First big-media cries foul when they are side-stepped as a content provider. Understandable, even though they themselves are partially to blame by by treating their own customer like thieves.
Next they demand that even if you try to play by their "rules" they will squash you because you aren't them.
Basically school yard behavior, if you aren't winning keep changing the rules until you are.
Ofcourse everyone else will quit long before you get to win.
Yes our Civil Liberties are suffering but the attack is not directed at them.
The attack is from corporate interests bent on legislating their business model. They push and push and push our (supposed) representatives (Democrat, Republican AND third party) for business friendly legislation that makes it easier for them to "put the financial screws" to the consumer public to bolster profit margins. It is the consequences (intended or not) that continually erode Civil Liberties.
Nearly as corrosive is the oversensitivity and outrage mentality of so so many of the people. So many hurt people are going further and further out of their way to A) Find someone else to blame for their misery, and B) As misguided as it is they are trying to "bubble-wrap" the world so their offspring won't have to suffer as the feel that they did.
If you can't trip and fall then you can't ever learn how to pick yourself up.
Works cannot be "given" to the public domain. To the degree that members of a society are influenced by, love, or hate a "work" it is part of that societies culture, it IS public domain.
As has been said repeatedly copyright was conceived as an incentive to give creators the opportunity to benefit economically from the works they create, to give them the opportunity to create even more works. It is this incentive that is granted by the society as a privilege TO the creator.
Society wants the creators to create more, society does NOT want to create a welfare system to support a "creator" who does not create. That is not a creator, that is a parrasite on society.
Re: 5-10 level reply tree that can be 100+ replies
ALSO:
It would be very handy to be able to collapse threads at any point the "level" deepens. This would allow the reader to hide subsections of the "reply tree" to more easily follow a discussion, or at least the parts that interest the reader. You could even do some tracking about where readers collapse trees to provide some insight on how discussions are consumed and where discussions get "thread-jacked".
Even so the Supreme Court Ruling statement does not equate "deliberate unlawful copying" to theft. The statement is not a metaphor. It is written with figurative language to make a comparison, the point of which is to say that "deliberate unlawful copying" is no more or less unlawful than "unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft." That is quite different that saying there are the same act.
"However, a tenth of a percent of the population had the opposite reaction. They became highly aggressive, committing unspeakable acts including cannibalism, rape and self-mutilation."
If the law was written specifically to define how the gov't can "spy" on "foreigners" shouldn't the first sentence read:
"IT IS UNLAWFUL TO PERFORM ANY INFORMATION OR DATA GATHERING ON ANY UNITED STATES CITIZEN WITHOUT A COURT APPROVED WARRANT FOR SUCH ACTIONS. NO STATEMENT OR WORDING IN THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE USED OR INTERPRETED TO BE USED TO CIRCUMVENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF US CITIZENS."
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2012 On Techdirt
"if innovating provides better solutions"
I know, the votes are in and numbers are numbers, but this idea cannot be promoted long and loud enough.
On the post: University Utilizing Faulty Irony Detector Censors Flyer Protesting Its Censorship Policy
Re: Resistance is Futile
But Action is Powerful.
On the post: The Pirate Bay's Perfectly Legal 'The Promo Bay' Blocked By UK ISPs
This is an expected progression.
Next they demand that even if you try to play by their "rules" they will squash you because you aren't them.
Basically school yard behavior, if you aren't winning keep changing the rules until you are.
Ofcourse everyone else will quit long before you get to win.
On the post: Copyright Troll Case Tossed For 'Fraud On The Court' After Abbott & Costello-Worthy Hearing
Re: Lionel Hutz
On the post: Copyright Maximalism: Turning Satirical Works Into Ridiculous Reality
Re: Re:
On the post: Why Do Both Major Parties Suck So Badly On Civil Liberties?
Its not about Civil Liberties.
The attack is from corporate interests bent on legislating their business model. They push and push and push our (supposed) representatives (Democrat, Republican AND third party) for business friendly legislation that makes it easier for them to "put the financial screws" to the consumer public to bolster profit margins. It is the consequences (intended or not) that continually erode Civil Liberties.
Nearly as corrosive is the oversensitivity and outrage mentality of so so many of the people. So many hurt people are going further and further out of their way to A) Find someone else to blame for their misery, and B) As misguided as it is they are trying to "bubble-wrap" the world so their offspring won't have to suffer as the feel that they did.
If you can't trip and fall then you can't ever learn how to pick yourself up.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: "given" to the public domain
As has been said repeatedly copyright was conceived as an incentive to give creators the opportunity to benefit economically from the works they create, to give them the opportunity to create even more works. It is this incentive that is granted by the society as a privilege TO the creator.
Society wants the creators to create more, society does NOT want to create a welfare system to support a "creator" who does not create. That is not a creator, that is a parrasite on society.
On the post: This T-Shirt Has Been Seized
Re: 5-10 level reply tree that can be 100+ replies
It would be very handy to be able to collapse threads at any point the "level" deepens. This would allow the reader to hide subsections of the "reply tree" to more easily follow a discussion, or at least the parts that interest the reader. You could even do some tracking about where readers collapse trees to provide some insight on how discussions are consumed and where discussions get "thread-jacked".
On the post: Justice Department IT Staff So Incompetent They Block All Webex Conferences
Re: Management
Mgmt: We have a problem with unauthorized Internet use.
IT: Well have a 'discussion' with the people who are abusing privileges, explain the rules, and lay out consequences. AND FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THEM.
Mgmt: No no no, just block the Internet for everyone.
IT: derp.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:I'll take the supreme court version ...
Also, apparently this was not a ruling but an opinion.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:I'll take the supreme court version ...
On the post: California Legalizes Some Texting While Driving, Sort Of
Re: cherios are nothing ...
On the post: Is This Chemical Why File Sharers Buy More Music?
Re: Re:
reference
On the post: Yet Another (Yes Another) Error In Megaupload Case: Search Warrants Ruled Illegal
Re: "Copyright is Theft"
On the post: Wyden & Udall Block FISA Amendments Act Until US Admits How Many Americans Are Being Spied On
Re:
http://www.foreigneronline.com/tourdates.html
LOOK! LaCrosse WI on June 16!
On the post: Wyden & Udall Block FISA Amendments Act Until US Admits How Many Americans Are Being Spied On
"IT IS UNLAWFUL TO PERFORM ANY INFORMATION OR DATA GATHERING ON ANY UNITED STATES CITIZEN WITHOUT A COURT APPROVED WARRANT FOR SUCH ACTIONS. NO STATEMENT OR WORDING IN THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE USED OR INTERPRETED TO BE USED TO CIRCUMVENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF US CITIZENS."
On the post: If You're Going To Leak Classified Info About The White House, It Better Make Them Look Good
Re: Man...
On the post: Insanity: Apple Rejects Podcatching App Because It Has Flattr Integration
Re: "...no guarantee that the next version is compatible... "
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS
Not exactly next version compatibility guarantee, but a guarantee that it will work for 5 years.
There is no necessity to upgrade the OS with every release.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: The Cusomer is the Advertiser; not you
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
They've forgotten the important element in consumers is the customer.
Next >>