Funny how you can't just admit that pirates are to blame for their own piracy.
From the point of view of someone like me who doesn't believe in "intellectual property", what you've just said is trivially true.
It's as if you had said "Toyota buyers are to blame for buying Toyotas!" in response to a story about how Ford was driving customers away by not offering the cars customers wanted at prices they were willing to buy.
Well, yes, the customer was ultimately responsible for his decision about where to buy a car, but that doesn't mean Ford made no mistakes, or shouldn't have acted differently if they wanted to capture that business. Nor does it follow that someone who points out Ford's mistakes in an honest effort to help their business succeed must "hate Ford" and "secretly love Toyota".
I don't think Mike has ever "defended" piracy. Lambasting content companies who continue to make piracy the more appealing option through their backwards thinking is not the same thing as defending piracy.
1:00 he asks for ID.
1:05 he asks for his name.
1:40 he asks for ID again.
1:50 he tells the guy he's required to identify himself.
2:00 he asks yet again.
You still get to watch it for free, legally, you just have to wait a little bit.
The point is that some customers will wait, and some customers won't. And once the customers who don't wait get accustomed to file-sharing, what are the odds you will lure them back again, even if you change your mind in the future?
Your love of pirates and piracy is so incredibly transparent that it's hilarious that you don't just admit that you're a pirate lover.
Yes, I can see how Mike trying to explain to companies how they should act to avoid losing paying customers to piracy is the same as Mike advocating piracy.
Wait, what? Seriously, read what you write before you post.
I have a piece of paper. I own it. It's my property.
You have a piece of paper. You own it. It's your property.
If I write something on my piece of paper, then tell men with guns to hurt you if you write the same thing on your piece of paper, that's a violation of the property rights you have in your piece of paper.
Additionally, property rights are necessarily at the center of all human rights because you own yourself. :)
Yes, please tell me exactly which sites will allow me access to your unlicensed content. I'd also be much obliged if you gave each red site a numerical rating from 1 to 10 based on how many evil pirates were busy seeding your work there.
Even then, it was still "reasonable suspicion", which the officer didn't have in this case. The guy was lawfully carrying, which the officer verified. No ID required.
In most states (perhaps there are some for which this does now apply?), before a police officer has a legal right to force you to identify yourself, they have to have reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime.
The cop had already verified that Jeremy was in compliance with state law (carrying unloaded), and therefore had no legal reason to demand Jeremy's identification. He obviously knew that, because he didn't press the issue.
but he should have at least provided a last name so they can verify he has a gun permit before he's free to continue walking down a busy street with a gun on his hip
Why? If it's not the law that he has to do so, why should he?
If I or someone else nearby was unhinged, could've gone for it, made trouble. He wasn't a big guy.
That's a fair assessment, and a reason why I don't open carry (apart from open carry being illegal where I live). However, you have to wonder how likely it is that someone at that very moment would be unhinged enough to really want want to start gunning people down, but just didn't have an opportunity until Joe Open-Carry sauntered into the building.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
I Concur
On the post: Homeland Security Finally Admits To Latest Domain Seizures; Arrests Guy For Selling Unauthorized 'Sons Of Anarchy' T-Shirts
Re:
On the post: Football Player Sues Hanes; Says It Can't Fire Him Over Controversial Things He Said On Twitter
Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
/facepalm
Seek professional help.
On the post: Fox Decides To Drive Fans To Piracy, Rather Than Giving Legitimate Options
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From the point of view of someone like me who doesn't believe in "intellectual property", what you've just said is trivially true.
It's as if you had said "Toyota buyers are to blame for buying Toyotas!" in response to a story about how Ford was driving customers away by not offering the cars customers wanted at prices they were willing to buy.
Well, yes, the customer was ultimately responsible for his decision about where to buy a car, but that doesn't mean Ford made no mistakes, or shouldn't have acted differently if they wanted to capture that business. Nor does it follow that someone who points out Ford's mistakes in an honest effort to help their business succeed must "hate Ford" and "secretly love Toyota".
On the post: Fox Decides To Drive Fans To Piracy, Rather Than Giving Legitimate Options
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Should Law Enforcement Handle Being Filmed? Officer Lyons Provides The Perfect Example
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1:05 he asks for his name.
1:40 he asks for ID again.
1:50 he tells the guy he's required to identify himself.
2:00 he asks yet again.
On the post: Fox Decides To Drive Fans To Piracy, Rather Than Giving Legitimate Options
Re: Over-reacting
The point is that some customers will wait, and some customers won't. And once the customers who don't wait get accustomed to file-sharing, what are the odds you will lure them back again, even if you change your mind in the future?
On the post: Fox Decides To Drive Fans To Piracy, Rather Than Giving Legitimate Options
Re:
Yes, I can see how Mike trying to explain to companies how they should act to avoid losing paying customers to piracy is the same as Mike advocating piracy.
Wait, what? Seriously, read what you write before you post.
On the post: Swedish Appeals Court Increases File Sharing Fine By A Factor Of Six
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have a piece of paper. You own it. It's your property.
If I write something on my piece of paper, then tell men with guns to hurt you if you write the same thing on your piece of paper, that's a violation of the property rights you have in your piece of paper.
Additionally, property rights are necessarily at the center of all human rights because you own yourself. :)
On the post: How Should Law Enforcement Handle Being Filmed? Officer Lyons Provides The Perfect Example
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Music Industry Wants To Put 'Red Lights' In Google For Sites It Says Support Infringement
Yes, Please!
You know, just so I can avoid them better . . .
On the post: Google Finally Speaking Up About Problems With Patent System
Re: Re: Re: No more lawsuits
On the post: Google Finally Speaking Up About Problems With Patent System
Re: No more lawsuits
Such as who? Who should they "stop suing"?
On the post: How Should Law Enforcement Handle Being Filmed? Officer Lyons Provides The Perfect Example
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Should Law Enforcement Handle Being Filmed? Officer Lyons Provides The Perfect Example
Re: aight
Err, yes. There's lots of contention. Where have you been? =P
Here, not so much. But in general, yes.
On the post: How Should Law Enforcement Handle Being Filmed? Officer Lyons Provides The Perfect Example
Re: Re:
The cop had already verified that Jeremy was in compliance with state law (carrying unloaded), and therefore had no legal reason to demand Jeremy's identification. He obviously knew that, because he didn't press the issue.
On the post: How Should Law Enforcement Handle Being Filmed? Officer Lyons Provides The Perfect Example
Re:
Why? If it's not the law that he has to do so, why should he?
On the post: How Should Law Enforcement Handle Being Filmed? Officer Lyons Provides The Perfect Example
Re: It was a test
On the post: Looking At Security Theater Through The Lens Of The Utøya Massacre
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a fair assessment, and a reason why I don't open carry (apart from open carry being illegal where I live). However, you have to wonder how likely it is that someone at that very moment would be unhinged enough to really want want to start gunning people down, but just didn't have an opportunity until Joe Open-Carry sauntered into the building.
On the post: Physicists Claim Time Travel Is Impossible (This Time, They Mean It)
Re: Re: Seems To Me
"It wasn't a dig at science, it was a dig at people who take everything a scientist says as absolute, unquestionable truth."
Atheists can be so touchy.
Next >>