And unlike you, AC 31, most of us here know the difference between an unethical law and an ethical one. And that it's not wrong to oppose and ignore an unethical law. Which copyright law has become.
It is my understanding that those of you who do not feel Manning was right to do as he did appear to be so hung up on adhering to the letter of the law or oath so blindly that you do not seem to understand that what is legal is not necessarily always what is ethical. They are not always the same. In addition, it is not wrong to disobey a law or oath if it means exposing what should never have been secret in the first place. You should never be so bound up in the law and in oaths that you never allow yourself to question them.
There is also a fundamental problem organizations such as the military when their first response to any incident of misconduct within it is to attempt to cover it up and deceive the public about it rather than admit to the truth and take responsibility for what was done. As another example, the military did not admit the truth about Pat Tillman (the NFL player who joined the military and was killed) until it was forced to do so. The truth being that he was killed by friendly fire rather than an Iraqi attack as the military at first maintained. When an organization's first instinct is deception, that organization cannot be trusted.
And what of those with broadband, AC 14, who are always on and can never log off? Such data collection, in their case, will never end because there is no log off.
Making policy due to theoretical scenarios is unwise, since potential does not equate to actual. One most work from what has actually occurred and actual evidence, not from what might occur. Governments have no right to play "what if" with our rights.
I have a question about the upcoming Black March boycott. Why was March the month selected, and not a month in the summer? Summer is Hollywood's blockbuster season, and I believe a sustained boycott would hurt them much more at that time than in the spring, unless I have overlooked something.
What you still fail to acknowledge, AC, is that an IP address does not link to a person, but to a machine. Anyone can be on the other end. There is no way to prove who it was, only a remote possibility of which machine it may have been. And even then, the media industries have a long and well-known history of erroneous accusations over the years, accusing laser printers, the dead, elderly people with no computers at all, and more. The methodology is too unreliable to use. And you have yet to demonstrate why it is even necessary. Failure of a business model is not sufficient cause for criminalizing the population. And it is not wrong to ignore a bad law, which copyright law in its current state most certainly is.
You also fail to understand that MAC addresses, too, can and are often spoofed. Simply do a Google search on "randomizing mac addresses" and many such generators will appear. For every access point, there is a workaround and a means of preserving true anonymity. Therefore, accusations based on such access points are invalid.
Legal action should not be taken at all, until conviction. That is what you do not seem to understand. Anything else is an erosion of due process. Due process includes taking no action of any kind merely upon accusation, not even legal action. Also, you are under the illogical assumption that all accusations made by HADOPI personnel are accurate, when in fact, it has been proven that they are not.
And what happens with an ISP that does not require a login? Even in your example, how do you tie multiple IP addresses to a single user? What is the exact mechanism? And how can you be certain the individual on the other end is the same in all three instances? An IP address links to a machine, not an individual. And even then it is very possible to randomize them or spoof them, to use an IP address other than the one that is assigned by login. So your tracing method fails.
And you still have not answered my question, AC. When will you admit that the accusations should never have been made in the first place, and that action should only be taken upon conviction? Also, that the unreliable nature of IP addresses makes them invalid as a form of evidence?
Are you, AC 113, not willing to admit that these people should never have been accused in the first place? Nor that action should never be taken merely upon accusation, and only upon conviction?
Unfortunately, AC 81, your faith in the justice systems you mention is misplaced, as such systems are often coopted and abused by those whose interests lie in protecting corporations over human beings. You also fail to accept that traditional, legacy news outlets are no longer as reputable a source for information as they once were, and that blogs often do better fact-checking than official publications even on the scale of the New York Times, as has been documented by Techdirt on more than one occasion. Blogs are quickly becoming a legitimate source of news, and often the primary source of the technologically-savvy. There is no need for gatekeepers of any kind for either news or content, and I believe that frightens you.
Also, AC 92, you would be incorrect in assuming I do not live on my own. I could give you all the information necessary to prove it, but even then your willful blindness would keep you from believing it. And you have not answered my question: which law firm do you work for?
And yet, AC 92, you still have not provided the actual statements of support from these non-profits you say supported the bills. Do so, if they exist. Quote them here, with sources, for each one, or admit you are incorrect. As I said before, merely appearing on a list does not denote definitive support, merely that they were convinced to add a list. You have not said whether those non-profits you claim supported the bills actually understood what it was they were supporting, rather than being misled in supporting something they were not given an accurate explanation for.
And, AC 8, you have just shown yourself to be no better than the troll which this article is about. Attacking those who oppose you merely illustrates your own lack of ethics and your inability to defend what you claim to believe.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it was Google-- and the people Google pays....
As modplan has pointed out, Green AC, AFL-CIO's perpensity to repeat widely-debunked statistics as if they were fact destroys their credibility and that of their member groups, who you listed as though they were separate when they are not. Another deception on your part. Remove AFL-CIO and all of their member groups from your list. Aside from them, where are the remaining groups' offical statements of support? You have not linked to a single one. Unless they have stated so directly, merely appearing on a list does not convey their support in any definitive way. It is likely that many were misinformed as to the nature of the bills in order to gather more support than there otherwise would have been.
Answer me this: do you have any understanding of the fact that you are in no way convincing anyone here, nor are you even wanted? I suspect, like many AC's who support the maximalist position, you are an attorney. Mike has already stated on more than one occasion that many of the IP address from shills such as yourself originate in imaginary property law offices. So tell us, which firm you do you work for? Also, is it physically possible for you to make a post without an insult or ad hominem attack of any kind? You have displayed a clear lack of courtesy and decency, so do not expect to be treated well here unless you do the same to others.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it was Google-- and the people Google pays....
Green AC, you continue to destroy your arguments through the use of insults and evasive dialogue. You will convince no one, so your diatribe serves little purpose here. It is as I said earlier, you and those like you simply cannot conceive of a distributed collective that has no central point. It is as foreign to you, I believe, as the concept of the number zero was to ancient humans many thousands of years ago.
Also, your list does not meet the factors laid out before you. Namely, that said organizations were 1) non-profit and 2) not funded in their entirety by SOPA/PIPA supporters. Both must be true for your response to be valid. However, that is not the case in what you have provided thus far. None of the organizations on your list meet that criteria. Your need to resort to profanity also undermines your argument even further. Clearly you have little experience or interest in constructive, civilized debate.
And one further thing: I am no college child still living with my parents. I have been self-employed for almost two years now, working in the graphic design field in which I have over ten years of working experience. I live on my own and pay my own bills. Also, I am a single father raising my young autistic son, and your insult was most inappropriate and merely illustrates your own lack of character. I would ask you for an apology if I believed you would give one, but I am not certain you would, based on the tone your comments so far and your lack of common courtesy. You do not appear to be one who cares much for others.
I believe that part of the difficulty the legacy media industries have in relating to this uprising is its very decentralization. They do not know how to relate to a body that does not have a central control point as they do, that is not hierarchical as they are. I do not believe they even understand that such a collective can exist. Nor do their followers. And so they attempt to frame this struggle in terms they can relate to, by seeing Google as a central, high entity in the online collective where none truly exists. They simply cannot grasp the nature of a distributed, horizontal collective with no central body. It is quite alien to them.
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it was Google-- and the people Google pays....
I notice, AC 26, that you provide no evidence that the organizations you list do what you claim they do. Provide it, or admit your error. And also, you provide no proof that Google was lobbying, merely your own unsubstantiated claim. Provide it, or admit it is as false as we all know it to be.
On the post: One More Copyright Infringement, And HADOPI Must Disconnect Itself From The Net
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Bradley Manning Formally Charged; Defers Plea
There is also a fundamental problem organizations such as the military when their first response to any incident of misconduct within it is to attempt to cover it up and deceive the public about it rather than admit to the truth and take responsibility for what was done. As another example, the military did not admit the truth about Pat Tillman (the NFL player who joined the military and was killed) until it was forced to do so. The truth being that he was killed by friendly fire rather than an Iraqi attack as the military at first maintained. When an organization's first instinct is deception, that organization cannot be trusted.
On the post: Could A Consumer Privacy Bill Of Rights Even Work?
Re: Re: Confusion ....
On the post: NSA: 'Anonymous Might One Day Hack Power Grids!' Anonymous: 'Huh?!?'
On the post: Directors Guild Boss Insists That Everyone Against SOPA/PIPA Was Duped
On the post: Hadopi Sends Info On Those Accused (Not Convicted) Of Repeat Infringement On To Prosecutors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hadopi Sends Info On Those Accused (Not Convicted) Of Repeat Infringement On To Prosecutors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hadopi Sends Info On Those Accused (Not Convicted) Of Repeat Infringement On To Prosecutors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hadopi Sends Info On Those Accused (Not Convicted) Of Repeat Infringement On To Prosecutors
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hadopi Sends Info On Those Accused (Not Convicted) Of Repeat Infringement On To Prosecutors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hadopi Sends Info On Those Accused (Not Convicted) Of Repeat Infringement On To Prosecutors
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hadopi Sends Info On Those Accused (Not Convicted) Of Repeat Infringement On To Prosecutors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
On the post: Hadopi Sends Info On Those Accused (Not Convicted) Of Repeat Infringement On To Prosecutors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uneven Punishment
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: BBC Tracks Down And Confronts An Internet Troll
Re:
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it was Google-- and the people Google pays....
Answer me this: do you have any understanding of the fact that you are in no way convincing anyone here, nor are you even wanted? I suspect, like many AC's who support the maximalist position, you are an attorney. Mike has already stated on more than one occasion that many of the IP address from shills such as yourself originate in imaginary property law offices. So tell us, which firm you do you work for? Also, is it physically possible for you to make a post without an insult or ad hominem attack of any kind? You have displayed a clear lack of courtesy and decency, so do not expect to be treated well here unless you do the same to others.
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it was Google-- and the people Google pays....
Also, your list does not meet the factors laid out before you. Namely, that said organizations were 1) non-profit and 2) not funded in their entirety by SOPA/PIPA supporters. Both must be true for your response to be valid. However, that is not the case in what you have provided thus far. None of the organizations on your list meet that criteria. Your need to resort to profanity also undermines your argument even further. Clearly you have little experience or interest in constructive, civilized debate.
And one further thing: I am no college child still living with my parents. I have been self-employed for almost two years now, working in the graphic design field in which I have over ten years of working experience. I live on my own and pay my own bills. Also, I am a single father raising my young autistic son, and your insult was most inappropriate and merely illustrates your own lack of character. I would ask you for an apology if I believed you would give one, but I am not certain you would, based on the tone your comments so far and your lack of common courtesy. You do not appear to be one who cares much for others.
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Decentralization
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it was Google-- and the people Google pays....
Next >>