Also court martial is simply a military court. So, I would agree, he should get a trial.
There is a whistleblowing provision for the military, but from what I can tell, he didn't follow it, as it says you should tell a member of Congress.
Fame, from what I read, had nothing to do with it. He saw what he thought was an injustice and sought to resolve it. Whether or not he made a mistake or not is another story.
Re: Re: Re: Good idea, if you cant dispute it in 5 years, you should be told to go away.. you are never going to dispute it.
a fool and not fit to survive
You really don't want to bring survival of the fittest into a discussion about people who depend on a government granted monopoly to survive. That's just some friendly free advice for you.
The problem is that the USPTO grants ridiculous reexamination requests
Explain to me what you consider a "ridiculous reexamination request", so we can be sure we're on the same page here.
*sigh* For someone who feels so strongly about this, you don't seem to have a very firm grasp on it.
If a telephone user uses the line to break the law by making murder threats, the police will appropriately deal with the problem. The telephone company will cooperate with wiretaps or any other necessary step to make this happen.
I suppose you haven't heard of the DMCA. It, among other things, allows someone who feels that their copyrights are being infringed, to simply alert the service provider, who will then take down the *allegedly* infringing material. Without a trial, a judge, a warrant, or hell, even any proof that they actually hold the copyrights to the allegedly infringing material. It is worth pointing out, in case it isn't immediately obvious to you, that this is *easier* than the scenario you have described above with the telephone company.
On the other hand, if a YouTube user uses the service to break the law, no one will do anything. YouTube will sit on their ass and twiddle their thumbs. The user won't face any consequences. And the party whose rights are violated will just have to sit there and take it.
Go ahead and reread what I just wrote above, to give it a better chance of sinking in. Don't forget to click on the pretty blue words.
Again, how are those remotely comparable?
You're right, of course, in that they aren't. It's way easier to remedy an alleged copyright infringement than it is death threats on a telephone. I'm not sure that's the point you wanted to show, though. Sorry about that, pal.
As for legal vs illegal content, that is YouTube's problem. No one forced them to embrace a business model that is impossible for them to moderate effectively.
I suppose the fact that a company has taken YouTube to court over videos that the company itself put on YouTube is completely lost on you. If different parts of the same damn company can't tell the difference, then there is no way for a third party to do it.
From purely unscientific means; talking to people, random reading online, comments on this site; I have come to the same conclusion. We live in sad times.
I wasn't aware that telephone companies are enabling the widespread piracy of billions of dollars worth of creative industry.
Verizon will be pleased with your ignorance.
What percent of individuals use their land line to make illegal phone calls?
What percent of individuals use their ISP to make illegal data transfers?
It is clear you have lost all sight of reality. If someone calls your house and threatens to kill your family-- a very serious crime-- you don't think it warrants the service provider to take independent action. However, someone might upload a clip from Whose Line is it Anyway onto youtube and "holy fucking shit, we need this to stop right now, let's have everyone's ISPs police the entire internet right fucking now!!!!!oneoneone!!!three"
Give me a break.
illegal data transfers
Tell me, my friend, from a third party point of view: How can one tell the difference between "legal" and "illegal" data. I can't wait to read this! :)
They aren't remotely comparable in size, scale, or effect.
Yes, someone might copy a song 1 MILLION times. What's 1 Million plus infinity again? Infinity? Well. Seems tiny, in size, scale *and* effect.
Someone who leaks about China is a 'hero' only because America is a competitor to China. There is no hypocrisy.
So, you're saying that calling someone who leaks the wrongdoings on China a hero, but calling someone who leaks the wrongdoings of America a terrorist is *not* hypocrisy?
I assume that you feel the same way about telephone companies, both land-based and wireless? If I break a law, even a civil one, should they also shoulder the responsibility if their service is what allowed me to break the law?
Something tells me you're one of those people that don't think things through when it comes to "...on the internet".
This does not make much sense. Since whatever alternative solution to using Google services is already on the market, those people who use Google in Italy have judged Google to be a better product. Suddenly being forced into using a lesser product is bound to piss people off.
When it comes to government officials, the appearance of impropriety is just as bad as actual impropriety. This *does* look sketchy, and that's just as bad as actually being sketchy when you're in the public eye.
On the post: Press Realizing That Treatment Of Bradley Manning Is Indefensible
Re:
There is a whistleblowing provision for the military, but from what I can tell, he didn't follow it, as it says you should tell a member of Congress.
Fame, from what I read, had nothing to do with it. He saw what he thought was an injustice and sought to resolve it. Whether or not he made a mistake or not is another story.
On the post: Press Realizing That Treatment Of Bradley Manning Is Indefensible
Re:
Thank you for clearing that up.
On the post: Press Realizing That Treatment Of Bradley Manning Is Indefensible
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Press Realizing That Treatment Of Bradley Manning Is Indefensible
Re:
On the post: Paul Allen Files Amended Patent Lawsuit; Shows It's Even More Ridiculous Than We Originally Thought
Re: Re: No, the patent system has flaws. That's what people realize, not drones who want the same system.
Nice try, though.
On the post: Report Claims Discredited Study That Linked Vaccines To Autism Wasn't Just A Mistake, But An Outright Fraud
Re: Re:
On the post: How To Make The Patent System Even Worse: Make Patent Validity Incontestable
Re: Re: Re: Good idea, if you cant dispute it in 5 years, you should be told to go away.. you are never going to dispute it.
You really don't want to bring survival of the fittest into a discussion about people who depend on a government granted monopoly to survive. That's just some friendly free advice for you.
The problem is that the USPTO grants ridiculous reexamination requests
Explain to me what you consider a "ridiculous reexamination request", so we can be sure we're on the same page here.
On the post: Time For Google To Leave Italy? Italy Announces That YouTube Responsible For All Content
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If a telephone user uses the line to break the law by making murder threats, the police will appropriately deal with the problem. The telephone company will cooperate with wiretaps or any other necessary step to make this happen.
I suppose you haven't heard of the DMCA. It, among other things, allows someone who feels that their copyrights are being infringed, to simply alert the service provider, who will then take down the *allegedly* infringing material. Without a trial, a judge, a warrant, or hell, even any proof that they actually hold the copyrights to the allegedly infringing material. It is worth pointing out, in case it isn't immediately obvious to you, that this is *easier* than the scenario you have described above with the telephone company.
On the other hand, if a YouTube user uses the service to break the law, no one will do anything. YouTube will sit on their ass and twiddle their thumbs. The user won't face any consequences. And the party whose rights are violated will just have to sit there and take it.
Go ahead and reread what I just wrote above, to give it a better chance of sinking in. Don't forget to click on the pretty blue words.
Again, how are those remotely comparable?
You're right, of course, in that they aren't. It's way easier to remedy an alleged copyright infringement than it is death threats on a telephone. I'm not sure that's the point you wanted to show, though. Sorry about that, pal.
As for legal vs illegal content, that is YouTube's problem. No one forced them to embrace a business model that is impossible for them to moderate effectively.
I suppose the fact that a company has taken YouTube to court over videos that the company itself put on YouTube is completely lost on you. If different parts of the same damn company can't tell the difference, then there is no way for a third party to do it.
Maybe they should learn to adapt.
Practice what you preach? :)
On the post: Arguing Over The Copyright In Schindler's List -- The Actual List, Not The Movie
Re: Re:
On the post: How To Make The Patent System Even Worse: Make Patent Validity Incontestable
Counter demand
On the post: New Congressional Leadership Prioritizes Wikileaks Investigation
Re:
On the post: New Congressional Leadership Prioritizes Wikileaks Investigation
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Time For Google To Leave Italy? Italy Announces That YouTube Responsible For All Content
Re: Re: Re:
Verizon will be pleased with your ignorance.
What percent of individuals use their land line to make illegal phone calls?
What percent of individuals use their ISP to make illegal data transfers?
It is clear you have lost all sight of reality. If someone calls your house and threatens to kill your family-- a very serious crime-- you don't think it warrants the service provider to take independent action. However, someone might upload a clip from Whose Line is it Anyway onto youtube and "holy fucking shit, we need this to stop right now, let's have everyone's ISPs police the entire internet right fucking now!!!!!oneoneone!!!three"
Give me a break.
illegal data transfers
Tell me, my friend, from a third party point of view: How can one tell the difference between "legal" and "illegal" data. I can't wait to read this! :)
They aren't remotely comparable in size, scale, or effect.
Yes, someone might copy a song 1 MILLION times. What's 1 Million plus infinity again? Infinity? Well. Seems tiny, in size, scale *and* effect.
On the post: New Congressional Leadership Prioritizes Wikileaks Investigation
Re: Re: Re:
So, you're saying that calling someone who leaks the wrongdoings on China a hero, but calling someone who leaks the wrongdoings of America a terrorist is *not* hypocrisy?
Just so we're on the same page here.
On the post: Time For Google To Leave Italy? Italy Announces That YouTube Responsible For All Content
Re:
Something tells me you're one of those people that don't think things through when it comes to "...on the internet".
On the post: New Congressional Leadership Prioritizes Wikileaks Investigation
Re: Re:
On the post: Do We Need A Whistleblower To Tell The World Which Senator Killed Whistleblower Protection Law?
Re:
On the post: Time For Google To Leave Italy? Italy Announces That YouTube Responsible For All Content
Re: Re:
On the post: Time For Google To Leave Italy? Italy Announces That YouTube Responsible For All Content
Re: Talk about FUD
On the post: Paul Allen Files Amended Patent Lawsuit; Shows It's Even More Ridiculous Than We Originally Thought
Re: Re: Re: Re: More Mike Masnick BS.
Check out that signature. Everything about him screams "snake oil".
Next >>