"LOL You've never done that. But humor me and give it a try."
He just did... and you even replied to them. I’m not 100% familiar with the cases he cited, so I'm not going to argue them with you. But I will bring up this one point:
"3. Re: CDT v. Pappert; we've discussed this case before, and it has no bearing on these seizures. No non-infringing sites were seized or blocked."
It’s whether or not the websites had any non-infringing content that’s the focus here. If any of those sites that were seized had any non-infringing content, that content would have to be protected. Blocking that content would be prior restraint.
(re Arcara v Cloud Books non-applicability) "LOL You've never done that. But humor me and give it a try."
He really has shown how it does not apply to this... because the 'illegal activity' is expression, where in the AvCB case, the illegal activity wasn't expression.
"oh yes, please do. This should be a good one..."
The whole reason AvCB says the closure of the book store was NOT prior restraint is because the illegal activity (prostitution) was held to not be expression.
And finally, in response to your "LOL" reaction to Mike saying he's done with this... Sounds like you're claiming some kind of victory. If you want to do so... claim victory by browbeating other people with your willful ignorance until they walk away in disgusted annoyance... well, congrats I guess. Good for you.
Aaaand fail. Go back and read the first mention of 'apologists'... it was "I find myself morbidly curious to see how the apologists will defend these seizures now..."
Doesn't take a genius to figure out that he was referring to the apologists from other posts... posts where commenters were defending the seizures. And it was tongue in cheek. You're the one that keeps taking these things and saying "NO! STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN!!!"
I don't understand this strange problem you have with the fact that 1) there are repeated posters, usually under the name of Anonymous Coward, who defend the position of copyright enforcement (and over-enforcement) and 2) we call them apologists because it fits the definition.
If you read around, you'll see that all of us "paranoid insiders" are having conversations elsewhere with other people. This is the one we're having with you. Believe me... we wish we weren't.
Wow... Darryl, this is a new low even for you. Go read up on the 1st Amendment sometime... and just so moderate laziness isn't to blame, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Now, if you ignore that and don't read it, I leave you to stew in your own ignorance. I just ask that you don't come here and bother us.
So we select a word to describe a very real group of commenters on this site and it's wrong?
Although I do have to give you kudos for distracting from the real conversation... but it did carry on around this one so maybe your straw man wasn't that successful after all.
Wh...what?!? Are you serious? We tell you that the 'apologists' are the ACs that come on here and defend copyright et al, arguing constantly despite facts being cited and given to them. We tell you that they don't back up their statements with similar citation. You then say "oh that's a straw man if you can't point to one"... So I give you not one but five links to their posts (including one from Darryl, who is a NAMED apologist) and you still say 'they don't exist'?
I can't make up my mind if that's being thick, willful ignorance, or a learning disability.
I'd rather have my lawyer focusing on my defense and keeping his mouth shut than have him standing on soapboxes pontificating and possibly painting my defense into a corner.
1) Feel free to supply citation for how many prisoners are kept in prison solitary confinement awaiting trial for 5 months. And I mean that as kept in solitary for 5 months... I know many people wait in prison longer than that awaiting trial.
And let me add one more caveat to keep us looking at apples here: Only prisoner's awaiting initial trial... not those found guilty but are in the processes of appealing.
2) we're on the same page as this, and really, it's not a big deal to the conversation at hand... we can drop this one.
3) I really don't see it as "losing the forest for the trees". Nice dodge though. You didn’t' address the fact that the cable I mentioned speaks very loudly for how this war is being conducted. Does stuff like this happen in war? Sure. But why hide it when we've been called out on similar instances?
" While accidental civilian deaths are bad, and nobody supports them, reporting of them openly could end up changing public opinion, because it is what the media would focus on."
Would you prefer such blatant propaganda to truth and full-disclosure?
4) your statement was still an ad-hominim attack. You said, basically, "you don't agree with the 'assassination programs'? Oh, you must support terrorists". In my opinion: bad form.
5) No we don't have to accept the fact that the person who got us into these wars "had reason". If his reasons were wrong, evil and monetary, why the hell would we 'accept' them? That's the attitude that will keep us in this war long after it should be done (“Oh it’s okay… President XYZ has a reason to keep us there”). Constantly doubting and hating the leader we had is pointless... you're right... but questioning our government's actions is (and let me emphasize this)~ahem~ EXACTLY WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS ALL ABOUT
And I'd really like to see some kind of backup on this 'conspiracy'. Again, as I stated before, if the government knew it was a conspiracy and have proof thereof, why are they having to offer plea deals w/ Manning to get a 'confession'?
And saying that without Assange Manning would not have released those documents is not only fallacious logic, it's also foolish. He could have released it to news stations all over the world; he could have created a blog and posted them there; he could have sold them to our enemies. Wikileaks is NOT the only source out there. And, speaking of which, even if Assange himself wasn't there, Wikileaks would still be.
And Assange is a willing anarchist? Funny how this 'anarchist' has been given awards for blowing the whistle on some pretty damned despicable acts on other countries. So why is it so evil when it's our actions under the microscope?
And your last statement:
"I would even go as far as to say without Assange, Manning likely would not have copied / replicated / downloads the documents in question, because he would have had no use for them."
I'm glad you'd go that far, but it's the wrong direction regardless how far you go. As I mentioned, Wikileaks is not Assange and would continue operating without him and Wikileaks is/was not Manning's only option. Sorry.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Allways trying to justify crime..
I'm not really sure what you're arguing with on this one. I agree that the war in Iraq was wrong and that the people who perptrated it should be brought to justice.
And I agree that there is no "soldiers at risk" because of Manning's actions.
It's not the protected speech itself that was blocked... rather it was the ability to publish that speech. Arguments could be made that the sites could have acquired new names, released their IP address to their readers, etc. But the opinion is that if the government seized that domain name it could be equated to the government seizing a printing press. The owners could acquire a new one, but it's still censorship and prior restraint.
Any, by the way, I think AC was saying that the domain names themselves (Such as "www.torrentfinder.com") is the proper noun. Not sure what that proves, but I think that's where he was going.
Did you read the report that they linked to and quoted from? Is that written by the 'Limbaugh’s and Hannity's' (which, I dislike those guys too, by the way).
And lawyers don't usually "scream their heads off" because public outrage and grandstanding hurts your case. Do they think their client doesn't have much of a case? I don't know and neither do you... but just because they are quiet doesn't mean that they don't believe just as strongly.
Oh, any by the way, to which camp do I belong? I'd be interested to know.
You're right... there is a difference between being guilty-in-belief and guilty by law. I was pointing out Darryl's error in assuming that just because he was in custody then that's proof of his guilt. Which is fallacious.
"The problem lies in the fact that you don't think anyone is guilty of anything until they have had their trial.
And they're not. You cannot just toss someone in jail even after they've admitted to guilt. There are still processes that have to be followed.
"The law says a lawyer cannot defend a person whom they believe to be guilty. "
Another fallacy... A lawyer must recuse themselves if their personal feelings about the accused create a conflict with their ability to give them fair representation. The whole cornerstone of our legal system is that every single person gets the opportunity to have a fair trial where both sides have the chance to make their argument.
"This isn't reality, just legal bullshit.
Well, guess which one matters in court... and matters in the legality of the manner of detention of the accused.
"Example, O.J. did kill his wife, EVERYBODY with a brain knows it. To say he is innocent according to the law is one thing, to say he isn't guilty of having done it is another. "
Easy one: He was not found innocent, he was found not-guilty. The jury was unable to say beyond reasonable doubt that he did it. Because our justice says we must strive to never put an innocent person to death, capital crime requires 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. Thus, OJ was found not-guilty even though, as you put it, ‘everyone with a brain knows it’.
Civil law, on the other hand, is different. Which is why he was found guilty in the civil wrongful-death suit brought by his wife's family.
"Manning may or may not be guilty of treason but he is a criminal."
Not yet he's not... not until he's been found guilty by a Court Martial. And he's being treated as though he was.
"Let him rot, Americans already have lost too many of their real freedoms and liberties because of criminals. "
And this is why I weep for our legal system and our country. Someone plays a patriotism card (look at all the risk he’s putting his fellow soldiers in!!! Yes, I know you didn’t say that) and all of the sudden everyone's crying for blood. This man found things that showed his government was doing things that are illegal (or at least highly questionable) and made sure that they saw the light of day. Did he follow the established path to do so? No. For that he is charged with crimes. Fine. But I will not condemn him. In the same sense that our founding fathers said that a tyrannical power must be opposed, I say this man is a patriot... much more than those who would say "but those are our secrets!!"
Interesting that you didn't reply to Marcus' points (thank you Marcus, by the way).
I also find it interesting that you seem to think that there's a correlation between writing a sequel that is your own story and knockoff (counterfeit) Rolexes and the Beatles copiers (they weren't trying for derived work, they were reworking what was there).
"The author perhaps could take the time to have his own original thoughts, create his own original universe and characters, and actually be creative."
And what about every single book written in the D&D universe (and there are many? They are all 'derived' off of D&D's universe, which is (as admitted by the creators) derived from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings books.
Download Calibre. It's a free 'library manager' that I use with my Nook. It also converts most known doc types (but has a problem with RTX docs O.o ) into ebooks that Nook can read. I converted all of my PDFs for things like RPG rulebooks to Nook-friendly.
1) no argument there... but what about holding him in solitary 'pending trial'? I'm not sure if there's law against it, but it really looks bad on the people who are 'just holding him awaiting trial'... especially when they offer to let him out if he agrees to a conspiracy rap.
2) Michael was talking about Manning, not Assange. I think he was talking about GITMO, but even that's not really a 'foreign country'.
3) have you read the cables? Read about them here... http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001802-38.html. That's not baddies hiding amongst civvies... that's soldiers shooting at the wrong guys. Yes, the heat of battle causes confusion, but two questions:
A) if it was a simple mistake, why hide it? We've made mistakes before and they were publicized.
B) if it was a mistake, why did Manning think it needed to be 'uncovered'?
4) Unproven or not, that was the worst accusational ad hominim and non sequitor I've heard in a while... "oh you like terrorists?" Really?
5) also unproven in my opinion.
Finally, Mr. Assange's guilt is also unproven. Michael is wrong that he should be granted all of our constitutional rights; Assange is not a US citizen. However, given how hard the government is scrambling to find something to accuse him of, it's hard to image him guilty of much other than giving the US a black eye by airing our dirty laundry. And, by the by, your argument that he will be charged if he broke the law is backwards... he could be charged one way or the other... it's the results that state his guilt or innocence.
And the whistle-blowing provision shows that there is some excuse for illegal action in gaining materials to be expressed.
Hmmm... interesting. So bittorrents are dangerous? Can harm others? Didn't know that. I guess that means my uTorrent is loaded. OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
But seriously, you're failing a couple of points here. First, hosting the data elsewhere isn't 'a nice little dodge'... it's the whole point of the conversation. Especially since Torrent-Finder wasn't hosting it anywhere. Guess what, child porn is 'hosted elsewhere' and that's not Google's 'dodge' if some sicko uses them to search for it.
Second, as far as your talk of regulation and laws... you're almost right there. We do have laws in place to take down bittorrents (or anything) that is being used illegally... DMCA is one that comes to mind. But that's not what the government did. They took the whole site down with no evidence (or worse, as we're seeing here: faulty evidence) that they had done anything wrong.
Damn... double-fail. That was supposed to be "heard" followed by little emoticons glancing nervously left and right. Need to brush up on those. Or use preview. :/
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:
He really has shown how it does not apply to this... because the 'illegal activity' is expression, where in the AvCB case, the illegal activity wasn't expression.
The whole reason AvCB says the closure of the book store was NOT prior restraint is because the illegal activity (prostitution) was held to not be expression.
And finally, in response to your "LOL" reaction to Mike saying he's done with this... Sounds like you're claiming some kind of victory. If you want to do so... claim victory by browbeating other people with your willful ignorance until they walk away in disgusted annoyance... well, congrats I guess. Good for you.
On the post: Bank Of America -- Thought To Be Wikileaks Next Target -- Suddenly Tries To Block Payments To Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
On the post: Bank Of America -- Thought To Be Wikileaks Next Target -- Suddenly Tries To Block Payments To Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good
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:
Doesn't take a genius to figure out that he was referring to the apologists from other posts... posts where commenters were defending the seizures. And it was tongue in cheek. You're the one that keeps taking these things and saying "NO! STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN!!!"
I don't understand this strange problem you have with the fact that 1) there are repeated posters, usually under the name of Anonymous Coward, who defend the position of copyright enforcement (and over-enforcement) and 2) we call them apologists because it fits the definition.
If you read around, you'll see that all of us "paranoid insiders" are having conversations elsewhere with other people. This is the one we're having with you. Believe me... we wish we weren't.
On the post: US Banning Books: Unauthorized Catcher In The Rye Sequel Permanently Banned
Re: Nothing to do with Free Speech
Now, if you ignore that and don't read it, I leave you to stew in your own ignorance. I just ask that you don't come here and bother us.
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:
Although I do have to give you kudos for distracting from the real conversation... but it did carry on around this one so maybe your straw man wasn't that successful after all.
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:
I can't make up my mind if that's being thick, willful ignorance, or a learning disability.
On the post: So After Torturing Bradley Manning For Months, US Officials Offer Him A Deal If He Says Assange 'Conspired' With Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG!
On the post: So After Torturing Bradley Manning For Months, US Officials Offer Him A Deal If He Says Assange 'Conspired' With Him
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And let me add one more caveat to keep us looking at apples here: Only prisoner's awaiting initial trial... not those found guilty but are in the processes of appealing.
2) we're on the same page as this, and really, it's not a big deal to the conversation at hand... we can drop this one.
3) I really don't see it as "losing the forest for the trees". Nice dodge though. You didn’t' address the fact that the cable I mentioned speaks very loudly for how this war is being conducted. Does stuff like this happen in war? Sure. But why hide it when we've been called out on similar instances?
Would you prefer such blatant propaganda to truth and full-disclosure?
4) your statement was still an ad-hominim attack. You said, basically, "you don't agree with the 'assassination programs'? Oh, you must support terrorists". In my opinion: bad form.
5) No we don't have to accept the fact that the person who got us into these wars "had reason". If his reasons were wrong, evil and monetary, why the hell would we 'accept' them? That's the attitude that will keep us in this war long after it should be done (“Oh it’s okay… President XYZ has a reason to keep us there”). Constantly doubting and hating the leader we had is pointless... you're right... but questioning our government's actions is (and let me emphasize this)~ahem~ EXACTLY WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS ALL ABOUT
And I'd really like to see some kind of backup on this 'conspiracy'. Again, as I stated before, if the government knew it was a conspiracy and have proof thereof, why are they having to offer plea deals w/ Manning to get a 'confession'?
And saying that without Assange Manning would not have released those documents is not only fallacious logic, it's also foolish. He could have released it to news stations all over the world; he could have created a blog and posted them there; he could have sold them to our enemies. Wikileaks is NOT the only source out there. And, speaking of which, even if Assange himself wasn't there, Wikileaks would still be.
And Assange is a willing anarchist? Funny how this 'anarchist' has been given awards for blowing the whistle on some pretty damned despicable acts on other countries. So why is it so evil when it's our actions under the microscope?
And your last statement: I'm glad you'd go that far, but it's the wrong direction regardless how far you go. As I mentioned, Wikileaks is not Assange and would continue operating without him and Wikileaks is/was not Manning's only option. Sorry.
On the post: So After Torturing Bradley Manning For Months, US Officials Offer Him A Deal If He Says Assange 'Conspired' With Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Allways trying to justify crime..
Have a great weekend!
On the post: So After Torturing Bradley Manning For Months, US Officials Offer Him A Deal If He Says Assange 'Conspired' With Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Allways trying to justify crime..
And I agree that there is no "soldiers at risk" because of Manning's actions.
Are you agreeing with me? Or what?
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: Discussion
Any, by the way, I think AC was saying that the domain names themselves (Such as "www.torrentfinder.com") is the proper noun. Not sure what that proves, but I think that's where he was going.
On the post: So After Torturing Bradley Manning For Months, US Officials Offer Him A Deal If He Says Assange 'Conspired' With Him
Re: Re: Re: OMG!
And lawyers don't usually "scream their heads off" because public outrage and grandstanding hurts your case. Do they think their client doesn't have much of a case? I don't know and neither do you... but just because they are quiet doesn't mean that they don't believe just as strongly.
Oh, any by the way, to which camp do I belong? I'd be interested to know.
On the post: So After Torturing Bradley Manning For Months, US Officials Offer Him A Deal If He Says Assange 'Conspired' With Him
Re: Re: Re: Allways trying to justify crime..
And they're not. You cannot just toss someone in jail even after they've admitted to guilt. There are still processes that have to be followed.
Another fallacy... A lawyer must recuse themselves if their personal feelings about the accused create a conflict with their ability to give them fair representation. The whole cornerstone of our legal system is that every single person gets the opportunity to have a fair trial where both sides have the chance to make their argument.
Well, guess which one matters in court... and matters in the legality of the manner of detention of the accused.
Easy one: He was not found innocent, he was found not-guilty. The jury was unable to say beyond reasonable doubt that he did it. Because our justice says we must strive to never put an innocent person to death, capital crime requires 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. Thus, OJ was found not-guilty even though, as you put it, ‘everyone with a brain knows it’.
Civil law, on the other hand, is different. Which is why he was found guilty in the civil wrongful-death suit brought by his wife's family.
Not yet he's not... not until he's been found guilty by a Court Martial. And he's being treated as though he was.
And this is why I weep for our legal system and our country. Someone plays a patriotism card (look at all the risk he’s putting his fellow soldiers in!!! Yes, I know you didn’t say that) and all of the sudden everyone's crying for blood. This man found things that showed his government was doing things that are illegal (or at least highly questionable) and made sure that they saw the light of day. Did he follow the established path to do so? No. For that he is charged with crimes. Fine. But I will not condemn him. In the same sense that our founding fathers said that a tyrannical power must be opposed, I say this man is a patriot... much more than those who would say "but those are our secrets!!"
On the post: US Banning Books: Unauthorized Catcher In The Rye Sequel Permanently Banned
Re: Re: Re: Re: downplayed
I also find it interesting that you seem to think that there's a correlation between writing a sequel that is your own story and knockoff (counterfeit) Rolexes and the Beatles copiers (they weren't trying for derived work, they were reworking what was there).
And what about every single book written in the D&D universe (and there are many? They are all 'derived' off of D&D's universe, which is (as admitted by the creators) derived from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings books.
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:
On the post: US Banning Books: Unauthorized Catcher In The Rye Sequel Permanently Banned
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: So After Torturing Bradley Manning For Months, US Officials Offer Him A Deal If He Says Assange 'Conspired' With Him
Re: Re:
2) Michael was talking about Manning, not Assange. I think he was talking about GITMO, but even that's not really a 'foreign country'.
3) have you read the cables? Read about them here... http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001802-38.html. That's not baddies hiding amongst civvies... that's soldiers shooting at the wrong guys. Yes, the heat of battle causes confusion, but two questions:
4) Unproven or not, that was the worst accusational ad hominim and non sequitor I've heard in a while... "oh you like terrorists?" Really?
5) also unproven in my opinion.
Finally, Mr. Assange's guilt is also unproven. Michael is wrong that he should be granted all of our constitutional rights; Assange is not a US citizen. However, given how hard the government is scrambling to find something to accuse him of, it's hard to image him guilty of much other than giving the US a black eye by airing our dirty laundry. And, by the by, your argument that he will be charged if he broke the law is backwards... he could be charged one way or the other... it's the results that state his guilt or innocence.
And the whistle-blowing provision shows that there is some excuse for illegal action in gaining materials to be expressed.
On the post: Homeland Security Presents 'Evidence' For Domain Seizures; Proves It Knows Little About The Internet - Or The Law
Re: Re: Re:
But seriously, you're failing a couple of points here. First, hosting the data elsewhere isn't 'a nice little dodge'... it's the whole point of the conversation. Especially since Torrent-Finder wasn't hosting it anywhere. Guess what, child porn is 'hosted elsewhere' and that's not Google's 'dodge' if some sicko uses them to search for it.
Second, as far as your talk of regulation and laws... you're almost right there. We do have laws in place to take down bittorrents (or anything) that is being used illegally... DMCA is one that comes to mind. But that's not what the government did. They took the whole site down with no evidence (or worse, as we're seeing here: faulty evidence) that they had done anything wrong.
On the post: US Banning Books: Unauthorized Catcher In The Rye Sequel Permanently Banned
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>