What about contacting the local or appropriate bar association? Two things might be persuasive to them. First of all, you have lawyers discouraging the use of other lawyers. Second of all, you have tactics that scream questionable in terms of their ethics.
For the bar association, this seems like a win-win, they can pound the lawyers for discouraging use of the profession but claim they're doing it for ethical reasons.
"Now is my ad hominem attack justified? I think so IDIOT." Hardly, you're spending so much time trying to prove you're smarter than everyone else you haven't really understood why people disagree with you (other than the childish and mean-spirited attacks).
I certainly don't disagree with CCTVs being a giant waste of resources, I said as much in my original post--what I disagreed with was that the widespread use of such would result in some kind of terrible and hellish future. The leap from here to there is far too great and has to assume no counter-incentives which is why I also don't buy the slippery-slope argument.
Sigh. I really should let this go, but can't... help... myself...
"many inferior people" = ad hominem; attack on the person, not the argument.
"threat posed by ubiquitous surveillance" = unfounded assertion; this is open to debate and has no evidence provided by you to support it, therefore it is unfounded. I never said it was not true, just simply an assertion/opinion on your part for which you provided no evidence.
"Pity it's not possible to simply confine THEM to the hell that they so fervently support." = ad hominem, FUD, and unfounded assertion; see prior, whether or not it will be hell is open to debate and may be a matter of opinion.
I actually see no application of logic in your original post--you concluded that everyone here that disagrees with the privacy concerns was inferior with no explanation of why and then made a proposal. There was no specific logic used other than perhaps making a number of implicit assumptions.
See, *this* I agree with. I don't really buy into the privacy concerns mainly because all of the examples of the potential slippery slope dystopian future are not useful to have this discussion because they are so cartoonish and extreme.
I'm afraid I don't really buy into the FUD here. I agree that it is very likely a wasted effort, but not sure what the concern is.
Mike has made the point himself a number of times that the technology isn't to blame--so the issue must be elsewhere. Yes, you might be less aware of being monitored, but you should have no expectation of privacy or not being monitored in a public place.
As for the volunteers (or any individuals) potentially abusing the system? I would have a problem if this is allowing abuse that could not occur otherwise, but it isn't--I can spy on people or film people in public places using other means and I can do so in ways that would make it difficult or impossible for those being monitored to know. If the issue is that it is too easy, then we are back to the Facebook facilitates child predation analogy.
In other words, I think the fallacy here is that the abuse is created by this approach. If someone wants to spy on someone or blackmail them because of something they observed, they could do it with or with out the cameras.
a) The US constitution states:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
First of all, that isn't a "fundamental" right by any definition, for multiple reasons, not the least of which is the use of the word "limited".
Second of all, the right is being defined by you, not everyone, to include "fair share of the pie" and you have a very narrow and self-interested definition of "fair".
b) The reasoning you use is that because some people must be compensated you are charging for all MMS transactions, even if all transactions aren't infringing. Why is this fair?
And, you haven't answered my other question about revenue, but I'll ask another--what makes you believe that charging for MMSs won't drive consumers to use other methods of sharing, which mobile operators won't be able to track?
Holy crap... I just read some of the ideological wishful thinking on your site:
What I would like to quantify if possible is what proportion of current MMS involve copyright material. Clearly a large proportion of it is perfectly legitimate personal photos. Is it possible to ascertain the copyright proportion?
The proportion of current MMS copyrighted material in the U.S. basically is any MMS in fixed form. That means any and all videos, music and images (multimedia) is copyrighted the moment it is fixed according to U.S. laws. Even legitimate personal photos are copyrighted. Now, we're NOT proposing that the wireless industry should administrate the particulars. We are proposing they simply pay a statutory rate on ALL MMS and authorized 3rd parties in turn will monitor, collect and distribute that revenue to its members that want to enforce their rights as the copyright holder.
You have to be kidding right? You realize that this scheme will collapse under the weight of administration? There is incentive for anyone who sends MMS's to sign up and enforce their rights to receive payment. I will start sending my friends hundreds of pictures I took since they won't ever have to pay directly--everyone is taxed.
What rate are you referring to? And what obligation? You mention that there should be a statutory rate (i.e., tax) on ALL transactions, yet we can easily show that all transactions cannot possibly be infringing (phone rings in my house), so how would such a rate be set? Why is this fair to all participants, which would include the consumer?
And, what I'm really interested in is why you thing the rate is both necessary and *desired*? Why do you believe the rate would increase and not cannibalize other revenues?
But it is not illegal to consider beliefs and utterances that have been aired in a public forum. Don't get me wrong, they have no standing to ask for usernames and passwords, but anything they can see freely without them is fair game.
Sorry, that wasn't so clear--if your speech impedes your ability to do your job or *represent your employer (government or not)*, you cannot claim first amendment protection.
1) No, sorry, it doesn't. You cannot say whatever you want on or off the job while on the job and your employer has to accept it. The first amendment applies to your freedom of persecution from the government. Moving on.
On the post: District Court Bans 'Catcher In The Rye' Sequel; Since When Did The US Ban Books?
Re:
On the post: Automated Copyright Settlement Letters Apparently A Lucrative Business
Gray area of legality, but ...
For the bar association, this seems like a win-win, they can pound the lawyers for discouraging use of the profession but claim they're doing it for ethical reasons.
On the post: UK Newspaper Agency Wants To Regulate, Charge For Linking Privileges
Phone numbers
On the post: Amazon Kindle DRM Strikes Again: You Don't Really Own Your eBooks
Didn't we already learn this doesn't work?
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re:
I certainly don't disagree with CCTVs being a giant waste of resources, I said as much in my original post--what I disagreed with was that the widespread use of such would result in some kind of terrible and hellish future. The leap from here to there is far too great and has to assume no counter-incentives which is why I also don't buy the slippery-slope argument.
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re:
"many inferior people" = ad hominem; attack on the person, not the argument.
"threat posed by ubiquitous surveillance" = unfounded assertion; this is open to debate and has no evidence provided by you to support it, therefore it is unfounded. I never said it was not true, just simply an assertion/opinion on your part for which you provided no evidence.
"Pity it's not possible to simply confine THEM to the hell that they so fervently support." = ad hominem, FUD, and unfounded assertion; see prior, whether or not it will be hell is open to debate and may be a matter of opinion.
I actually see no application of logic in your original post--you concluded that everyone here that disagrees with the privacy concerns was inferior with no explanation of why and then made a proposal. There was no specific logic used other than perhaps making a number of implicit assumptions.
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re:
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Re: George Orwell was right
On the post: Town Outsources Video Camera Surveillance To Resident Volunteers?
Scary?
Mike has made the point himself a number of times that the technology isn't to blame--so the issue must be elsewhere. Yes, you might be less aware of being monitored, but you should have no expectation of privacy or not being monitored in a public place.
As for the volunteers (or any individuals) potentially abusing the system? I would have a problem if this is allowing abuse that could not occur otherwise, but it isn't--I can spy on people or film people in public places using other means and I can do so in ways that would make it difficult or impossible for those being monitored to know. If the issue is that it is too easy, then we are back to the Facebook facilitates child predation analogy.
In other words, I think the fallacy here is that the abuse is created by this approach. If someone wants to spy on someone or blackmail them because of something they observed, they could do it with or with out the cameras.
On the post: ASCAP Now Claiming That Your Mobile Phone Ringing Is A Public Performance
Re: Re: Re: statutory rates
On the post: ASCAP Now Claiming That Your Mobile Phone Ringing Is A Public Performance
Re: Re: peer2peer
On the post: ASCAP Now Claiming That Your Mobile Phone Ringing Is A Public Performance
Re: wishful thinking
On the post: ASCAP Now Claiming That Your Mobile Phone Ringing Is A Public Performance
Re: wishful thinking
On the post: ASCAP Now Claiming That Your Mobile Phone Ringing Is A Public Performance
Re: statutory rates
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
First of all, that isn't a "fundamental" right by any definition, for multiple reasons, not the least of which is the use of the word "limited".
Second of all, the right is being defined by you, not everyone, to include "fair share of the pie" and you have a very narrow and self-interested definition of "fair".
b) The reasoning you use is that because some people must be compensated you are charging for all MMS transactions, even if all transactions aren't infringing. Why is this fair?
And, you haven't answered my other question about revenue, but I'll ask another--what makes you believe that charging for MMSs won't drive consumers to use other methods of sharing, which mobile operators won't be able to track?
On the post: ASCAP Now Claiming That Your Mobile Phone Ringing Is A Public Performance
Re: data revenue
You have to be kidding right? You realize that this scheme will collapse under the weight of administration? There is incentive for anyone who sends MMS's to sign up and enforce their rights to receive payment. I will start sending my friends hundreds of pictures I took since they won't ever have to pay directly--everyone is taxed.
On the post: ASCAP Now Claiming That Your Mobile Phone Ringing Is A Public Performance
Re: data revenue
What rate are you referring to? And what obligation? You mention that there should be a statutory rate (i.e., tax) on ALL transactions, yet we can easily show that all transactions cannot possibly be infringing (phone rings in my house), so how would such a rate be set? Why is this fair to all participants, which would include the consumer?
And, what I'm really interested in is why you thing the rate is both necessary and *desired*? Why do you believe the rate would increase and not cannibalize other revenues?
On the post: City Requires Job Applicants To Hand Over All Online Usernames And Passwords
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Universities Struggling To Deal With Law Requiring Them To Fight File Sharing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Wrong
On the post: City Requires Job Applicants To Hand Over All Online Usernames And Passwords
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: City Requires Job Applicants To Hand Over All Online Usernames And Passwords
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>