If A2IM wants to be lil' RIAA, then they better be ready to face the same public opinion that the RIAA "enjoys". What concerns me is that with the apparent failure of the RIAA's tactics to 'stop piracy', why would A2IM want to jump on that ship? If I see some guy trying to bang a nail into a wall with his forehead and it's not working... I don't think I'd walk up next to him and start trying the same feat.
I be the dinosaurs are pissed that they didn't have a big government to turn to when they needed the climate-shift caused by the meteor impact to be legislated back to support them. The need for adaptation sucks, huh?
Yeah, that thing about 3 miles to your left... that's the point. Sorry you missed it.
If the government seized the printing presses and publishing capabilities of, say, the New York Times, or Time Magazine; those publishers could go acquire new physical equipment and locations and continue printing. But that would not remove the prior restraint issue the government would be guilty of. So... what's your point on this one again?
Ok everyone... raise your hand if you're confused by Mike's evil, shady, scare tactics... anyone?
Anon, you're arguing over which shade of blue the sky is... it's freakin blue. It's blue, ICE is part of DHS, and it's all part of the government. So why not call Mike out to say "it's the government"? Come on... if he was really interested in sparking controversy, he'd just say "ooooh... big bad government is comin to get your domain names!"
Now, why not go answer up to some of the other challenges that Mike and others have posted to your claims [sic] and stop harping on what doesn't matter.
Or, even better, let's go after Dell, IBM, Gateway (are they still around?) for making the computer they're used on. But why stop there? We can go after the mining companies for mining the silicon used to make those computers. Or [insert deity here] for making the universe those elements were made in!
See how silly it gets? This is why we don't blame the tools or the tool makers for what happens with those tools. That's why we don't ban guns, hammers, knitting needles, nail clippers (apparently), knives, box cutters, axes, saws, chainsaws, forks, spoons (ouch), umbrellas, bricks, rocks, clubs, sticks, pointy sticks, fire, ... need I go on?
"But if we get to a system where the protections of patents are abrogated in the name of development then we certainly will kill that organization. "
Patents are supposed to protect development... not protect holders from development.
Again (and this is key) the whole purpose of a patent is development. If the actual purpose of the patent is used as the guide for what should be issued, it won't be a question of too many or too few being issued... the right ones will be issued.
The only thing it seems she's figured out is that organizations that pay off our government want the patent system to protect their money and not the inventions or innovations it's supposed to. And now they want the whole world to do the same.
Thanks... I wasn't aware of that. I usually see that exact same pair of paragraphs quoted by Anonymous, et al, in defense of AvCB, so I didn't think anything of it. Now I gotta go dig deeper.
Maybe the whole thing was supposed to be some kind of theory exersize to investiage the possiblity taking these actions and it was put on the wrong person's desk or just labeled wrong. Man I hope so, because the alternative is scary as hell.
Let's try this again... the link you showed before shows nothing of what you claim it does. You're accusations of sociopathy and criminal activity notwithstanding, you haven't actually proven anything... but then again, we're used to that from you buy now. If you’d like to change that trend, please copy and paste the part of that post that I must be missing here that shows what you’re talking about.
As far as the other link, Mike says he wasn't arguing against contributory infringement in that post because he was focusing on the legality of the takedown. That's a far cry from "admiting the contributory infringement". Are we grasping at straws now?
I'm moving this out into a new thread because it's getting difficult to read in-thread.
"CDT v Papert isn't applicable, sorry."
See... this is exactly what I was talking about. You always come in here and post "you're wrong...sorry" without actually pointing out anything to back yourself up. What, are we supposed to just take your word for it? If you're going to debate or argue, do so. But just saying "nuh uh! you're wrong!!" is not arguing, it's hiding in ignorance.
"Your claim that since some non-infringing speech was present that only the illegal behavior can be acted on is childish, and shows you do not understand the law or even how the DMCA works."
Really? You really think prior restraint is childish? And if you think that's not what the DMCA does, you are more wrong than I thought possible. The DMCA protects non-infringing expression by targeting only the infriging content. That's why it forces the take-down of the infringing video on YouTube, not the whole site.
"You've completely botched Arcara v Cloud. Go read that paragraph again and repost it in its entirety here. That is, if you aren't embarrassed once you realize you're wrong."
I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how it doesn't work... but if you insist...
U.S. Supreme Court
Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U.S. 697 (1986)
Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc.
No. 85-437
Argued April 29, 1986
Decided July 7, 1986
478 U.S. 697
Syllabus
A New York statute authorizes closure of a building found to be a public health nuisance because it was being used as a place for prostitution and lewdness. After a county Deputy Sheriff's undercover investigation of respondents' "adult" bookstore disclosed that illicit sexual activities, including solicitation of prostitution, occurred on the premises, a civil complaint was filed against respondents seeking closure of the premises under the statute. Respondents answered by alleging, inter alia, that a closure would impermissibly interfere with their First Amendment right to sell books on the premises, and that the closure statute was not intended to apply to establishments other than houses of prostitution. The New York trial court denied respondents' motion for a summary judgment, holding that the statute applied to respondents. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed on First Amendment grounds. Applying the test of United States v. O'Brien, 391 U. S. 367, for determining the validity of a statute regulating conduct that has an expressive element, the court held that the closure statute failed the part of the O'Brien test that requires the statute to be no broader than necessary to achieve its purpose, because the closure order was much broader than necessary to achieve the restriction against illicit sexual activities and because an injunction against continuing those activities could achieve the same effect without restricting respondents' bookselling activities
[1]Held: The First Amendment does not bar enforcement of the closure statute against respondents' bookstore. United States v. O'Brien, supra, has no relevance to a statute directed at imposing sanctions on nonexpressive activity, and the sexual activities carried on in this case manifest absolutely no element of protected expression. The closure statute is directed at unlawful conduct having nothing to do with books or other expressive activity. Bookselling on premises used for prostitution does not confer First Amendment coverage to defeat a statute aimed at penalizing and terminating illegal uses of premises. Pp. 478 U. S. 702-707.
65 N.Y.2d 324, 480 N.E.2d 1089, reversed.
BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, POWELL, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR,
Page 478 U. S. 698
(emphasis, bracked numbers added by me)
[1] right here is what we’ve stated time and time again. The illegal activity in this case was non-expressive. It does not apply when the illegal activity is expressive .
This is the last time I’m mentioning it. I’m going to save a link to this comment, and anytime you say “LOL show me where AvCB doesn’t apply”, I’m just going to give you this link. I’ve already given too much time to you. If you want to point out, with detailed analysis as to where I’m wrong, feel free. I’ll read it. But if you respond with something like “LOLz!1!! You are still wrong!!!”, I’ll ignore it and you.
Look... if you want to go around accusing people of racisim or biggotry, you might want to pick a better word to attack than "apologist"... especially since it was used benignly.
The only reason this has gone on for 13 Re's is because I usually try to defend myself when someone assumes incorrectly about my intention or point of view. But in this case, since you're grouping me in with racist white-supremisists, I'm done. Keep your opinion about me. I'm done trying to fix ignorace with you. If this keeps going, I’m sure I’ll be called a nazi next.
Mike links to his own posts (as do) when it actually has something to do with the conversation. You said "And that Egyptian owner of torrent-finder is just a straight up sociopath: [link to post removed for brevity]"... the post you linked to had nothing to do with the owner of Torrent-Finder lying about the purpose of his site. So, sorry, you still fail.
And feel free to provide a link to the post where Mike 'admits' to the owner of TF's contributor infringement.
The only apologist I would be is one for Free Speech. If you look back through my posts, you'll see that I defend against the circumvention of Free Speech through prior restraint in this case. I don't say "piracy is OK" or "downloading is ok"... I say that what the government did was wrong. That's not 'defending'... that's attacking.
And it's clear to you that it's derogatory... that's how you choose to interpret it. I say that you're wrong. And as one of the people you accuse of using the term, I'd say that I'm a better judge of my own intention, thank you very much.
If you see it as inflammatory/derogatory, even after I've that it's not, and it affects you're opinion of me or my argument… well, sorry, but I’m not going to feel that one as a loss.
You know, I kinda held a bit of respect for you for sticking to your guns on issues even if they were wrong and you were heading towards willful ignorance. But this one? Your link goes to one of your own comments that says nothing about anyone lying about the contents of the site in question. All you do is parrot your old blather about Mike.
So you either posted the wrong link, or you're trying to back up your stance with... your own stance. And incorrectly, at that.
I've gone round and round with you on Arcara before Anonymous. I'm not 'afraid to debate you'. I just get frustrated by willful ignorance and refusal to accept fact.
I'm not a piracy apologist, but if you want to label me thus, it's your error, not mine. I've never said piracy was legal, but I do argue that it is not harmful to anyone except the established media recording and distribution system.
And you can try to rouse me by personal attacks all you want. I've learned to ignore childish name-calling since grade school.
So, tell this 'little man' how I'm a coward. And I challenge you to respond with more than "LOL".
I almost cried a bit on that one. This person is one of the the faces of our country to the world-at-large? I'm going to go drown my national identity in alcohol now.
Well, I'm sorry reality seems a bit twisted in your head.
There may be 5 or less... or a million or more. That's the problem with Anonymous posting... we never really know from one post to another. Regardless of the number of people, Marcus gave them the title of "apologists" so that those who would find humor in his statement would know who he's talking about.
As far as the posts I linked being individual posts... I selected a small example of the many posts from the past here. I'm not going to go digging through to find enough examples to satisfy your laziness.
We're not creating some kind of boogey-man group here... We're taking a small number (comparatively) of commenters out of a larger number of AC's and saying "these are the ones we're talking about". What's hard to understand about this?
And if its derogation you're on about, I think you're reading more into than is there. We're not trying to insult these people with 'apologist' like it's a dirty word.
I hate to burst everyone's bubble here, but there's only one thing a business owes it's loyalty to: Their bottom line.
Corporations are held liable if they don't turn a profit. Held liable by their shareholders, which are often times those very same taxpayers.
And what does taxpaying have to do with anything? You seem to be making a case that just because someone here is an American Citizen and pays their taxes, these companies should somehow be loyal to them. Why?
As long as the company is making money: it. doesn't. care. I'm sure there are some CEO's out there that would LOVE to do their business according to their personal moral beliefs. But if those beliefs don't jive with 'making money', then they are overridden.
On the post: Indie Music Association Comes Out In Favor Of Seizing Domain Names Of Blogs That Promote Their Music
Reap what you sow
On the post: Indie Music Association Comes Out In Favor Of Seizing Domain Names Of Blogs That Promote Their Music
Re:
I be the dinosaurs are pissed that they didn't have a big government to turn to when they needed the climate-shift caused by the meteor impact to be legislated back to support them. The need for adaptation sucks, huh?
On the post: Full Homeland Security Affidavit To Seize Domains Riddled With Technical & Legal Errors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the government seized the printing presses and publishing capabilities of, say, the New York Times, or Time Magazine; those publishers could go acquire new physical equipment and locations and continue printing. But that would not remove the prior restraint issue the government would be guilty of. So... what's your point on this one again?
On the post: Full Homeland Security Affidavit To Seize Domains Riddled With Technical & Legal Errors
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anon, you're arguing over which shade of blue the sky is... it's freakin blue. It's blue, ICE is part of DHS, and it's all part of the government. So why not call Mike out to say "it's the government"? Come on... if he was really interested in sparking controversy, he'd just say "ooooh... big bad government is comin to get your domain names!"
Now, why not go answer up to some of the other challenges that Mike and others have posted to your claims [sic] and stop harping on what doesn't matter.
On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet - Or The Law
Re: Re: Re: Terms
See how silly it gets? This is why we don't blame the tools or the tool makers for what happens with those tools. That's why we don't ban guns, hammers, knitting needles, nail clippers (apparently), knives, box cutters, axes, saws, chainsaws, forks, spoons (ouch), umbrellas, bricks, rocks, clubs, sticks, pointy sticks, fire, ... need I go on?
On the post: Full Homeland Security Affidavit To Seize Domains Riddled With Technical & Legal Errors
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Ambassador To The UN: Protecting Patents & Copyrights More Important Than Development
Re: confused yourself
Patents are supposed to protect development... not protect holders from development.
Again (and this is key) the whole purpose of a patent is development. If the actual purpose of the patent is used as the guide for what should be issued, it won't be a question of too many or too few being issued... the right ones will be issued.
The only thing it seems she's figured out is that organizations that pay off our government want the patent system to protect their money and not the inventions or innovations it's supposed to. And now they want the whole world to do the same.
On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet - Or The Law
Re: Syllabus [was Re: re: #91 from Anonymous]
On the post: Full Homeland Security Affidavit To Seize Domains Riddled With Technical & Legal Errors
Theory exersize gone wrong?
On the post: Homeland Security's 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures Also Included Songs Sent By Labels
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as the other link, Mike says he wasn't arguing against contributory infringement in that post because he was focusing on the legality of the takedown. That's a far cry from "admiting the contributory infringement". Are we grasping at straws now?
On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet - Or The Law
re: #91 from Anonymous
See... this is exactly what I was talking about. You always come in here and post "you're wrong...sorry" without actually pointing out anything to back yourself up. What, are we supposed to just take your word for it? If you're going to debate or argue, do so. But just saying "nuh uh! you're wrong!!" is not arguing, it's hiding in ignorance.
Really? You really think prior restraint is childish? And if you think that's not what the DMCA does, you are more wrong than I thought possible. The DMCA protects non-infringing expression by targeting only the infriging content. That's why it forces the take-down of the infringing video on YouTube, not the whole site.
I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how it doesn't work... but if you insist...
[1] right here is what we’ve stated time and time again. The illegal activity in this case was non-expressive. It does not apply when the illegal activity is expressive .
This is the last time I’m mentioning it. I’m going to save a link to this comment, and anytime you say “LOL show me where AvCB doesn’t apply”, I’m just going to give you this link. I’ve already given too much time to you. If you want to point out, with detailed analysis as to where I’m wrong, feel free. I’ll read it. But if you respond with something like “LOLz!1!! You are still wrong!!!”, I’ll ignore it and you.
On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet - Or The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only reason this has gone on for 13 Re's is because I usually try to defend myself when someone assumes incorrectly about my intention or point of view. But in this case, since you're grouping me in with racist white-supremisists, I'm done. Keep your opinion about me. I'm done trying to fix ignorace with you. If this keeps going, I’m sure I’ll be called a nazi next.
On the post: IBM's Jeopardy Answering Computer Apparently Ready To Compete For Real
Re:
On the post: Homeland Security's 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures Also Included Songs Sent By Labels
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And feel free to provide a link to the post where Mike 'admits' to the owner of TF's contributor infringement.
On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet - Or The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And it's clear to you that it's derogatory... that's how you choose to interpret it. I say that you're wrong. And as one of the people you accuse of using the term, I'd say that I'm a better judge of my own intention, thank you very much.
If you see it as inflammatory/derogatory, even after I've that it's not, and it affects you're opinion of me or my argument… well, sorry, but I’m not going to feel that one as a loss.
On the post: Homeland Security's 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures Also Included Songs Sent By Labels
Re: Re: Re:
So you either posted the wrong link, or you're trying to back up your stance with... your own stance. And incorrectly, at that.
On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet - Or The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not a piracy apologist, but if you want to label me thus, it's your error, not mine. I've never said piracy was legal, but I do argue that it is not harmful to anyone except the established media recording and distribution system.
And you can try to rouse me by personal attacks all you want. I've learned to ignore childish name-calling since grade school.
So, tell this 'little man' how I'm a coward. And I challenge you to respond with more than "LOL".
On the post: US Ambassador To The UN: Protecting Patents & Copyrights More Important Than Development
Wow
On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet - Or The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There may be 5 or less... or a million or more. That's the problem with Anonymous posting... we never really know from one post to another. Regardless of the number of people, Marcus gave them the title of "apologists" so that those who would find humor in his statement would know who he's talking about.
As far as the posts I linked being individual posts... I selected a small example of the many posts from the past here. I'm not going to go digging through to find enough examples to satisfy your laziness.
We're not creating some kind of boogey-man group here... We're taking a small number (comparatively) of commenters out of a larger number of AC's and saying "these are the ones we're talking about". What's hard to understand about this?
And if its derogation you're on about, I think you're reading more into than is there. We're not trying to insult these people with 'apologist' like it's a dirty word.
On the post: Bank Of America -- Thought To Be Wikileaks Next Target -- Suddenly Tries To Block Payments To Wikileaks
Re:
Corporations are held liable if they don't turn a profit. Held liable by their shareholders, which are often times those very same taxpayers.
And what does taxpaying have to do with anything? You seem to be making a case that just because someone here is an American Citizen and pays their taxes, these companies should somehow be loyal to them. Why?
As long as the company is making money: it. doesn't. care. I'm sure there are some CEO's out there that would LOVE to do their business according to their personal moral beliefs. But if those beliefs don't jive with 'making money', then they are overridden.
Next >>