But you are saying the opposite, if you agree with SOPA then everything in Time magazine is under the responsibilty of Time Warner, and they should be held accountable - except in this case when you wrongly believe it's the sole responsibility of the author and nothing to do with Time Magazine or, indeed, Time Warner.
Can you not see that you are doing exactly what you claim Mike is doing, just from the other side of the fence?
Nice to see that stupidity reigns abroad . Makes me wonder how they choose their supreme court justices - do they just go into a pub at midnight and play pin the tail on the donkey?
I would like to claim co-authorship on this and any new post deriving from it
At no point did I imply that I was, in fact I pointed out that the comparison between real and digital piracy is important. I was not damaged by reading this article, I did not feel down after reading this article, if I am interested in the articles here on TD I try to show it through a post or two.
This was an observation, not a complaint and certainly not an attack on the author.
From above, applies here too:
"Butcherer79 (profile), Nov 10th, 2011 @ 7:50am
First line of my comment above:
"Though amusing to read"
Tim's joking nature, not Mike's, did not fall on deaf ears and I look forward to reading more, both serious and tongue in cheek posts.
It was just an observation, not an attack. I have posted here several times and I don't think I skimmed so low as to be trolling, this was just my view, to be taken or not by others."
First line of my comment above:
"Though amusing to read"
Tim's joking nature, not Mike's, did not fall on deaf ears and I look forward to reading more, both serious and tongue in cheek posts.
It was just an observation, not an attack. I have posted here several times and I don't think I skimmed so low as to be trolling, this was just my view, to be taken or not by others.
Though amusing to read, I can't help the feeling that this article somewhat glorifies violence and theft, I see the comparison that is made between real and online piracy and the importance of that point, but perhaps this could have been made whilst not bigging up a "dishonest day's work".
He doesn't, he recommends a price but amazon reserve the right to reduce/inflate that price, it's in their T&C's and he had to have signed them (albeit electronically)
So the rest of my post was spot on? Thanks very much, I hope you feel enlightened.
Oh, and:
"If the newspaper allowed CP to be published as part of it's paper, or other illegal content, they wouldn't just get to put up a little retraction, they would suffer grave legal consequences of their actions. Using the excuse "it's user submitted content from an anonymous source that we actively try to not track" wouldn't go over very well."
So a fine as well then, that's completely the same as shutting them down completely.
"Until then, wordpress.com and others take a huge risk allowing anyone to publish anything at any time."
Indeed, free speech maximalists, the lot of them!
Ban free speech and all that harbour it's wretched stench!
Aparently you only have to link to infringing content, please correct me if I'm wrong - and also, this SOPA/E-PARASITE isn't exceptionally well defined, by any degree. So it could very well include a news site.
Also, your argument about the news company owning the domain is probably true for your big companies, but certainly not every news site.
With your third party example "warez.techdirt.com" wouldn't it be wiser to block that site, not the entire domain, by your reasoning floor64.com should be shut down too, as they own the domain.
"If you share and partner with people who are questionable, you lose."
So if you set up a news site on a domain, then the owners of that domain sees fit host someone else's site on the same domain which contains infringing content (unbeknownst to you, the news site owner) you should automatically get railroaded, or if you will "broadbrushed" because of the infringing site?
That makes perfect sense.
Your first point:
"A domain is a domain, like a newspaper is a newspaper. If a newspaper choose to allow illegal content from a third party to make up part of their daily printing, you can be sure that they would get cut off - the whole paper."
I'm afraid, if a newspaper allows illegal content, nine times out of ten it'll just issue an apology (the size of a fingernail on page 39, right next to the dating advertisements).
"Don't let your news site share a domain with others who might not be legal"
I thought it was innocent until proven guilty, "might" not be legal, dependant on the depth of analysis, that can pretty much be anyone.
That all depends if the news site has the same domain as what the SOPA/E-PARASITE types consider 'infringing content' sites. Then it will.
A poor effort, and surely this piece is about blocking sites in general without due process, not what content may be on these sites?
The problem here is the word reasonable. What is reasonable to one may not be considered so by another, you cannot, unfortunately, measure reasonable, it's subjective. If there was a 1-10 scale of resonable, this would be a lot easier, anything over '5' goes (or whatever number is decided upon).
"The reasonable expectation of privacy", if a convicted criminal is release on probation, during that probation, is it reasonable to know where he/she is all of the time? My personal views aside, you'll find that there are strong arguments for both.
Going slightly off subject, when police 'stakeout' a suspect, is that not infringing on the suspects right to a reasonable level of privacy? Could the GPS tracking be used as a virtual stakeout?
From wiki:
A stakeout is the coordinated hidden surveillance of a location or person for the purpose of gathering evidence, especially in regard to criminal activity.
Re: What has he lost? -- Nothing! Still has his data, right?
"and as it's obviously going to result in zero income for author"
How is this correct?
I often buy books based on the author, if I've read one of their books before and enjoyed it, if I see their name again, I'll buy. If I borrowed the first book (from a library for instance, before the 'freetard' comment come flying in) I may even purchase that book so it's in my collection.
If this author is good enough, people will pay for future releases, I'm living proof - Your argument is flawed at best.
I think you'll find they did buy it, just at no cost, they still had to click on checkout and buy.
Also, it will be down to the plaintiff to prove lost sales, if this went to court, which I'm pretty sure the author has said it's not.
Difference being that amazon didn't make any money on this either.
If he got sent twice the royalties then he's dishonestly holding on to funds and could be done for theft when he knowingly spends it (certainly in the UK if they could prove he knew about the mistake)
If he hasn't had a minimum price (and therefore minimum royalty percentage) written into his contract then legally, he has nothing to stand on. Morally, I agree that amazon should take the hit and stump up at least some of the dough.
Even before the 'press monkeys', governments (not just yours) have been deceitful, normally under the guise of 'protecting us' (the public) (Jack Nicholson yelling "You can't handle the truth!" in A Few Good Men springs to mind).
Now, it is my opinion, that they use this "protecting the public" excuse to get away with what is unacceptable truths, like the arms trade that goes on and only gets released years later when somebody 'in the know' has had enough and calls the wikileaks hotline.
We should not be naive enough to believe that any future government will be any more or less honest with it's public, or, indeed, naive enough to think that they can fiscally survive without these unacceptable truths.
On the post: Time Magazine Says SOPA Is 'A Cure Worse Than The Disease'; Would Encourage Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you not see that you are doing exactly what you claim Mike is doing, just from the other side of the fence?
On the post: How To Become A Scientific Author In Poland: Delete Part Of Someone Else's Article You Think Is Wrong
Re: Winning with Stupidity
I would like to claim co-authorship on this and any new post deriving from it
On the post: Old Fashioned 'Pirates' Steal 6,000 Copies Of The New Call Of Duty Game
Re: Re:
This was an observation, not a complaint and certainly not an attack on the author.
On the post: Old Fashioned 'Pirates' Steal 6,000 Copies Of The New Call Of Duty Game
Re: Re:
"Butcherer79 (profile), Nov 10th, 2011 @ 7:50am
First line of my comment above:
"Though amusing to read"
Tim's joking nature, not Mike's, did not fall on deaf ears and I look forward to reading more, both serious and tongue in cheek posts.
It was just an observation, not an attack. I have posted here several times and I don't think I skimmed so low as to be trolling, this was just my view, to be taken or not by others."
On the post: Old Fashioned 'Pirates' Steal 6,000 Copies Of The New Call Of Duty Game
Re: Re:
"Though amusing to read"
Tim's joking nature, not Mike's, did not fall on deaf ears and I look forward to reading more, both serious and tongue in cheek posts.
It was just an observation, not an attack. I have posted here several times and I don't think I skimmed so low as to be trolling, this was just my view, to be taken or not by others.
On the post: Old Fashioned 'Pirates' Steal 6,000 Copies Of The New Call Of Duty Game
On the post: Are There Any Legal Issues If Amazon Accidentally Gives Away Thousands Of Your Ebooks For Free?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: More Nation-Level Web Censorship, As Sri Lanka Blocks News Sites It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and:
"If the newspaper allowed CP to be published as part of it's paper, or other illegal content, they wouldn't just get to put up a little retraction, they would suffer grave legal consequences of their actions. Using the excuse "it's user submitted content from an anonymous source that we actively try to not track" wouldn't go over very well."
So a fine as well then, that's completely the same as shutting them down completely.
On the post: More Nation-Level Web Censorship, As Sri Lanka Blocks News Sites It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Indeed, free speech maximalists, the lot of them!
Ban free speech and all that harbour it's wretched stench!
On the post: More Nation-Level Web Censorship, As Sri Lanka Blocks News Sites It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, your argument about the news company owning the domain is probably true for your big companies, but certainly not every news site.
With your third party example "warez.techdirt.com" wouldn't it be wiser to block that site, not the entire domain, by your reasoning floor64.com should be shut down too, as they own the domain.
"If you share and partner with people who are questionable, you lose."
So if you set up a news site on a domain, then the owners of that domain sees fit host someone else's site on the same domain which contains infringing content (unbeknownst to you, the news site owner) you should automatically get railroaded, or if you will "broadbrushed" because of the infringing site?
That makes perfect sense.
Your first point:
"A domain is a domain, like a newspaper is a newspaper. If a newspaper choose to allow illegal content from a third party to make up part of their daily printing, you can be sure that they would get cut off - the whole paper."
I'm afraid, if a newspaper allows illegal content, nine times out of ten it'll just issue an apology (the size of a fingernail on page 39, right next to the dating advertisements).
"Don't let your news site share a domain with others who might not be legal"
I thought it was innocent until proven guilty, "might" not be legal, dependant on the depth of analysis, that can pretty much be anyone.
On the post: More Nation-Level Web Censorship, As Sri Lanka Blocks News Sites It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for failing troll game.
On the post: More Nation-Level Web Censorship, As Sri Lanka Blocks News Sites It Doesn't Like
Re:
A poor effort, and surely this piece is about blocking sites in general without due process, not what content may be on these sites?
On the post: Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality Of Having People Tracked By GPS All The Time
Stakeouts
"The reasonable expectation of privacy", if a convicted criminal is release on probation, during that probation, is it reasonable to know where he/she is all of the time? My personal views aside, you'll find that there are strong arguments for both.
Going slightly off subject, when police 'stakeout' a suspect, is that not infringing on the suspects right to a reasonable level of privacy? Could the GPS tracking be used as a virtual stakeout?
From wiki:
A stakeout is the coordinated hidden surveillance of a location or person for the purpose of gathering evidence, especially in regard to criminal activity.
On the post: Are There Any Legal Issues If Amazon Accidentally Gives Away Thousands Of Your Ebooks For Free?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Are There Any Legal Issues If Amazon Accidentally Gives Away Thousands Of Your Ebooks For Free?
Re: What has he lost? -- Nothing! Still has his data, right?
How is this correct?
I often buy books based on the author, if I've read one of their books before and enjoyed it, if I see their name again, I'll buy. If I borrowed the first book (from a library for instance, before the 'freetard' comment come flying in) I may even purchase that book so it's in my collection.
If this author is good enough, people will pay for future releases, I'm living proof - Your argument is flawed at best.
On the post: Are There Any Legal Issues If Amazon Accidentally Gives Away Thousands Of Your Ebooks For Free?
Re:
Also, it will be down to the plaintiff to prove lost sales, if this went to court, which I'm pretty sure the author has said it's not.
Was there a valid point here?
On the post: Are There Any Legal Issues If Amazon Accidentally Gives Away Thousands Of Your Ebooks For Free?
Re: Re: Re: Is that a mountain or a molehill?
Must just be me then...
On the post: Are There Any Legal Issues If Amazon Accidentally Gives Away Thousands Of Your Ebooks For Free?
Re: Amazon
I thought Stalin was dead?
On the post: Are There Any Legal Issues If Amazon Accidentally Gives Away Thousands Of Your Ebooks For Free?
Re:
If he got sent twice the royalties then he's dishonestly holding on to funds and could be done for theft when he knowingly spends it (certainly in the UK if they could prove he knew about the mistake)
If he hasn't had a minimum price (and therefore minimum royalty percentage) written into his contract then legally, he has nothing to stand on. Morally, I agree that amazon should take the hit and stump up at least some of the dough.
On the post: Justice Department Drops Its Request To Be Allowed To Lie In Response To FOIA Requests
Re: Crushed
Now, it is my opinion, that they use this "protecting the public" excuse to get away with what is unacceptable truths, like the arms trade that goes on and only gets released years later when somebody 'in the know' has had enough and calls the wikileaks hotline.
We should not be naive enough to believe that any future government will be any more or less honest with it's public, or, indeed, naive enough to think that they can fiscally survive without these unacceptable truths.
Next >>