Copyright is a valuable tool that can protect and empower creators. At least, that's what it could be. Instead, its' something viewed with contempt by authors and consumers alike. I actually spoke with someone not too long ago who wanted to self-publish a book, but was afraid of restricting it too much with copyright. Fortunately, we have complimentary tools like Creative Commons to help, but that speaks volumes on copyright's effectiveness on its own.
I would love to be in a world where copyright can truly empower creators. But if directives like this keep happening, we'll never see a time where copyright can be respected again.
Overreaching copyright laws have bred an entire generation of consumers who see no reason to respect copyright anymore. It is used to shake down innocent people for settlements in literal criminal rackets (see: Prenda), retroactively take away content you paid for (Apple, Amazon, etc.), and lock down your own property because you aren't allowed to own anything anymore.
Why on earth would you believe that making the laws even more draconian will improve anything?
Section 230 does not make anyone immune to false-advertisement lawsuits. It never has, and never will. Please find a different law to complain about. This is just getting old.
No, patent holders cannot use shell companies to hide their money. No, pirate sites cannot steal millions from authors. Police are not currently involved with anything here, unless you're hiding information. Or rather, just making it up.
a) Masnick didn't write that; Daniel Nazer did. b) It's actual provable fact. The article itself references several of them. c) Since when do the police ever get involved in taking down an alleged "smear campaign?" (unless it involves criticism of the police force itself)
At least try to put the effort into reading the article before you blindly comment on it.
First, prostitution spreads diseases which I then end up paying for out of my taxes....
Who said anything about prostitution? Access to porn has no correlation to prostitution at all, but feel free to share any data suggesting otherwise. And I think you're overestimating the allocation of public funds on that last part. I see no way that the treatment of any kind of STD spread via prostitution would directly pull from your own taxes unless your local politician is caught up in a related scandal. And even then, it would be entirely beside the point.
Second, if I give the idiot who needs that prostitute some porn, he might just not go see that gal....
Again, zero correlation. This is a completely nonsensical claim.
Third, porn might give people the wrong idea...everyone fucks with a broomstick until someone screams, right??? And all girls/guys look like this???.
I have no idea what kind of porn you are watching, but this point does have me convinced. You should probably step away from it for a while. Just be sure that you don't switch to…well, you know…that claim from above? Getting into politics.
So the analysis is complicated...even for child porn...what if its all CGI/photoshop off the huggies box??? And what if the viewer leaves kids alone as a result of using it???
The analysis is actually not complicated at all. Child porn is illegal. CGI/PhotoShop from an existing source? That's a different area of law entirely. And again, it has nothing to do with anything here.
Protip: any time a group that goes out of its way to identify as "men" calls for action in a way that they insist will benefit women, they're almost guaranteed full of shit.
Life-long Texas resident here, and an eligible active voter for over a decade. I'm quite familiar with these machines, and the punchline really is that they're just slow.
And in Texas, under our reconstruction-era constitution that was passed in response to decades of corruption and paranoia, just about every government position you can think of is elected. Every single ballot has at least a few dozen different positions on it, and it gets so overcrowded that you can easily expect a few hundred different names to choose from in their respective positions. It's a ginormic freaking mess in about every way imaginable.
Is there any actual point in that rambling somewhere? It'd be one thing if you had a bad take, but I don't think there's even a "take" in here to be bad in the first place.
Copyright law cannot be used to copyright law. There's certainly an argument for what counts as "law", but this is a scenario that benefited nobody. Yeah, LexisNexis gets paid, but was it worth it?
Really glad to see such a thorough analysis like this, and I expect it to be quoted quite a bit in the upcoming years.
Because, under New York law, this California court determined that the Texas law was proper to defend the resident of DC.
It does actually make sense if you read the document (thought it may take one or two extra passes to understand...), but good grief, jurisdiction is a bastard.
Re: Wash Post reported Saddam Hussein had Weapons Mass Destruction
I knew that was FALSE in 2002.
You can always tell how credible someone's argument is by looking at how far back then need to stretch to back it up. Not that a more recent example would help the argument in the first place…
On the post: Legacy Copyright Industries Lobbying Hard For EU Copyright Directive... While Pretending That Only Google Is Lobbying
On the post: Legacy Copyright Industries Lobbying Hard For EU Copyright Directive... While Pretending That Only Google Is Lobbying
Copyright is a valuable tool that can protect and empower creators. At least, that's what it could be. Instead, its' something viewed with contempt by authors and consumers alike. I actually spoke with someone not too long ago who wanted to self-publish a book, but was afraid of restricting it too much with copyright. Fortunately, we have complimentary tools like Creative Commons to help, but that speaks volumes on copyright's effectiveness on its own.
I would love to be in a world where copyright can truly empower creators. But if directives like this keep happening, we'll never see a time where copyright can be respected again.
On the post: Legacy Copyright Industries Lobbying Hard For EU Copyright Directive... While Pretending That Only Google Is Lobbying
Why on earth would you believe that making the laws even more draconian will improve anything?
On the post: CDA 230 Doesn't Support Habeus Petition by 'Revenge Pornographer'
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: How 34 Patents Worth $1 Led To Hundreds Of Lawsuits
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: How 34 Patents Worth $1 Led To Hundreds Of Lawsuits
b) It's actual provable fact. The article itself references several of them.
c) Since when do the police ever get involved in taking down an alleged "smear campaign?" (unless it involves criticism of the police force itself)
At least try to put the effort into reading the article before you blindly comment on it.
On the post: Pharrell Is Not At All Happy About Trump Using 'Happy' At His Rally... And He Might Actually Have A Case
On the post: The 'Men Of Notre Dame' Demand A Porn Filter That Won't Work To Keep Them From Watching Porn
Yeah, pretty sure.
So much wrong. Where to begin…
Who said anything about prostitution? Access to porn has no correlation to prostitution at all, but feel free to share any data suggesting otherwise. And I think you're overestimating the allocation of public funds on that last part. I see no way that the treatment of any kind of STD spread via prostitution would directly pull from your own taxes unless your local politician is caught up in a related scandal. And even then, it would be entirely beside the point.
Again, zero correlation. This is a completely nonsensical claim.
I have no idea what kind of porn you are watching, but this point does have me convinced. You should probably step away from it for a while. Just be sure that you don't switch to…well, you know…that claim from above? Getting into politics.
The analysis is actually not complicated at all. Child porn is illegal. CGI/PhotoShop from an existing source? That's a different area of law entirely. And again, it has nothing to do with anything here.
On the post: The 'Men Of Notre Dame' Demand A Porn Filter That Won't Work To Keep Them From Watching Porn
On the post: Texas E-Voting Machines Switching Votes For Non-Nefarious But Still Stupid Reasons
And in Texas, under our reconstruction-era constitution that was passed in response to decades of corruption and paranoia, just about every government position you can think of is elected. Every single ballot has at least a few dozen different positions on it, and it gets so overcrowded that you can easily expect a few hundred different names to choose from in their respective positions. It's a ginormic freaking mess in about every way imaginable.
On the post: Another Terrible Court Decision In Europe: Insulting A Religion Is Not Free Speech
Re: So you're denying the basis of Judaism and nation of Israel?
On the post: Another Terrible Court Decision In Europe: Insulting A Religion Is Not Free Speech
Re: Perhaps Mike should read more of the page he linked to....
On the post: Another Terrible Court Decision In Europe: Insulting A Religion Is Not Free Speech
On the post: Another Terrible Court Decision In Europe: Insulting A Religion Is Not Free Speech
Re: Quite simple
In that case, I'm afraid we're going to need to place you under citizens' arrest.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Of Course Georgia's Laws (Including Annotations) Are Not Protected By Copyright And Free To Share
Really glad to see such a thorough analysis like this, and I expect it to be quoted quite a bit in the upcoming years.
On the post: Will Donald Trump Support A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Now That It's Helped Him Win Stormy Daniels' Defamation Suit?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Will Donald Trump Support A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Now That It's Helped Him Win Stormy Daniels' Defamation Suit?
Re: Re:
On the post: Will Donald Trump Support A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Now That It's Helped Him Win Stormy Daniels' Defamation Suit?
On the post: Will Donald Trump Support A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Now That It's Helped Him Win Stormy Daniels' Defamation Suit?
It does actually make sense if you read the document (thought it may take one or two extra passes to understand...), but good grief, jurisdiction is a bastard.
On the post: Washington Post Gives 'Three Pinocchios' To Rep. Ann Wagner For Falsely Claiming FOSTA Stopped 90% Of Sex Trafficking Ads
Re: Wash Post reported Saddam Hussein had Weapons Mass Destruction
You can always tell how credible someone's argument is by looking at how far back then need to stretch to back it up. Not that a more recent example would help the argument in the first place…
Next >>