Re: "Little else can explain" -- Okay, Masnick, explain it! You have no alternative for this complex sequence of events.
"So you're okay if a public figure is harassed by a corporation for no articulable reason?"
The reason was quite clearly articulated.
"And what happened to sticking up for the principle Free Speech when it's arbitrarily suppressed?"
Please refer to the above XKCD cartoon. Let us know if you're having trouble understanding this simple concept, and we'll explain it using small words.
It's definitely a step to far to call it a basic human right. You can't invent or add those; they're inherent in our species. But at this point it must be agreed that the Internet is a Very Important Thing for everyone, and those that don't have it are at a massive disadvantage to those that do.
"This guy set himself up when he said he had $2K with him."
No, I think he made the least bad choice is a shitty situation. If he'd admitted to having $167k up front he certainly would've lost it. The only chance he had of keeping it was to lie and hope they didn't find it. That didn't pan out, but it didn't leave him worse off either.
I think it's more accurate to say that in competitive marketplaces net neutrality exists organically, without regulatory intervention, because bad actors lose their competitiveness.
"But no, ignoring the regulations and offering a service based on the fact that you can be cheaper because you ignore the law, is NOT an innovation."
Price is not even Uber's most attractive feature to its customers. It's simply a better service that customers like. If you don't believe the service they offer is innovative compared to taxis, either you're completely out of touch with both taxis and Uber, or more likely, you're very familiar with them...
"Every person who ever commited tax fraud ever tried exactly that."
And this is how we know you have a vested interest in the old taxi system. Demonising your opponent by comparisons to crimes that cause actual harm as if they're somehow equivalent is the oldest trick in the book. Can you point to the millions of happy customers of tax fraud?
"Nice to see that real people, not monolithic studios, are the ones who help in the creation of movies. The process is far more than using just a camera to record images and sounds, and then editing with some software tools."
Thank you Captain Obvious.
"Frankly, I rather doubt there is anything the movie industry could do to satisfy the deep seated animus regularly exhibited here..."
That's probably because you're as willfully blind and stuck in the past as the big studios. Just because you don't understand what the public really want, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of smarter and braver people than you who do know.
Re: Uber is a Taxi company; not a software plTfoem
"The greater majority of their drivers drive 40+ hours a week so Uber is their JOB."
So what? Are you saying independent contractors don't have a job? Why aren't they all listed as being unemployed then?
"In reality, Uber is nothing more than an innovative way to dispatch cabs..."
How amazing would it be if the taxi companies realized that and started to actually compete.
"...because the drivers are classified as "independent contractors" - an innovative way to screw the drivers out of minimum wage, overtime, social security and unemployment. "
You seem to have completely forgotten that a huge percentage of the workforce in most (all?) countries fall under that exact definition. Why aren't you defending them too?
"Uber is a fraud."
That word does not mean what you think it means.
"They deserve everything they're getting."
By "everything" do you include Uber drivers and innocent members of the public being physically threatened and terrorized by violent taxi drivers? Do they all deserve that too?
You sound awfully like a paid shill or someone with a vested interest, so this might be a waste of time, but...
"Sorry, I don't get it. Why does someone defend Uber?"
Why don't you ask Uber's millions of satisfied customers all around the world, who've found them to provide a much better and often cheaper service than taxis. Do you really think they'd be happy to sit around waiting for years for the laws and regulations that are the result of regulatory capture to be overturned just because they ask nicely? Of course not.
Like many law changes, it takes societal pressure on lawmakers, who are being bribed, sorry lobbied by influential industry groups to maintain the status quo for their benefit. That pressure comes from large numbers of voters who want companies like Uber to be able to operate now, not years away, maybe, if you're lucky.
And it is civil disobedience if people are quite happy to use the service even if it's technically illegal. Nobody's forcing people to use Uber, they want to. Taxi system supporters seem to go very quiet when asked to explain this popularity.
"There is a huge body of Canadian works approaching 50 years old and still relevant, still played today. by 1965 artists like Buffy St. Marie, Joni Mitchell and Gord Lightfoot were in full swing. In less than a decade, the cream of 60's and 70's rock would be public domain - and most of those artists are still alive and in some cases, still performing."
All of this is completely irrelevant. No artist needs "protection" for 70 years, or 50 years for that matter. Nothing is preventing them from generating income form their work. They* made a deal to be "protected" for a limited time and then contribute to the public domain. This deal is being reneged on so don't be surprised when this results in the general public losing even more of the shred of respect remaining for copyright.
*Yes I realise this more about record labels than actual artists.
"As if they're completely ignorant of basic economics, and how producing a higher quality product (which regulations enforce, by setting a minimum bar) is generally more expensive."
Any yet my Uber experience has been so much better than practically every taxi ride I've ever had. Please explain.
"If you're going to get in a cab, you have to be able to trust that the person behind the wheel is competent (not going to get you killed) and trustworthy (not going to rob, kidnap, murder, or simply swindle you)."
Or overturn cars, or set tires on fire to block major roads, or assault competitors... Lucky we've got taxi certifications to prevent that from ever being able to happen!
"What people have a problem with is them acting as if they were run by an Objectivist..."
I doubt that any of Uber's passengers give a shit about this.
"...flouting the law at every opportunity..."
Broad, meaningless generalisation. Are they stealing cars, running red lights and kicking puppies? Or just pushing up against transportation laws?
"...trampling on the rights of everyone who's not Uber..."
Another broad, meaningless generalisation. Who exactly is "everyone who's not Uber"? That's quite a lot of people. What rights exactly? Free speech or something?
"...harming their workers and their customers..."
All of them? Some of them? A tiny fraction of them? Are they harming them more or less than taxi workers and customers?
Your claims are grandiose and without any explanation. Explain how a company can be as successful as they are if, according to you, all their drivers and passengers are having such a terrible experience and hate them so much? Nobody is forcing people to drive for them or use the service. Are you claiming it's all just "playing the media skillfully"and we're all just stupid?
Yeah, coz flouting local taxi laws is just the same as wonton destruction of other people's property and threatening them with actual physical harm right!
Re: Re: Re: How about blaming the person who pulled the trigger rather than inanimate objects?
Have you looked at the rate of bombings, sword attacks and chemical attack lately? They're orders of magnitude lower than fatal gun incidents. So your coulda/woulda comparison makes no sense.
If you can accept that the rate of gun-related fatalities in the US is ridiculously high, then you need to consider the two options for reducing the numbers:
1. Convince people to shoot each other less often, or 2. Make it harder to get guns
Which do you think is most likely to succeed? Human nature says option 2.
If you reject both option. does that mean you consider the rate of guns deaths an acceptable price to pay to protect gun ownership?
"Terrestrial radio stations have to pay these licensing organizations for the use of music, which then pass them on record companies, songwriters and artists in the form of royalty checks."
You were doing well until you got to the bit about artists getting royalty checks, at which point you made a left turn into Wishful Thinking Land'.
On the post: Donald Trump's Lawsuit Against Univision Is Absolutely Hilarious
Re: "Little else can explain" -- Okay, Masnick, explain it! You have no alternative for this complex sequence of events.
The reason was quite clearly articulated.
"And what happened to sticking up for the principle Free Speech when it's arbitrarily suppressed?"
Please refer to the above XKCD cartoon. Let us know if you're having trouble understanding this simple concept, and we'll explain it using small words.
On the post: FCC Commissioner Legally Tasked With Bringing Broadband To All Americans Doesn't Think Broadband's All That Important
Re:
On the post: Judge Orders Lying, Cheating Government To Return $167,000 To The Man They Stole It From
Re:
No, I think he made the least bad choice is a shitty situation. If he'd admitted to having $167k up front he certainly would've lost it. The only chance he had of keeping it was to lie and hope they didn't find it. That didn't pan out, but it didn't leave him worse off either.
On the post: EU Moves To Create Internet Fast Lanes, Pretends It's Net Neutrality By Redefining Basic Words
Re: Re: Zero Rating
On the post: EU Moves To Create Internet Fast Lanes, Pretends It's Net Neutrality By Redefining Basic Words
Re: Masnick against "innovative services on condition that they do not harm the open Internet access"!
Unable to get paid employment?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Price is not even Uber's most attractive feature to its customers. It's simply a better service that customers like. If you don't believe the service they offer is innovative compared to taxis, either you're completely out of touch with both taxis and Uber, or more likely, you're very familiar with them...
"Every person who ever commited tax fraud ever tried exactly that."
And this is how we know you have a vested interest in the old taxi system. Demonising your opponent by comparisons to crimes that cause actual harm as if they're somehow equivalent is the oldest trick in the book. Can you point to the millions of happy customers of tax fraud?
On the post: MPAA Targets New Anti-Piracy Ads... At People Who Already Paid To Go See Movies
Re:
Thank you Captain Obvious.
"Frankly, I rather doubt there is anything the movie industry could do to satisfy the deep seated animus regularly exhibited here..."
That's probably because you're as willfully blind and stuck in the past as the big studios. Just because you don't understand what the public really want, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of smarter and braver people than you who do know.
On the post: France Takes Its War On Uber Up A Notch: Arrests Top Execs
Re: Uber is a Taxi company; not a software plTfoem
So what? Are you saying independent contractors don't have a job? Why aren't they all listed as being unemployed then?
"In reality, Uber is nothing more than an innovative way to dispatch cabs..."
How amazing would it be if the taxi companies realized that and started to actually compete.
"...because the drivers are classified as "independent contractors" - an innovative way to screw the drivers out of minimum wage, overtime, social security and unemployment. "
You seem to have completely forgotten that a huge percentage of the workforce in most (all?) countries fall under that exact definition. Why aren't you defending them too?
"Uber is a fraud."
That word does not mean what you think it means.
"They deserve everything they're getting."
By "everything" do you include Uber drivers and innocent members of the public being physically threatened and terrorized by violent taxi drivers? Do they all deserve that too?
On the post: France Takes Its War On Uber Up A Notch: Arrests Top Execs
Re: Masnick always for "illegal". -- And it's not employment, remember? They're "independent contractors"!
And here I was thinking that independent contractors have always been included in employment statistics. Silly me...
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
"Sorry, I don't get it. Why does someone defend Uber?"
Why don't you ask Uber's millions of satisfied customers all around the world, who've found them to provide a much better and often cheaper service than taxis. Do you really think they'd be happy to sit around waiting for years for the laws and regulations that are the result of regulatory capture to be overturned just because they ask nicely? Of course not.
Like many law changes, it takes societal pressure on lawmakers, who are being bribed, sorry lobbied by influential industry groups to maintain the status quo for their benefit. That pressure comes from large numbers of voters who want companies like Uber to be able to operate now, not years away, maybe, if you're lucky.
And it is civil disobedience if people are quite happy to use the service even if it's technically illegal. Nobody's forcing people to use Uber, they want to. Taxi system supporters seem to go very quiet when asked to explain this popularity.
On the post: Took Longer Than I Expected: Bill O'Reilly Yanks Video Games Into Charleston Massacre For No Reason At All
Re: Banning guns
Reasons that are both massively out of date and arguably come at a very steep price.
On the post: Canada Saves Public From Public Domain, Extends Copyright On Sound Recordings Another 20 Years
Re: Normally
All of this is completely irrelevant. No artist needs "protection" for 70 years, or 50 years for that matter. Nothing is preventing them from generating income form their work. They* made a deal to be "protected" for a limited time and then contribute to the public domain. This deal is being reneged on so don't be surprised when this results in the general public losing even more of the shred of respect remaining for copyright.
*Yes I realise this more about record labels than actual artists.
On the post: France Gives In To Insanity And Rioting Taxi Drivers: Cracks Down On Uber
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Any yet my Uber experience has been so much better than practically every taxi ride I've ever had. Please explain.
On the post: France Gives In To Insanity And Rioting Taxi Drivers: Cracks Down On Uber
Re: Re: Re:
Or overturn cars, or set tires on fire to block major roads, or assault competitors... Lucky we've got taxi certifications to prevent that from ever being able to happen!
On the post: France Gives In To Insanity And Rioting Taxi Drivers: Cracks Down On Uber
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: enough is enough
I doubt that any of Uber's passengers give a shit about this.
"...flouting the law at every opportunity..."
Broad, meaningless generalisation. Are they stealing cars, running red lights and kicking puppies? Or just pushing up against transportation laws?
"...trampling on the rights of everyone who's not Uber..."
Another broad, meaningless generalisation. Who exactly is "everyone who's not Uber"? That's quite a lot of people. What rights exactly? Free speech or something?
"...harming their workers and their customers..."
All of them? Some of them? A tiny fraction of them? Are they harming them more or less than taxi workers and customers?
Your claims are grandiose and without any explanation. Explain how a company can be as successful as they are if, according to you, all their drivers and passengers are having such a terrible experience and hate them so much? Nobody is forcing people to drive for them or use the service. Are you claiming it's all just "playing the media skillfully"and we're all just stupid?
On the post: France Gives In To Insanity And Rioting Taxi Drivers: Cracks Down On Uber
Re: Re: Re: enough is enough
On the post: Took Longer Than I Expected: Bill O'Reilly Yanks Video Games Into Charleston Massacre For No Reason At All
Re: Blaming even guns is a distraction to the real causes for rampage killings.
No point reading any further, because I assume the rest of your argument is based on this strawman.
Nobody is trying to BAN guns, only make it harder for people who are not responsible or competent enough to operate one to get them.
On the post: Took Longer Than I Expected: Bill O'Reilly Yanks Video Games Into Charleston Massacre For No Reason At All
Re: Re: Re: How about blaming the person who pulled the trigger rather than inanimate objects?
If you can accept that the rate of gun-related fatalities in the US is ridiculously high, then you need to consider the two options for reducing the numbers:
1. Convince people to shoot each other less often, or
2. Make it harder to get guns
Which do you think is most likely to succeed? Human nature says option 2.
If you reject both option. does that mean you consider the rate of guns deaths an acceptable price to pay to protect gun ownership?
On the post: Taylor Swift Is Not The Savior Artists Need
Re: Re: Re: You missed a big point
On the post: Taylor Swift Is Not The Savior Artists Need
Re: Re: You missed a big point
You must be very new around here...
"Terrestrial radio stations have to pay these licensing organizations for the use of music, which then pass them on record companies, songwriters and artists in the form of royalty checks."
You were doing well until you got to the bit about artists getting royalty checks, at which point you made a left turn into Wishful Thinking Land'.
Next >>