.
On the post: CIA Director Freaks Out After Senator Wyden Points Out How The CIA Spied On The Senate
Sigh.
On the post: Former USTR Comes Out Against TPP -- Though Not Necessarily For The Best Reasons
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: if democracy isn't "majority rules", then what is it?
If a court finds my guilt or innocent, the legislature can't overrule them.
I don't have a problem with that - IF, that is, the court is setup in an open and transparent way, with avenues for appeal, etc., such that we can reasonably expect to get justice out of the system.
As often as humanly possible, anyway.
Corporations, like Soylent Green, are made of people. [Old Charlton Heston joke...nevermind]. My wife and I own and run a corporation. It employs 11 people.
Corporations are just groups of people who get together to do things that are too big for one person to do. I don't see any reason that people in groups shouldn't have the same rights that people have one-by-one.
One of the purposes of law is to make life more predictable.
So people can know what will and won't be punished.
So people can make plans about the future.
Including, very importantly, investments.
On the post: Former USTR Comes Out Against TPP -- Though Not Necessarily For The Best Reasons
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If the voting public doesn't support the TPP at all, why are we continuing to pursue it?
But investors who follow the rules shouldn't have the rug pulled out from under them.
It's fine to change the rules and say "new factories, starting today, must pay for their pollution". I support that.
But if somebody follows the rules, then the rules change after they've invested, they should be compensated.
Suppose I build a fancy pool in my backyard. I get all the permits, follow all the code, etc. I do things by the book. I invest a lot of money.
Then, afterward, the city decides to ban pools because mosquitoes breed there.
This is for the public good. I accept that. The city should have that power - I accept that. But the homeowner, who followed all the rules, should be compensated for their loss.
I don't see it as fair that the pool builder gets to pay a "tax" for the public good that everyone else doesn't have to pay - why should that unlucky guy be the only one who loses?
If it's for the public good, it should be paid for out of general tax revenue - the pool-builder should be compensated out of that.
On the post: Former USTR Comes Out Against TPP -- Though Not Necessarily For The Best Reasons
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If the voting public doesn't support the TPP at all, why are we continuing to pursue it?
Same for nuclear power - if the benefit to the public exceeds the losses to private parties then the public is ahead even after paying compensation.
To me it's simple fairness - particular private parties should be compensated when they suffer losses for the benefit of the public as a whole.
In my view it ought to apply to everyone (not just foreign investors), but reducing injustice a little at a time is still progress.
On the post: Former USTR Comes Out Against TPP -- Though Not Necessarily For The Best Reasons
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If the voting public doesn't support the TPP at all, why are we continuing to pursue it?
The idea is that the *mechanism* works for the public good. All the tribunal has to do is accurately determine the compensation due, if any.
On the post: Former USTR Comes Out Against TPP -- Though Not Necessarily For The Best Reasons
Re: Re: Re: Re: If the voting public doesn't support the TPP at all, why are we continuing to pursue it?
My understanding is that ISDS is meant to compensate foreign investors if they invest based on existing law, then the government arbitrarily changes the rules afterwards, harming them.
If my understanding is correct, and if it's done in an open and transparent way (some commenters say it's not, and if so that's worrying), then I do support it.
It's effectively another limitation on the arbitrary powers of government. Which I think we have too few of.
If you think the idea of the Bill of Rights is a good one, then you agree with me that at least some restrictions on what governments are allowed to do - even with majority support - are good.
My view is we need more restrictions on the arbitrary power of governments.
ISDS doesn't even say governments can't do what they want - it just says if they do, they have to compensate (some of) the losers.
Every government action has winners and losers. If the gains of the winners are bigger than the losses of the losers, it's a good thing to do. That doesn't mean that the losers should pay for the gains of the winners - losers should be compensated.
If the compensation is too much, then that's a sign that the gains of the winners are not large enough to pay the losses - so it's bad policy and shouldn't be implemented.
On the post: Former USTR Comes Out Against TPP -- Though Not Necessarily For The Best Reasons
Re: Re: Re: if democracy isn't "majority rules", then what is it?
On the post: TV Station Educates Public On Dangers Of Teen Sexting By Exposing 14-Year-Old's Name... And Penis
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is the big effing deal??
It didn't end.
If anything, it's worse there.
On the post: Former USTR Comes Out Against TPP -- Though Not Necessarily For The Best Reasons
Re: if democracy isn't "majority rules", then what is it?
On the post: Former USTR Comes Out Against TPP -- Though Not Necessarily For The Best Reasons
Re: Re: If the voting public doesn't support the TPP at all, why are we continuing to pursue it?
As for the stuff we don't know about, I don't know about that.
There is (and should be) a strong presumption that trade is good and more of it is better.
Unfortunately special interests have taken advantage of that presumption to insert the IP stuff.
On the post: Former USTR Comes Out Against TPP -- Though Not Necessarily For The Best Reasons
If the voting public doesn't support the TPP at all, why are we continuing to pursue it?
In general, the voting public often doesn't know what's good for it.
In that case responsible leaders try to educate and convince. (Just for once, let's not get all cynical and say there are no such people.)
I'm a very strong supporter of free trade. If it weren't for the IP provisions, I'd be in favor of TPP.
But the IP provisions are there. So I'm not.
On the post: TV Station Educates Public On Dangers Of Teen Sexting By Exposing 14-Year-Old's Name... And Penis
Re: Re: Re: Re: What is the big effing deal??
I'd really like to know.
As I just said in my other reply, this will "haunt the kid at school" only because our culture makes such a big effing deal about these stupid photos. For no good reason that I can see.
I don't see how that benefits anyone.
On the post: TV Station Educates Public On Dangers Of Teen Sexting By Exposing 14-Year-Old's Name... And Penis
Re: Re: Re: Re: What is the big effing deal??
But if the law didn't care, then this boy wouldn't have been blackmailed, wouldn't have been on TV, wouldn't be suing anybody, and we wouldn't be talking about it here.
So how the hell does the law caring help anybody at all?
On the post: TV Station Educates Public On Dangers Of Teen Sexting By Exposing 14-Year-Old's Name... And Penis
Re: Re: What is the big effing deal??
(I have raised a couple of my own, so I've personal experience).
I'm not asking about that.
I'm asking about our culture. Why does our culture go nuts (no pun intended) over dick pics?
Why does everyone, including the TV station, the viewers, the police, the law, and commenters here on Techdirt, make such a big effing deal about DICK PICTURES?
Who the hell cares? It's a penis. They all look pretty much the same. Half of the people in the world have one. It's no crime!
Jesus H. Christ, people. Can't you find something more important to get upset over?
On the post: TV Station Educates Public On Dangers Of Teen Sexting By Exposing 14-Year-Old's Name... And Penis
What is the big effing deal??
Every single person on the planet has genitals. We all know what they look like.
So why are photos of them such a big effing deal?
HOW can one successfully threaten a 15 year old boy over a picture of his erect penis?
WHAT terrible thing would happen to him if that photo was released? (Presumably it doesn't even show his face, so it could be ANYBODY'S dick in the picture.)
Blackmail is a threat to reveal illicit behavior. Cheating on one's spouse. Crimes. Immoral acts.
But every 15 year old boy had a penis, and it gets erect sometimes. There's nothing illicit or even unusual about that.
WTF? Somebody please explain.
On the post: Monkey See, Monkey Do, But Judge Says Monkey Gets No Copyright
Re: Monkey Selfie
The guy drove there in a Toyota.
If the Toyota didn't exist, there would be no Monkey Selfie, thus Toyota is the rightful owner of the picture and copyright.. Not sure why this isn't evident...
On the post: Monkey See, Monkey Do, But Judge Says Monkey Gets No Copyright
Re: Right result, bad decision
If they can find a easy reason to decide a case, they don't bother looking at other reasons.
This is because:
1 - It saves everyone's time and effort.
2 - Hard cases make bad law.
Next >>