The article's headline is in the past tense and the first paragraph of the HuffPo link is:
Insulting a police officer or municipal official on the internet has been made illegal in the town of Granby, Que., after the council voted unanimously tonight in favour of beefing up an already controversial bylaw.
But that is besides the point anyways - this article is an opinion piece on the bylaw itself and not a news report about it. You were able to Google the information fairly quickly, so I assume that any moron could also do so.
And once again: Learn to threaded mode! or at the very least quote something from who you are responding to, otherwise your comments make even less sense than usual because most everyone else views Techdirt in threaded mode.
I won't deny that I did use bittorent many years ago to download some music. I was actually more interested in learning the protocol and technology than I was in the actual music itself though. The music I did download was all over ten years old at the time, nothing current. My digital music library is built from mine and my wife's vast CD collections, not from downloading. I don't download anything these days and haven't for 5 or 6 years now.
I have never downloaded any movies beyond a couple of public domain movies (Night of the Living Dead 1969 was one). For me, it was never worth the time involved, especially since I had HBO, Showtime and Cinemax and now also have a Netflix account.
Because you're a pirate like everyone else here. That's why.
Direct from the Copyright Maximalist's Handbook:
Rule #12: When backed into a corner without a valid counter-argument, simply call your opponent a "pirate". This not only gives you a warm feeling of superiority, you can also claim you won the exchange without actually having resort to logic, common sense or anything that resembles a valid counter-argument.
Apparently, they will make some comment about lawyers in general in a weak attempt to deflect away from the copyright trolling that started this whole thing.
Blaming "pirates" because someone's usually wrong, condescending and generally annoying comments get down-voted by the majority of the readers here is stupid. Doing that exact same thing for years and years is really, really stupid in my book.
I've got no sympathy for Blue. Sometimes an old dog is just simply too stupid to learn new tricks.
Also, I don't think AJ's (antidirt) original comment deserves to be hidden. Although the comment is worded a bit snarky-ish, it is true that AJ pointed this out on the original article and that he was right.
Yes, ME again. Heh, heh. Told you a restraining order was nothing new. Masnick's ideology-driven notion of law fails yet again, keeping his record a nice even zero.
Too funny Blue. You've been so completely wrong on so many subjects that it's hard to keep a tally going. But whatever, gloat away because you almost got one correct (explained below).
This is simple, clear, and without worries. Just read the law Masnick puts up there after the fact: when you publicly announce intent to infringe, you are subject to injunction.
Only if it meets the requirements of 411(c), which only covers live events. Otherwise that is not true at all. I could announce that I was going to re-publish your copyrighted book all I want, but unless I actually do re-publish your book, I have not done anything subject to an injunction.
Using someone else's content is simply illegal.
Only if you ignore Fair Use. So once again, you are close, but not quite right.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How will we earn a living? - GET. A. JOB.
Property and cars are taxed because the government provides infrastructure to maintain those assets.
Isn't using tax dollars to enforce copyright via the court system and the DOJ also providing "infrastructure to maintain [the] assets" of the copyright holders?
Would you happily pay a copyright tax to offset those expenses?
Title should be "before its time" not "it's" which is "it is."
I took the title as a bit of a pun myself. "Drink no wine before it is time" works perfectly in the context of an article that is talking about the age of wines.
But your fun comes at the expense of other people's fun. That doesn't concern you?
Not really. To be honest, the things that I actually enjoy exploiting really don't have much to do with other people. Like figuring out a how take down a super high level monster all by myself as opposed to a co-opt effort with other players. Or how to purchase a guild house without actually joining a guild. (I always hated guilds - always full of newbies asking for you to level them up). Things like that.
Back in the late 90's one of the first online MMORPGs I played was something called "Faldon". They were going through a lot of growing pains trying to figure out in-game economies and such and ended up having to do character wipes pretty often because of exploits. But the whole experience was still a hell of a lot fun anyways. That game is still around but the graphics look pretty crappy on today's high-def monitors.
Would it be better to exclude cheaters from games? Yes, no doubt.
Bah. I disagree. For me thee fun with any computer game is to discover the programming flaws, glitches or repetitive patterns to use to my advantage. I don't consider it "cheating" if it's something the software allows.
You forget that all drug dealing is violent crime.
Bullshit. Out of that total number of "drug crimes" 46% involved marijuana. Marijuana is not physically additive and does not produce all of those "scary" things you listed. Nor is it a "gateway drug".
I know quite a few people in my life who use marijuana and all of them hold regular jobs, have families, pay taxes and have not "descended into crime" beyond using a substance that is currently illegal.
Re: Re: You Shouldn't Have a Media Player in the First Place, and Possibly, Not Even Podcasts.
...WHAT?
Yeah, I thought that argument was a bit outlandish myself.
Kind of like saying: Unless you're the sort of person who has tapped out a 500 word essay in Morse code on a telegraph machine you made yourself, you really have no business posting comments on an internet blog.
On the post: Quebec Town Makes It Illegal To Insult Police Officers And Other Public Officials
Re:
The article's headline is in the past tense and the first paragraph of the HuffPo link is:
But that is besides the point anyways - this article is an opinion piece on the bylaw itself and not a news report about it. You were able to Google the information fairly quickly, so I assume that any moron could also do so.
And once again: Learn to threaded mode! or at the very least quote something from who you are responding to, otherwise your comments make even less sense than usual because most everyone else views Techdirt in threaded mode.
On the post: 'Get Up, Stand Up' For... Whose Rights Now?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you (or anyone) tries to claim that they don't violate copyright laws everyday then you are lying, plain and simple:
http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/ulr/article/viewFile/7/11
On the post: 'Get Up, Stand Up' For... Whose Rights Now?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I won't deny that I did use bittorent many years ago to download some music. I was actually more interested in learning the protocol and technology than I was in the actual music itself though. The music I did download was all over ten years old at the time, nothing current. My digital music library is built from mine and my wife's vast CD collections, not from downloading. I don't download anything these days and haven't for 5 or 6 years now.
I have never downloaded any movies beyond a couple of public domain movies (Night of the Living Dead 1969 was one). For me, it was never worth the time involved, especially since I had HBO, Showtime and Cinemax and now also have a Netflix account.
On the post: 'Get Up, Stand Up' For... Whose Rights Now?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Direct from the Copyright Maximalist's Handbook:
On the post: Team Prenda Has A Very Bad Day In Court... And You Can Watch It All
Re:
Apparently, they will make some comment about lawyers in general in a weak attempt to deflect away from the copyright trolling that started this whole thing.
On the post: Court Issues Highly Questionable Restraining Order Over Anyone Even Remotely Related To Streaming Mayweather/Pacquiao Fight
Re:
Not me.
Blaming "pirates" because someone's usually wrong, condescending and generally annoying comments get down-voted by the majority of the readers here is stupid. Doing that exact same thing for years and years is really, really stupid in my book.
I've got no sympathy for Blue. Sometimes an old dog is just simply too stupid to learn new tricks.
On the post: Forget, Mayweather v. Pacquaio: The Big Fight Was Apparently Hollywood v. Periscope Streaming
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry.
It most certainly is content and it's competing with the legacy content creators for eyeballs and time.
Your snobbish disdain isn't going to make that fact change anytime soon. Sorry.
On the post: Court Issues Highly Questionable Restraining Order Over Anyone Even Remotely Related To Streaming Mayweather/Pacquiao Fight
Re: Re: Re: Funny, and wrong.
On the post: Court Issues Highly Questionable Restraining Order Over Anyone Even Remotely Related To Streaming Mayweather/Pacquiao Fight
Re: Re: Funny, and wrong.
On the post: Court Issues Highly Questionable Restraining Order Over Anyone Even Remotely Related To Streaming Mayweather/Pacquiao Fight
Re: So who was right: me or Masnick?
Yes, ME again. Heh, heh. Told you a restraining order was nothing new. Masnick's ideology-driven notion of law fails yet again, keeping his record a nice even zero.
Too funny Blue. You've been so completely wrong on so many subjects that it's hard to keep a tally going. But whatever, gloat away because you almost got one correct (explained below).
This is simple, clear, and without worries. Just read the law Masnick puts up there after the fact: when you publicly announce intent to infringe, you are subject to injunction.
Only if it meets the requirements of 411(c), which only covers live events. Otherwise that is not true at all. I could announce that I was going to re-publish your copyrighted book all I want, but unless I actually do re-publish your book, I have not done anything subject to an injunction.
Using someone else's content is simply illegal.
Only if you ignore Fair Use. So once again, you are close, but not quite right.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 22: Are Smaller Online Media Players Doomed In The Age Of Buzzfeed?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Shouldn't Have a Media Player in the First Place, and Possibly, Not Even Podcasts.
On the post: UK Green Party Speculates On Idea To Shorten Copyright To 14 Years... Leading To Mass Freakout
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How will we earn a living? - GET. A. JOB.
Isn't using tax dollars to enforce copyright via the court system and the DOJ also providing "infrastructure to maintain [the] assets" of the copyright holders?
Would you happily pay a copyright tax to offset those expenses?
On the post: DailyDirt: Drink No Wine Before It's Time?
Re: Grammar, please!
I took the title as a bit of a pun myself. "Drink no wine before it is time" works perfectly in the context of an article that is talking about the age of wines.
Lighten up.
On the post: California Assembly Moves Forward With Idiotic Plan To Make All Bitcoin Startups Apply For A License
Re:
Do you know what has a much longer and larger history of fraud and scams? Dollar bills. Do you wish those to come to end also?
Blaming a currency for how it is used doesn't really make much sense to me.
On the post: Valve Announces It's Handing Its Banning-Keys Over To Game Developers
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not really. To be honest, the things that I actually enjoy exploiting really don't have much to do with other people. Like figuring out a how take down a super high level monster all by myself as opposed to a co-opt effort with other players. Or how to purchase a guild house without actually joining a guild. (I always hated guilds - always full of newbies asking for you to level them up). Things like that.
Back in the late 90's one of the first online MMORPGs I played was something called "Faldon". They were going through a lot of growing pains trying to figure out in-game economies and such and ended up having to do character wipes pretty often because of exploits. But the whole experience was still a hell of a lot fun anyways. That game is still around but the graphics look pretty crappy on today's high-def monitors.
On the post: Tidal's Failure: A Reminder To Musicians That It's Not Easy To Build A Successful Streaming Service
Re: So... YOU CAN'T COMPETE WITH FREE?
HA, HA! This proves Masnick WRONG!
Not at all. You have be a special type of moron to think that this proves you can't compete with free.
Spotify, Pandora and Beats are doing a fine job of competing with free. Tidal is having trouble competing with those services.
On the post: Valve Announces It's Handing Its Banning-Keys Over To Game Developers
Re: Re:
I find that part fun too. Watching something like a gold exploit tank a in-game economy like a dot com bubble is interesting to me.
On the post: Valve Announces It's Handing Its Banning-Keys Over To Game Developers
Bah. I disagree. For me thee fun with any computer game is to discover the programming flaws, glitches or repetitive patterns to use to my advantage. I don't consider it "cheating" if it's something the software allows.
On the post: Law Enforcement's Cluelessness On Display In Congressional Hearing On Undermining Encryption
Re: Re:
Bullshit. Out of that total number of "drug crimes" 46% involved marijuana. Marijuana is not physically additive and does not produce all of those "scary" things you listed. Nor is it a "gateway drug".
I know quite a few people in my life who use marijuana and all of them hold regular jobs, have families, pay taxes and have not "descended into crime" beyond using a substance that is currently illegal.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 22: Are Smaller Online Media Players Doomed In The Age Of Buzzfeed?
Re: Re: You Shouldn't Have a Media Player in the First Place, and Possibly, Not Even Podcasts.
Yeah, I thought that argument was a bit outlandish myself.
Kind of like saying: Unless you're the sort of person who has tapped out a 500 word essay in Morse code on a telegraph machine you made yourself, you really have no business posting comments on an internet blog.
Next >>