If you love censorship and corporations, then copyright is wonderful.
Fixed that for you.
Thanks!!
Personally I love how some posters are frothing mad at the government telling them to do anything. But are all "Gevernemnt BAD - except Copyright!"
Then switch right over to "Corporations BAD - Unless they are controlling me with Copyright!"
Prusa is innovating. That is what this is about, right? Innovation.
What you really want is the federal government to step in and protect your business interests. That's Protectionism and Federal Oversight. Completely different thing mate.
The 3d printer marked has EXPLODED. You know why? Because the key patents held by Stratasys expired. Patents did nothing but inhibit 3d printer innovation. Ever.
I get it, But you are still advocating the creation of an aristocrat class.
"It's mine and the government can't have it" applies equally well to estate and income taxes. I am in favor of Progressive taxes. Raising the tax rate on the highest earners isn't going to disincentivize anyone from making more money.
I have no problem with modest inheritance. But anything over $500k should be taxed heavily. Most millionaires inherited everything they have and contribute zero.
What, exactly, is the benefit of a copyright term lasting "life + 75 years" compared to "life + 50 years"?
Simple - it tremendously extends the reach of corporations, and bolsters governmental intrusion. If you love censorship and corporations, then extended copyright is wonderful.
I'm sorry, the rest of us seem to think it's wrong to gun down 51 people. Doing it in the name of the right-wing just shows how the nazi party has invaded the right.
Re: Re: Re: Who’s wearing what mask at the conspiracy ball?
Munchausen's by proxy is when someone without medical qualifications imputes illness on another.
No it's when a scammer ebook publisher constantly posts lies again and again trying to get people to believe him so he can sell self help books.
Do you actually see the irony that the other AC has Munchausen Syndrome (aka FDIA) because they can't be qualified? So now - the scammer John Smith is also practicing medicine without a license. Federal crime in the states, mate.
Apologies if you aren't the notorious ebook scammer John Smith!
No, I was pointing out that there are cases where the original publisher literally cannot be sued. You either don't understand this or you are pretending not to understand this.
Nope, I understand that sometimes you can't sue the person who makes false claims.
For example - some self-help guru in Russia wants to torpedo your business. They go to the post office and send false claims to all your clients and your publisher, doing you harm to your rep and business. But the Russian didn't put a return address on this letters!
And John Smith wants to hold his local mail carrier and the post office liable because he can't sue the rival scammer in Russia. Because they re-published the defamation.
Even then, the Australian court would have to believe that Google harmed the individual. Why do they, if Google didn't harm anyone? It seems that the Australian judiciary knows a lot more than you do.
Oooh, that would be an interesting take if you hadn't completely made up the Australian angle. As pointed out - multiple times - it wasn't what you are saying. And also - still Australian law. And Google didn't harm anyone in that case.
I feel very confidant that Australian law is not US law, something you don't seem to grasp.
There are IP addresses which are public and through which an author cannot be traced.
So you hate anonymous posters. Noted.
ANYONE can be targeted this way. Even when the poster is not anonymous,
Yes - scammers can target anyone. As you well know, scammers prey on lies. Especially those that write self-help books.
People's reputations take first priority.
No, if reputation was important you'd proudly identify yourself. You are proof that reputation takes a back seat to scream at the clouds and scamming people. Or repeating the same lies again and again and again...
Why, then, is Google being sued for defamation in Australia, if they didn't harm anyone?
Ok, is your script so short you have to keep repeating the same lame points? Google is being sued because they have the most money. Australia does not have 230 protection so is relevant.
Your should ask your boss for a better script!
On the post: And Now The Prime Minister Of Canada Is Threatening To Fine Social Media Companies Over 'Fake News'
Fake Out
It'll be interesting if someone has to fact-check all the statements coming from the White House. That would pretty much shut down El Cheetos.
On the post: Disney Wins 'Pirates Of The Caribbean' Copyright Suit As Court Declares You Cannot Copyright Pirate Life
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you love censorship and corporations, then copyright is wonderful.
Fixed that for you.
Thanks!!
Personally I love how some posters are frothing mad at the government telling them to do anything. But are all "Gevernemnt BAD - except Copyright!"
Then switch right over to "Corporations BAD - Unless they are controlling me with Copyright!"
On the post: Judge Alsup Slams Patent Troll For Basically Everything
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Prusa is innovating. That is what this is about, right? Innovation.
What you really want is the federal government to step in and protect your business interests. That's Protectionism and Federal Oversight. Completely different thing mate.
The 3d printer marked has EXPLODED. You know why? Because the key patents held by Stratasys expired. Patents did nothing but inhibit 3d printer innovation. Ever.
On the post: Judge Alsup Slams Patent Troll For Basically Everything
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rounded corners are at least mechanical. (Although undeserving of any sort of protection, and hardly an innovation.)
Business methods and software procedures are such nebulous ideas (Shopping carts?) that they are geared for abuse.
On the post: Disney Wins 'Pirates Of The Caribbean' Copyright Suit As Court Declares You Cannot Copyright Pirate Life
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I get it, But you are still advocating the creation of an aristocrat class.
"It's mine and the government can't have it" applies equally well to estate and income taxes. I am in favor of Progressive taxes. Raising the tax rate on the highest earners isn't going to disincentivize anyone from making more money.
On the post: Disney Wins 'Pirates Of The Caribbean' Copyright Suit As Court Declares You Cannot Copyright Pirate Life
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Low inheritance tax allows plutocratic dynasties to form.
If you want to be ruled by aristocrats that were born into wealth and power, abolishing inheritance taxes is the way to go.
"It's mine, lemee do what I want" is a compelling appeal to self interest, no argument there.
On the post: Disney Wins 'Pirates Of The Caribbean' Copyright Suit As Court Declares You Cannot Copyright Pirate Life
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no problem with modest inheritance. But anything over $500k should be taxed heavily. Most millionaires inherited everything they have and contribute zero.
On the post: Disney Wins 'Pirates Of The Caribbean' Copyright Suit As Court Declares You Cannot Copyright Pirate Life
Re: Re: only filthy pirates use TOR
Several of the Trolls and scammers here use TOR, to maintain their air of mystique.
On the post: Judge Alsup Slams Patent Troll For Basically Everything
Re: Re:
What part of the blatantly obvious value of patents, the patent system, or the patent market are you too stupid to understand?
Patents are just a scam. Scammers, like John Smith, love them.
People who get sued for scanning documents on their HP printer, not so much:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/patent-trolls-want-1000-for-using-scanners/
Please note the scammer wasn't sueing HP - who makes the scanners. He was suing end users, because they were scanning.
"Patents help everyone." Proven to be incorrect.
On the post: Disney Wins 'Pirates Of The Caribbean' Copyright Suit As Court Declares You Cannot Copyright Pirate Life
Re: Re:
What, exactly, is the benefit of a copyright term lasting "life + 75 years" compared to "life + 50 years"?
Simple - it tremendously extends the reach of corporations, and bolsters governmental intrusion. If you love censorship and corporations, then extended copyright is wonderful.
On the post: Governments And Internet Companies Agree On Questionable Voluntary Pact On Extremist Content Online
Re:
Why is it when one right winger kills 51 muslims
I'm sorry, the rest of us seem to think it's wrong to gun down 51 people. Doing it in the name of the right-wing just shows how the nazi party has invaded the right.
On the post: Section 230 Keeps The Internet Open For Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Who’s wearing what mask at the conspiracy ball?
Munchausen's by proxy is when someone without medical qualifications imputes illness on another.
No it's when a scammer ebook publisher constantly posts lies again and again trying to get people to believe him so he can sell self help books.
Do you actually see the irony that the other AC has Munchausen Syndrome (aka FDIA) because they can't be qualified? So now - the scammer John Smith is also practicing medicine without a license. Federal crime in the states, mate.
Apologies if you aren't the notorious ebook scammer John Smith!
On the post: Section 230 Keeps The Internet Open For Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I was pointing out that there are cases where the original publisher literally cannot be sued. You either don't understand this or you are pretending not to understand this.
Nope, I understand that sometimes you can't sue the person who makes false claims.
For example - some self-help guru in Russia wants to torpedo your business. They go to the post office and send false claims to all your clients and your publisher, doing you harm to your rep and business. But the Russian didn't put a return address on this letters!
And John Smith wants to hold his local mail carrier and the post office liable because he can't sue the rival scammer in Russia. Because they re-published the defamation.
On the post: Section 230 Keeps The Internet Open For Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Impotent old fuckwit yell at internet. Film at 11
I have never threatened to rape anyone. Saying I did is pure libel.
I don't think you know what libel is. Your high-powered lawyer is giving you bad advice - is he a scammer like you?
On the post: Section 230 Keeps The Internet Open For Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Distributor Liability
Even then, the Australian court would have to believe that Google harmed the individual. Why do they, if Google didn't harm anyone? It seems that the Australian judiciary knows a lot more than you do.
Oooh, that would be an interesting take if you hadn't completely made up the Australian angle. As pointed out - multiple times - it wasn't what you are saying. And also - still Australian law. And Google didn't harm anyone in that case.
I feel very confidant that Australian law is not US law, something you don't seem to grasp.
On the post: Section 230 Keeps The Internet Open For Innovation
Re: No one Trolls without risk.
Hey Blue Balls, thanks for the shout out!
Everything in your post explains why you hate free speech. We know you are siding with John the Scammer just to troll up posts.
If you really loved free speech, you'd have your own blog, and an unmoderated comments section, right?
On the post: Section 230 Keeps The Internet Open For Innovation
Re: Re:
There are IP addresses which are public and through which an author cannot be traced.
So you hate anonymous posters. Noted.
ANYONE can be targeted this way. Even when the poster is not anonymous,
Yes - scammers can target anyone. As you well know, scammers prey on lies. Especially those that write self-help books.
People's reputations take first priority.
No, if reputation was important you'd proudly identify yourself. You are proof that reputation takes a back seat to scream at the clouds and scamming people. Or repeating the same lies again and again and again...
On the post: Section 230 Keeps The Internet Open For Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Distributor Liability
Why, then, is Google being sued for defamation in Australia, if they didn't harm anyone?
Ok, is your script so short you have to keep repeating the same lame points? Google is being sued because they have the most money. Australia does not have 230 protection so is relevant.
Your should ask your boss for a better script!
On the post: Section 230 Keeps The Internet Open For Innovation
The burner-IP scenario is as self-evident as a drunk-driving scenario is to auto accidents.
Aside from the fact that statement is clearly not self-evident..
How does one burn an IP? Are you perhaps referring to Anonymous posts?
On the post: Section 230 Keeps The Internet Open For Innovation
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, no, you still haven't shown that anyone but the poster is responsible for content. Keep shouting at the clouds.
Next >>