"...the majority of the article is always anti-Trump (and thus pro-Clinton)."
It takes a staggering lack of basic thinking skills to claim an anti-Trump position must be pro-Clinton. But since you're ok with making dumb leaps of logic, can we assume that since you're critical of this article then you must be against the First Amendment and free speech? What's your beef with that?
Your Truth won't Hurt much if you state falsehoods. Yahoo has neither broken the 4th Amendment nor committed treason. These things have actual definitions, you can't just make up your own you add drama to a legitimately concerning issue.
The fact that he's so impressed by what a 10yo is capable of doing on a computer, even if the kid does happen to be of above-average proficiency for a kid, just demonstrates his own utter incompetence. My 8yo can run rings around my mother on a computer or tablet, but that doesn't make her "unbelievable", it just makes my mother a typical nearly-70yo.
Actually Techdirt has frequently written about reducing piracy (stopping it is impossible), mostly by spending less time actively fighting piracy and instead putting those resources into giving customers what they actually want, which is the only method that has consistently proven to work.
"Waving another countries flag around on another countries soil in a protest is a legitimate act of war by the individuals that are doing it."
Poe's law not withstanding...
A flag is a piece of colored cloth with almost zero potential to cause bodily harm when being waved. War is at an act that typically results in hundreds, thousands or even million of deaths. That you can't seem to see a difference is quite extraordinary. You're either demonstrating profound ignorance or just having a laugh.
Great job repeating a bunch of points made perfectly clear in the argument, while completely missing the actual issue of truthful articles being disappeared due to legal threats, i.e. SLAPP. It may be smart if you're a shortsighted lawyer type, but not if you have any concern for journalism.
Of course they have that right, but why should anyone stop bitching about it? Why would people not talk about such a stupid and dangerous move? Your suggestion is completely nonsensical.
"...the mother clearly knew (or should have known) her son had a drinking problem, a DWI problem..."
Since the only history presented in the story was one indecent 7 years ago, what do you think this knowledge was based on? Are you extrapolating the facts to fit your moral outrage or do you know more about this case that was presented here?
"If you play it at a public venue and represent it as yours, I would say that is theft."
Actually that would be plagiarism, which is a completely different thing that pretty much everyone here would be strongly against. But it's a different topic altogether. Simply copying, even if infringing, is not plagiarism. Nobody is downloading a film or song and then claiming it's theirs. Very few are brave/stupid enough to publicly perform someone else's song and claim it's their own.
"So... you are saying that it's perfectly fine to take the team emblem, put it up in your shop, over the donuts in question, and say 'Buy these donuts'?"
Why don't you instead explain how it's not? Tell us exactly how the university is harmed in any way by this. Does it compete with their own baked goods? Oh that's right, they don't have any? Does it disparage them in any way? Nope, how could it? Fill in what's missing here.
"Implying that they are associated with the school?"
How does anyone leap to that conclusion? It obviously suggests they support the university team, but how is any formal association implied by a mere donut?
"I am far from an IP maximalist..."
The fact that you're happy to see this as a valid trademark instead of a symbol of how broken the system is does not help this claim...
"While pirating (aka copying without permission) does not deprive the artist of the original, it does take away certain rights that the artist had, namely the right to license it as they see fit (and to deny you a license if they so wish)."
That would be hilarious if true, because the entire concept of copyright would cease to exist in an instant. Make one copy - poof! - copyright gone! Except that's obviously stupid and wrong. No rights have been taken from anyone, they still have them.
"It's clearly impossible to deny the idea that the end result of piracy is you having something, where before you had nothing."
Maybe that's why nobody here has claimed otherwise...
"Morally, it's not hard to draw the conclusion that you have stolen something, even if it is just a copy. At best, your copy was fraudulently obtained."
You know what fraud is right? Where's the fraud in copyright infringement? Nobody pretended to be or do something other than make copies. Who's being mislead or fooled?
"It should be noted that until 2006 or so, the UK legal system treated fraud as theft - obtaining something via deceptive practices."
And then they obviously decided that was wrong and changed it. You're not helping your argument with that one.
"Piracy has absolutely stolen the economic value out of the product. Infinite number of copies, market price zero."
You're going to stick with that old trope despite overwhelming proof that it's wrong? Seriously? Your reality denial is amazing.
So there is theft, but the value of the theft is perhaps very small when calculated by itself."
'Statutory minimum damages' would disagree with you on the "very small" part.
Even if there is some element of greed here, calling it "pure" completely ignores the huge societal benefit to this problem being made public. Lives are literally at stake, so highlighting it is not just a Good Thing to do, it's morally imperative.
I've asked numerous times for links to these Techdirt critics, who are apparently very common in the content industries, and yet I've never had a single response...
On the post: Trump Adds To His Anti-First Amendment Legacy In Threatening To Sue Clinton For Campaign Ads
Re: Re: Re:
You can only see that because you have no idea what defamation is.
On the post: Trump Adds To His Anti-First Amendment Legacy In Threatening To Sue Clinton For Campaign Ads
Re: Re: Re: As usual, you're full of shit...
It takes a staggering lack of basic thinking skills to claim an anti-Trump position must be pro-Clinton. But since you're ok with making dumb leaps of logic, can we assume that since you're critical of this article then you must be against the First Amendment and free speech? What's your beef with that?
On the post: Yahoo Secretly Built Software To Scan All Emails Under Pressure From NSA Or FBI
Re: Yahoo committed treason against this nation.
On the post: Court Dumps Cops' Complaint They Were Unfairly Treated After Shooting Two Unarmed Suspects 47 Times
Re: Re: How about a game controller?
The word 'thought' implies some level of thinking took place. That clearly wasn't the case here.
On the post: Court Dumps Cops' Complaint They Were Unfairly Treated After Shooting Two Unarmed Suspects 47 Times
Re: Re: And knives. Don't forget about knives.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140219/13105826286/cop-shoots-teen-holding-wii-contro ller-his-own-home.shtml
On the post: Trump Offers More Insight On His Cybersecurity Plans: 10-Year-Old Relatives Vs. 400-lb Bedroom Dwellers
Re:
On the post: Those Terrible Takedowns Aren't Mistakes, They're Intentional Fakes
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Those Terrible Takedowns Aren't Mistakes, They're Intentional Fakes
Re: Re:
On the post: Will The Washington Post Give Back Its Pulitzer And Stand Trial With Snowden?
Re: Re: WP is treasonus
Poe's law not withstanding...
A flag is a piece of colored cloth with almost zero potential to cause bodily harm when being waved. War is at an act that typically results in hundreds, thousands or even million of deaths. That you can't seem to see a difference is quite extraordinary. You're either demonstrating profound ignorance or just having a laugh.
On the post: Univision Execs Have No Backbone: Pull A Bunch Of Gawker Stories Over Legal Disputes
Re:
On the post: Univision Execs Have No Backbone: Pull A Bunch Of Gawker Stories Over Legal Disputes
Re:
On the post: Albuquerque Police Seize Vehicle From Owner Whose Son Drove It While Drunk; Want $4,000 To Give It Back
Re: Re: Re:
Who is this "irresponsible drunk driving mommy" you're referring to, coz there isn't one of those in this story.
On the post: Albuquerque Police Seize Vehicle From Owner Whose Son Drove It While Drunk; Want $4,000 To Give It Back
Re: Re: Outrage is Outrageous
Since the only history presented in the story was one indecent 7 years ago, what do you think this knowledge was based on? Are you extrapolating the facts to fit your moral outrage or do you know more about this case that was presented here?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Copying TANGIBLES may not be theft...
Actually that would be plagiarism, which is a completely different thing that pretty much everyone here would be strongly against. But it's a different topic altogether. Simply copying, even if infringing, is not plagiarism. Nobody is downloading a film or song and then claiming it's theirs. Very few are brave/stupid enough to publicly perform someone else's song and claim it's their own.
On the post: Hollywood Freaking Out That Europe Might Make It Marginally Easier For People To Legally Access Content
Re:
Google doesn't offer products, they offer services which can be easily withdrawn from a market.
On the post: University Of Texas Bullies Pastry Shop Over Donuts Shaped Like 'Hook 'Em Horns' Hands
Re: Re: Re: Not so cut and dried
Why don't you instead explain how it's not? Tell us exactly how the university is harmed in any way by this. Does it compete with their own baked goods? Oh that's right, they don't have any? Does it disparage them in any way? Nope, how could it? Fill in what's missing here.
"Implying that they are associated with the school?"
How does anyone leap to that conclusion? It obviously suggests they support the university team, but how is any formal association implied by a mere donut?
"I am far from an IP maximalist..."
The fact that you're happy to see this as a valid trademark instead of a symbol of how broken the system is does not help this claim...
On the post: Our 'Copying Is Not Theft' T-Shirt Seems To REALLY Upset Some People
Re: I want to point out
That would be hilarious if true, because the entire concept of copyright would cease to exist in an instant. Make one copy - poof! - copyright gone! Except that's obviously stupid and wrong. No rights have been taken from anyone, they still have them.
"It's clearly impossible to deny the idea that the end result of piracy is you having something, where before you had nothing."
Maybe that's why nobody here has claimed otherwise...
"Morally, it's not hard to draw the conclusion that you have stolen something, even if it is just a copy. At best, your copy was fraudulently obtained."
You know what fraud is right? Where's the fraud in copyright infringement? Nobody pretended to be or do something other than make copies. Who's being mislead or fooled?
"It should be noted that until 2006 or so, the UK legal system treated fraud as theft - obtaining something via deceptive practices."
And then they obviously decided that was wrong and changed it. You're not helping your argument with that one.
"Piracy has absolutely stolen the economic value out of the product. Infinite number of copies, market price zero."
You're going to stick with that old trope despite overwhelming proof that it's wrong? Seriously? Your reality denial is amazing.
So there is theft, but the value of the theft is perhaps very small when calculated by itself."
'Statutory minimum damages' would disagree with you on the "very small" part.
On the post: Security Startup MedSec Shorts St. Jude Medical Stock To Punish It For Flimsy Pacemaker Security
Re:
On the post: New Zealand Court Grants Kim Dotcom's Request To Have Extradition Hearing Livestreamed On YouTube, Despite DOJ Protests
Re: Re: operating companies in various countries and living in another one altogether...
On the post: Head Of Anti-Counterfeiting Lobbying Group Says He's Going To Make Counterfeit Techdirt T-Shirts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>