In this video you'll find a prime example of hypocrisy
Namely the speech of Hillary Clinton during the Internet Freedom Conference 2011, where she talked about how the Internet should be free, free from censorship and tyranny.
Except that blogs are often touted as not being part of journalism. Thus it becomes an issue of the freedom of speech again. And yes, taking down a whole weblog is an infringement on that right.
You wish to remove the legal protections that /allow/ expensive products to be made [...] by having an exclusive on its distribution.
Content doesn't need to be expensive to create.
Also copyright doesn't need to last forever. And you can still make money on stuff that's not covered by copyright anymore. You can still sell it.
Without that (practically) guaranteed, the whole system will collapse.
What system? The system that creates content? That's nonsense, people don't need copyright to create works, as the past has proved, with works being created long before the first notion of copyright existed.
Well, the notion of "intellectual property" has served us well up to the present
"Intellectual property" isn't actual property. And the idea that it is has harmed us more than it has served us.
as it's based on the simple moral principle that WHO created it should have control over it.
Copyright holders aren't necessarily the content creators. And vice versa.
(garage bands don't count)
And why don't garage band count? How are they less than those big named bands? (remember, U2 started in someone's kitchen)
Dear John, can I call you John?
Copyright infringement is not stealing. It never has been, never will be. Because the original owner still has access to his/her own work. Yes, it's illegal, no it's not theft.
What the ICE did, however, was stealing. They took a domain name its rightful owner. Now, that's theft. Because the original owner did not have access to his/her own domain and website anymore.
Meh, they're all career liars.
I heard Mrs Rodham-Clinton speech today about how the internet should remain free, especially under tyrannical regimes... and then I read this.
The saying "Do as I say, not as I do" springs to mind.
Besides, the US has pretty much a one party system. There aren't that many differences between the donkey, and the elephant. At least not in US politics. Sure, the talking points are different, but that's just what they are.
It doesn't fit in their narrative. They like to see control put back into their hands, so they lie and cheat the general public out of their rights and pervert copyright to such a degree that it's now become the antithesis of what it originally meant to be.
I wouldn't bother too much if I were you. All this troll will be saying: "LALALALALA You can't refute Cleland LALALALA".
I wouldn't at all be surprised if it's actually Cleland himself posting links to his blog.
The Pirate Bay was legal in Sweden, but the US users that used the Pirate Bay weren't acting legally. Therefore, the Pirate Bay should be shut down? Is that what you're saying?
Shall we shut down all porn sites, because they are illegal in Iran?
Shall we shut down ebay, because they are helping selling bootlegged versions of Gucci bags?
Shall we shut down Google, for linking to sites that could possibly contain illegal material?
On the post: Apparently Congress Wants To Pretend No One Is Really That Concerned About SOPA
Re:
On the post: Chinese Internet Users Relish Irony Of SOPA's Great Firewall Of America
In this video you'll find a prime example of hypocrisy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6yBTRKyh8w
On the post: Chinese Internet Users Relish Irony Of SOPA's Great Firewall Of America
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA Doesn't Apologize For Year-Long Blog Censorship; Just Stands By Its Claim That The Site Broke The Law
Re: Follow up
On the post: Entertainment Industry Still Can't Get Grassroots Support For SOPA/PIPA, Resorts To Trying To Buy Support
Re: Re: Re:
Content doesn't need to be expensive to create.
Also copyright doesn't need to last forever. And you can still make money on stuff that's not covered by copyright anymore. You can still sell it.
What system? The system that creates content? That's nonsense, people don't need copyright to create works, as the past has proved, with works being created long before the first notion of copyright existed.
"Intellectual property" isn't actual property. And the idea that it is has harmed us more than it has served us.
Copyright holders aren't necessarily the content creators. And vice versa.
And why don't garage band count? How are they less than those big named bands? (remember, U2 started in someone's kitchen)
On the post: Breaking News: Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details...
Re: just gotta expect it ...
Copyright infringement is not stealing. It never has been, never will be. Because the original owner still has access to his/her own work. Yes, it's illegal, no it's not theft.
What the ICE did, however, was stealing. They took a domain name its rightful owner. Now, that's theft. Because the original owner did not have access to his/her own domain and website anymore.
On the post: Breaking News: Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details...
Re: Re: This story needs to spread....
On the post: Breaking News: Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I heard Mrs Rodham-Clinton speech today about how the internet should remain free, especially under tyrannical regimes... and then I read this.
The saying "Do as I say, not as I do" springs to mind.
Besides, the US has pretty much a one party system. There aren't that many differences between the donkey, and the elephant. At least not in US politics. Sure, the talking points are different, but that's just what they are.
On the post: Colbert Takes On SOPA
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Does Ticketmaster Undercount Tickets Sold To Underpay?
Re: Re: Re: Auditing is possible
Who did they hire to let people in that stadium, Stevie Wonder?
On the post: Facebook Fails In Its Argument That Faceporn Is Under US Jurisdiction For Using A .com
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Office Once Again Preparing To Throw Citizens A Fair Use Bone
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: PayPal Acts As Grinch Over Money Raised For Charity Using 'Wrong Button'; Finally Bows To Internet Pressure
Re: Re: "only registered non-profits are supposed to use the donate button"
On the post: As Expected, SOPA Supporters Hate More Reasonable Alternative
Re: Re: Whacking that mole.
On the post: As Expected, SOPA Supporters Hate More Reasonable Alternative
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Office Once Again Preparing To Throw Citizens A Fair Use Bone
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
though it'd be more fun to beat some sense into them with a clue-by-4.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
I wouldn't at all be surprised if it's actually Cleland himself posting links to his blog.
On the post: Copyright Office Once Again Preparing To Throw Citizens A Fair Use Bone
Re: Re: Re:
I'll keep repeating this here, until you and your ilk learn to use the correct term for the act of copyright infringement.
On the post: Self-Regulation: Should Online Companies Police The Internet?
On the post: Colbert Takes On SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shall we shut down all porn sites, because they are illegal in Iran?
Shall we shut down ebay, because they are helping selling bootlegged versions of Gucci bags?
Shall we shut down Google, for linking to sites that could possibly contain illegal material?
Next >>