Re: Re: Re: Re: How EXACTLY does the comment by " JustShutUpAndObey" get the "First Word" linkage above when that person has no visible profile?
Techdirt Insiders get First/Last Word credits with purchases. Some packages include monthly replenishes of credits. They can be used on any comment from anybody, including non-registered AC's and even their own comments if they wish. It's all laid out here in plain English for anyone to read:
Any oligarchs or nefarious 'powers that be' in our system hold their grip on power mostly through manipulation of the public narrative.
Nope, not at all. It's done through the manipulation of campaign funding.
If you really want to instigate change in the government, it will need to start with campaign funding reform. Unfortunately, those who actually have a say on such things are the very same ones who benefit from such things. It's an uphill battle.
That if Google were forced to do such unethical acts it would cause "very public, mass resignations of Googlers". Except it didn't.
The paragraph you quoted from was in reference to the rumor that Google gave total access to their data to the NSA. I also believe that such an egregious violation of the users privacy wouldn't have been done without a single peep from all of the engineers and coders that would have known about it.
Google were forced to be unethical, and the mass resignation is absent. Google were forced to be mum about it, and the mass resignation is absent. They resisted, but complied. Quietly.
I'm not sure I would classify complying with court orders concerning a limited number of users as "unethical". What other option would be available? Google resisted as best they could to preserve the privacy of their users.
...while 'personal' is central to privacy and is not really subject to interpretation.
Yes it is. Very much so.
What an exhibitionist considers personal and private is very different from what I consider personal and private.
What an devote Muslim considers personal and private is also very different from what I consider personal and private.
"Personal" is very much so subject to interpretation. The root of that word is "person", not community. It's a subjective thing and everyone's views are not the same as yours.
Re: Taylor Swift says it's not for her but those starting; Masnick nuances that away claiming 3-months not paid doesn't matter.
He argues that Apple shouldn't have to pay during those crucial first 3 months.
No he didn't, moron. As a matter fact, Mike states the complete opposite in the article:
Let me start out this post by noting a key thing: from the beginning, it was stupid that Apple had negotiated a deal with record labels in which copyright holders would not be compensated with royalties for the three-month "trial period" of Apple's new streaming music program. It clearly should have agreed to pay the royalties, and it was a really short-sighted move to push for a deal without royalties.
Stating that those three months don't actually amount to much in reality is completely different than saying Apple shouldn't have to pay the royalties.
Re: "focusing on the business models that do work" -- OKAY, SO WHAT ARE THOSE, COLLEGE BOY?
Oh, and the call to ignore dissenting comments! What a hoot! You can't answer them, so just ignore!
It wasn't a call to ignore dissenting comments - it was a call to ignore uninformed, ignorant commenters who didn't read and comprehend the whole article - like you.
But, I do understand your outrage about ignoring dissenting comments - that's your patented modus operandi to a tee.
Unfortunately it is Java based (ugh!), but it has some nice heuristics functionality which will cause your search results to become more relevant the more you use it. All peers are equal, it cannot be censored and isn't controlled by any single entity.
- None have yet answered "I made it, therefore I own it" as the rational common law basis of copyright...
Bullshit. I myself have rebutted that on many occasions. That you choose to ignore that which goes against your notions is your problem.
Modern copyright has rejected the "natural right" aspect in the United Kingdom (Donaldson v. Beckett, 1774) and the United States (Wheaton v. Peters, 1834). The natural right aspect of copyright has been rejected for good reasons. The Lockean property rights you seem to refer to work well with physical property, but copyright extends these rights unnaturally beyond the point of sale. For example, I make a chair from wood on my land. It's my resources and my labor and therefore I own the property rights to that chair. When I choose to sell that chair to someone else I transfer ALL of my property rights to that chair. Copyright extends property rights unnaturally beyond that transaction point. The copyright holder still retains property rights to the work (which effectively removes rights from purchaser) beyond the sale. That is why copyright can never be based on a "natural right" since it's a very unnatural concept to begin with.
Face facts, pirates. Such as that I can re-post easily.
Geesh Blue, buy a clue.
I'll bet even the people who might be on your side in some of these arguments are clicking report on your comments because they are so outlandish and so lacking of logic and facts that they hurt their side's credibility.
I've tried often to 'splain that purchasing media confers NO rights whatsoever to the content. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA. RIEN. NICHTS. BUPKIS.
And you've been wrong every time. RIAA v. Diamond more or less estibilished that personal time-shifting or format-shifting is Fair Use in the US.
Also, copyright does not and has never (with the exception of Section 1201 - ie: DRM) impeded the property rights associated with the individual copy. For example, I'm completely within my rights to remove all the pages from a dead-tree book and rearrange them into a new story.
Re: Re: Where are all the comments as last week? -- Answer: I didn't put out bait and you pirates have nothing positive to say! Just denials.
Or it's a summer Saturday and everyone but you has a life.
So very true.
Blue also operates under two other misguided delusions concerning the "strawman Techdirt" he's build up in his own head.
#1) That Techdirt readers are all juvenile delinquents living in their parents basements downloading copyrighted material 24/7.
This delusion is easily dispelled by simply looking at Techdirt's actual demographics. %58 make over 50k/year, 77% are over the age of 24 and 75% are college graduates. That sounds like responsible adult members of society to me.
#2) That his comments are actually influential here at Techdirt.
This can also be easily dispelled by simply looking at how many times Blue's comments are hidden via the consensus of the community.
Re: HOLY CRAP! "An easy, accessible system for combating infringement is a generally a good thing."!!!!
I have wandered into an alternate universe! Surprisingly, it's a better one, where "other people's content" is protected, and "combating infringement is a generally a good thing". -- Either that or the Techdirt that I knew has been DNS spoofed.
Or maybe you've had an epiphany and are coming to the realization that the strawman "Techdirt" you've built up in your own mind isn't actually anywhere close to reality.
Re: What's that up there? -- It's a bird! It's a plane! -- Oh, crap! It's just the usual ANOMALY!
The jury should look beyond the high-falutin' legalisms defense lawyers will present to the need to punish corporations that destroy privacy.
This is pure comedy gold.
Blue is basically saying in this comment: "Fuck the law because I don't like what happened in this case."
But, when it comes to filesharing, Blue has made clear he feels this way: "I don't care that a lot of people feel that the law is immoral, I don't feel that way and it's the law, so you are all filthy criminals"
responding to one of those guys who hope to derail the discussion is helping that creep.
I disagree. For starters, derailing the discussion doesn't really bother me all that much. Some of the most intense, informative and entertaining conversations here in Techdirt's comment section have had absolutely nothing to do with actual article. Discussions among humans are always a fluid thing and I see no reason to limit them with artificial restrictions - even if it annoys some people.
And secondarily, I firmly believe that incorrect or incomplete statements should be exposed and corrected so that other readers have enough information to come to their own conclusions.
On the post: European Taxi Drivers Lose Their Collective Mind Over Uber
Re: Re: Re: Re: How EXACTLY does the comment by " JustShutUpAndObey" get the "First Word" linkage above when that person has no visible profile?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120815/01490520058/first-word-last-word-letting-our-biggest -fans-help-shape-conversation-our-comments.shtml
That Blue considers anything he doesn't understand (or doesn't bother to research) as a conspiracy is very telling.
On the post: Google Was Gagged For Four Years From Talking About Fighting The Wikileaks Investigation
Re: Moving On
Nope, not at all. It's done through the manipulation of campaign funding.
If you really want to instigate change in the government, it will need to start with campaign funding reform. Unfortunately, those who actually have a say on such things are the very same ones who benefit from such things. It's an uphill battle.
On the post: Google Was Gagged For Four Years From Talking About Fighting The Wikileaks Investigation
Re: Re: Re: How about
The paragraph you quoted from was in reference to the rumor that Google gave total access to their data to the NSA. I also believe that such an egregious violation of the users privacy wouldn't have been done without a single peep from all of the engineers and coders that would have known about it.
Google were forced to be unethical, and the mass resignation is absent. Google were forced to be mum about it, and the mass resignation is absent. They resisted, but complied. Quietly.
I'm not sure I would classify complying with court orders concerning a limited number of users as "unethical". What other option would be available? Google resisted as best they could to preserve the privacy of their users.
On the post: Google Was Gagged For Four Years From Talking About Fighting The Wikileaks Investigation
Re: Grammatically Correct
Your naivete warms the cockles of one's heart.
On the post: Google Was Gagged For Four Years From Talking About Fighting The Wikileaks Investigation
Re: How about
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001110.html
On the post: The Ridiculous Redactions The DOJ Required To Try To Hide The Details Of Its Google Gag Order
Response to: Corporal Oblivious
You didn't read the article posted just prior to this one, did you?
Most people can see the ridiculousness of the unnecessary redactions AND the importance of the overall issue all at the same time.
Nuances, still not for everybody.
On the post: Google Says It Will Remove Revenge Porn Results From Search... Raising Some Questions
Re: Re: Why only porn?
Yes it is. Very much so.
What an exhibitionist considers personal and private is very different from what I consider personal and private.
What an devote Muslim considers personal and private is also very different from what I consider personal and private.
"Personal" is very much so subject to interpretation. The root of that word is "person", not community. It's a subjective thing and everyone's views are not the same as yours.
On the post: EU Copyright Reform Looking At Restricting Outdoor Photography
Re: Anyone who self-identifies as a "pirate" IS untrustworthy.
International Talk Like a Pirate Day must be a pretty scary annual event for you.
On the post: Authorities Can't Find Anything To Charge Alleged 'Extremist' With But Still Insist On 24-Hour Monitoring, Computer Restrictions
Re: Religious counselling??
Yeah, I agree.
Does that counseling have be from a member of an "approved" religion?
If so, that's not just a slippery slope, it's a Teflon mountainside covered with baby oil.
On the post: Taylor Swift Is Not The Savior Artists Need
Stock Tip?
With all of the strawman arguments Blue has been putting forth these days, it seems like a wise investment.
On the post: Taylor Swift Is Not The Savior Artists Need
Re: Taylor Swift says it's not for her but those starting; Masnick nuances that away claiming 3-months not paid doesn't matter.
No he didn't, moron. As a matter fact, Mike states the complete opposite in the article:
Stating that those three months don't actually amount to much in reality is completely different than saying Apple shouldn't have to pay the royalties.
Nuances, they're not for everybody.
On the post: Taylor Swift Is Not The Savior Artists Need
Re: "focusing on the business models that do work" -- OKAY, SO WHAT ARE THOSE, COLLEGE BOY?
It wasn't a call to ignore dissenting comments - it was a call to ignore uninformed, ignorant commenters who didn't read and comprehend the whole article - like you.
But, I do understand your outrage about ignoring dissenting comments - that's your patented modus operandi to a tee.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Okay, I shall never darken this site!
Just goes to show how much Blue's arguments remain the same even to this day, no matter how many times he gets corrected.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Google is NOT optional. I'm not able to avoid it by trying.
Or just install and use YaCy.
Unfortunately it is Java based (ugh!), but it has some nice heuristics functionality which will cause your search results to become more relevant the more you use it. All peers are equal, it cannot be censored and isn't controlled by any single entity.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Okay, I shall never darken this site!
Bullshit. I myself have rebutted that on many occasions. That you choose to ignore that which goes against your notions is your problem.
Modern copyright has rejected the "natural right" aspect in the United Kingdom (Donaldson v. Beckett, 1774) and the United States (Wheaton v. Peters, 1834). The natural right aspect of copyright has been rejected for good reasons. The Lockean property rights you seem to refer to work well with physical property, but copyright extends these rights unnaturally beyond the point of sale. For example, I make a chair from wood on my land. It's my resources and my labor and therefore I own the property rights to that chair. When I choose to sell that chair to someone else I transfer ALL of my property rights to that chair. Copyright extends property rights unnaturally beyond that transaction point. The copyright holder still retains property rights to the work (which effectively removes rights from purchaser) beyond the sale. That is why copyright can never be based on a "natural right" since it's a very unnatural concept to begin with.
On the post: UK High Court Strips Away Short-Lived Private Copying Right, Buying Recording Industry's Demented Assertions
Re:
Geesh Blue, buy a clue.
I'll bet even the people who might be on your side in some of these arguments are clicking report on your comments because they are so outlandish and so lacking of logic and facts that they hurt their side's credibility.
I've tried often to 'splain that purchasing media confers NO rights whatsoever to the content. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA. RIEN. NICHTS. BUPKIS.
And you've been wrong every time. RIAA v. Diamond more or less estibilished that personal time-shifting or format-shifting is Fair Use in the US.
Also, copyright does not and has never (with the exception of Section 1201 - ie: DRM) impeded the property rights associated with the individual copy. For example, I'm completely within my rights to remove all the pages from a dead-tree book and rearrange them into a new story.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: June 14th - 20th
Re: Re: Where are all the comments as last week? -- Answer: I didn't put out bait and you pirates have nothing positive to say! Just denials.
So very true.
Blue also operates under two other misguided delusions concerning the "strawman Techdirt" he's build up in his own head.
#1) That Techdirt readers are all juvenile delinquents living in their parents basements downloading copyrighted material 24/7.
This delusion is easily dispelled by simply looking at Techdirt's actual demographics. %58 make over 50k/year, 77% are over the age of 24 and 75% are college graduates. That sounds like responsible adult members of society to me.
#2) That his comments are actually influential here at Techdirt.
This can also be easily dispelled by simply looking at how many times Blue's comments are hidden via the consensus of the community.
On the post: Anti-Piracy Service, Guard Content, 'Protects' Rights Holder From Additional Sales, His Own Kickstarter Page
Re: HOLY CRAP! "An easy, accessible system for combating infringement is a generally a good thing."!!!!
Or maybe you've had an epiphany and are coming to the realization that the strawman "Techdirt" you've built up in your own mind isn't actually anywhere close to reality.
On the post: Nutty Trollish Guy On The Internet Files Nutty Trollish Defamation Lawsuit In Random State
Re: What's that up there? -- It's a bird! It's a plane! -- Oh, crap! It's just the usual ANOMALY!
This is pure comedy gold.
Blue is basically saying in this comment: "Fuck the law because I don't like what happened in this case."
But, when it comes to filesharing, Blue has made clear he feels this way: "I don't care that a lot of people feel that the law is immoral, I don't feel that way and it's the law, so you are all filthy criminals"
Paradox absorbing crumple zones, indeed.
On the post: Apple Informs Bloggers It Will Be Using Their Content In Its 'News' App Via An Opt-Out Only 'Agreement'
Re:
I disagree. For starters, derailing the discussion doesn't really bother me all that much. Some of the most intense, informative and entertaining conversations here in Techdirt's comment section have had absolutely nothing to do with actual article. Discussions among humans are always a fluid thing and I see no reason to limit them with artificial restrictions - even if it annoys some people.
And secondarily, I firmly believe that incorrect or incomplete statements should be exposed and corrected so that other readers have enough information to come to their own conclusions.
Next >>