"..associated with child pornography does not seem to cause any due process and First Amendment objections.."
To conflate these things together is to be bound by words and not deeds. It is an abject failure of intellect to not understand why inconsistencies exist.
The assault and violation of children is an aberration. It is the most intolerable form of human suffering imposed upon the most defenseless members of society.
Nothing disgusts me more than the incessant manipulation of what society deems as acceptable transgressions of civil liberties and privacy as a necessary means to prevent harm to the helpless.
A child in pain is not to be equated with your missing media license fee or your unauthorised pill recipe. Society will not tolerate the former and society will tolerate your infringed upon media file, likewise, society will not tolerate transgressions of our liberties and privacy to help you find your fee - that's tasking for those vested in such. Failures are theirs to learn from.
This search for an attempt to rein in moving packets so as to form them and shape them so someone can do some more business in the manner that they are comfortable with is a contentious position to take and an enormous failure of leadership.
The Internet, sir, is not what needs saving and it does not contain the solutions you should be looking for.
Society does not wish to have its people physically harmed. Society does not have such a strong opinion about entertainment files. Perhaps that can assist you in your search for understanding and accepting the inconsistencies.
By your insistence upon defecating on this page of ideas and appreciation I can only assume that you're implying that any elected official that takes a stand or voices his opinion in public, for the public (which just happens to be their primary function) is interpreted by you as a grand one. Yes? Or is it simply because your opinion is in opposition yet you demure from actually sharing it, much less support it?
Just where might one find welcoming and thankful messages of support from the public for the opposing position? A secret location for a back room with whiskey and cigars and old, fat, white rich folks? The same place these ideas are bred into bills and nefarious plans for taking over and imposing a few collective wills on the Internet platform?
Let's have Senator Reid take a stab at it? On second thought lets invite one Senator a week for a drop in and ask them to give us 1500 words or less on how they see these things.
I quite agree with the basic premise of your words. What I may be struggling with, apart from who will have the final say on the direction of ACTA in the US, is a rather consistent decline of socially acceptable limits on copyrights. Commerce does, indeed, demand rules that necessitate means and ends. Herein is the purview of Congress as enumerated clearly in the Constitution.
There are subtleties in your words that drive the force of argument. The potential of the Internet, for example, has been realized. It would seem these content creators, those to whom you refer, are only recently coming to a realization themselves and as such would much rather deploy, through undue influence, a fundamentally upsetting groundwork so that they can distribute their product within a framework of conditions that suit their perceived needs. An historical perspective if you will.
There has not been any discussion that I know of that even begins to reveal grievances for and around both the current state of global distribution nor of any proposals for the advancement, or containment, of copyright protections today. There have been only statements seeming derived from a distinct lack of multifaceted discussion.
I do believe that there are, in fact, three sides, not two. The third side is the public and that public is no longer limited to the customary peoples of a single nation. The lack of consideration for those people and the traditional intricacies and frameworks of trade are being revealed daily as the backroom deals and private negotiations they've traditionally been. There are ever growing numbers of people that refuse to oblige this business of government being a pinnacle of business influence.
Those two side to which you seem to refer to, business and government, are inadvertently creating a global rift via their undue pressure on foreign nations and peoples, to say nothing of our own. Current allies are government allies. A government not allied with its own people is a danger and a threat to all governments of all people. If there is truly no compromise than there can be no agreement and if there can be no agreement without compromise there will be no republic.
I can not quite see how A2S1 has overriding authority over the enumerated powers of Congress in this instance. And further, that this is an attempt to regulate commerce with many foreign nations I can not, at this point, determine any authoritative exemplar that supports your position.
I would, however, like to delve into the nature of the present, not withstanding law. You are aware, I am hopeful, that the Internet is feeding society's pent up need to reach out and challenge the atrocities of our present day and in all forms that they may present themselves? You are aware that attempts to infiltrate, suppress or otherwise control this open line of communication will, in fact, pose great risk and will be perceived as oppression? You are aware that regimes are being challenged, regimes are falling and individuals are called to task for their positions like never before? You are aware that in representing your clients as you do (assumption) that you risk contributing to, and the escalation of, the power of the few over the many?
This is a communications platform, as surely you are aware, and to posit that media, traditional media, is a driver of and not a rider on that medium and that the assertion of power and control over that medium by and for the sole interests of a rider is a position that you should consider with great and careful deliberation.
The sets we claim are different. Mine is the set of the many and yours is the set of the few. The street that you would wish to lay claim to does not belong only to you. Those that support your position would lay waste to the rights, desires, liberties, privacy and futures of all of society. Surely you can not believe that a song or a movie can be allowed to take precedence? The risks are few yet they are mortal risks to the true American concept of freedom and they can not stand. Such is the nature of things.
"The use of the original music as the background score requires a license over the master recording. The use of the song composition requires a mechanical license too. When songs are performed in public, that requires payment to a PRO like ASCAP or BMI. When the music is matched to video images, it requires a synchronisation license. And if the lyrics are being republished, that might require an additional fee too."
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Shut the fuck up puta. Old trick bitches. Your cousin looks good though, and she don't charge shit but what it's worth, and she's goood for what it's worth.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Listen here you chubby sack of crap
By "Big Search" do you mean your return key? Or a shelf of encyclopedias?
You wouldn't happen to be one of those who use a term like "Big Hardware" too would you?
Are you one of those believers that neither would exist were it not for "Big Media's" "content"?
Yeah? Shielded behind the veil of anonymity you call a guy chubby and make oh so cowardly attempts at personal insults because why again? Because you're a stupid, cowardly, sniveling waste of a brain perhaps? Because you have an awkward fixation on big things?
Would you please provide evidence or reference for this statement of yours: "The president has the authority to enter this agreement. Period."?
As a member of this society I demand to know, exactly, how this could be true. Because if it is true then I need to gauge the precise amount of force that would potentially be required to set this rather large entity of a country, world, onto a corrected path. A path that leads in a wholly opposite direction than that of subservience.
I do not take any comfort in the fact that you're ok with your government just sort of having its way with you without any elected representatives asking questions.
That "show", good bad or otherwise, is the only fucking "show" you've got that is responsible for what is now and what will be as it pertains to the boundaries of your existence in this country.
Either you're quite stupid or quite ignorant so I'd suggest that you shut up and listen.
As the leaders of our government some of us would like a clear and succinct explanation as to how our president maintains that he can execute executive agreements regarding copyright where it is understood that this purview is with Congress.
After reading this short thread there is still a distinct lack of clarity as to how this particular power over this particular topic can be usurped by our president.
In short, it is the duty of at least one representative from our Senate to push for and attempt to validate the reasoning supporting this executive agreement and thus validate both its existence and its legality.
This is, after all, our country and our government and much trouble shall ensue should our President lead our society astray for the interests of a small portion thereof.
Undue and unjust constraints on culture, the world's culture, will no longer be tolerated. To say nothing of the potential for constraints upon the existence and the progress of free speech nor of the tolerance for assault on privacy for any individual.
I would like a clear statement indicating how the president can execute executive agreements regarding copyright.
On the post: Hollywood Gets To Party With TPP Negotiators; Public Interest Groups Get Thrown Out Of Hotel
Contempt
On the post: Warner Bros. Just Keeps Pushing People To Piracy; New Deal Also Delays Queuing
Re:
On the post: Apparently Veoh Isn't Dead Enough For Universal Music; Asks For Rehearing Of Its Bogus Copyright Lawsuit
Questions?
UMG et al has been allowed and continues to be allowed to pervert the role of the court.
The "system" is in dire need of a fix. There is no "justice" here when even a win is terminal.
On the post: Senator Ron Wyden's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
"..associated with child pornography does not seem to cause any due process and First Amendment objections.."
To conflate these things together is to be bound by words and not deeds. It is an abject failure of intellect to not understand why inconsistencies exist.
The assault and violation of children is an aberration. It is the most intolerable form of human suffering imposed upon the most defenseless members of society.
Nothing disgusts me more than the incessant manipulation of what society deems as acceptable transgressions of civil liberties and privacy as a necessary means to prevent harm to the helpless.
A child in pain is not to be equated with your missing media license fee or your unauthorised pill recipe. Society will not tolerate the former and society will tolerate your infringed upon media file, likewise, society will not tolerate transgressions of our liberties and privacy to help you find your fee - that's tasking for those vested in such. Failures are theirs to learn from.
This search for an attempt to rein in moving packets so as to form them and shape them so someone can do some more business in the manner that they are comfortable with is a contentious position to take and an enormous failure of leadership.
The Internet, sir, is not what needs saving and it does not contain the solutions you should be looking for.
Society does not wish to have its people physically harmed. Society does not have such a strong opinion about entertainment files. Perhaps that can assist you in your search for understanding and accepting the inconsistencies.
On the post: Senator Ron Wyden's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
Loose tool above.
By your insistence upon defecating on this page of ideas and appreciation I can only assume that you're implying that any elected official that takes a stand or voices his opinion in public, for the public (which just happens to be their primary function) is interpreted by you as a grand one. Yes? Or is it simply because your opinion is in opposition yet you demure from actually sharing it, much less support it?
Just where might one find welcoming and thankful messages of support from the public for the opposing position? A secret location for a back room with whiskey and cigars and old, fat, white rich folks? The same place these ideas are bred into bills and nefarious plans for taking over and imposing a few collective wills on the Internet platform?
Let's have Senator Reid take a stab at it? On second thought lets invite one Senator a week for a drop in and ask them to give us 1500 words or less on how they see these things.
On the post: Senator Ron Wyden's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Honored
On the post: As USTR Insists ACTA Doesn't Need Congressional Approval, Wyden Asks State Dept. For A Second Opinion
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
There are subtleties in your words that drive the force of argument. The potential of the Internet, for example, has been realized. It would seem these content creators, those to whom you refer, are only recently coming to a realization themselves and as such would much rather deploy, through undue influence, a fundamentally upsetting groundwork so that they can distribute their product within a framework of conditions that suit their perceived needs. An historical perspective if you will.
There has not been any discussion that I know of that even begins to reveal grievances for and around both the current state of global distribution nor of any proposals for the advancement, or containment, of copyright protections today. There have been only statements seeming derived from a distinct lack of multifaceted discussion.
I do believe that there are, in fact, three sides, not two. The third side is the public and that public is no longer limited to the customary peoples of a single nation. The lack of consideration for those people and the traditional intricacies and frameworks of trade are being revealed daily as the backroom deals and private negotiations they've traditionally been. There are ever growing numbers of people that refuse to oblige this business of government being a pinnacle of business influence.
Those two side to which you seem to refer to, business and government, are inadvertently creating a global rift via their undue pressure on foreign nations and peoples, to say nothing of our own. Current allies are government allies. A government not allied with its own people is a danger and a threat to all governments of all people. If there is truly no compromise than there can be no agreement and if there can be no agreement without compromise there will be no republic.
On the post: Hawaiian Politician Wants To Track Everyone Online Because Someone Doesn't Like Her... Backs Down After Public Backlash
On the post: Apparently, If Your Domain Has 'Dirt' In The Name, Section 230 Safe Harbors Don't Apply (Uh Oh...)
Re:
On the post: Apparently, If Your Domain Has 'Dirt' In The Name, Section 230 Safe Harbors Don't Apply (Uh Oh...)
www.techtird.com
a slippery slope to the bottom and going fast
On the post: As USTR Insists ACTA Doesn't Need Congressional Approval, Wyden Asks State Dept. For A Second Opinion
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
I would, however, like to delve into the nature of the present, not withstanding law. You are aware, I am hopeful, that the Internet is feeding society's pent up need to reach out and challenge the atrocities of our present day and in all forms that they may present themselves? You are aware that attempts to infiltrate, suppress or otherwise control this open line of communication will, in fact, pose great risk and will be perceived as oppression? You are aware that regimes are being challenged, regimes are falling and individuals are called to task for their positions like never before? You are aware that in representing your clients as you do (assumption) that you risk contributing to, and the escalation of, the power of the few over the many?
This is a communications platform, as surely you are aware, and to posit that media, traditional media, is a driver of and not a rider on that medium and that the assertion of power and control over that medium by and for the sole interests of a rider is a position that you should consider with great and careful deliberation.
The sets we claim are different. Mine is the set of the many and yours is the set of the few. The street that you would wish to lay claim to does not belong only to you. Those that support your position would lay waste to the rights, desires, liberties, privacy and futures of all of society. Surely you can not believe that a song or a movie can be allowed to take precedence? The risks are few yet they are mortal risks to the true American concept of freedom and they can not stand. Such is the nature of things.
On the post: As USTR Insists ACTA Doesn't Need Congressional Approval, Wyden Asks State Dept. For A Second Opinion
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
On the post: Universal Music Claims Copyright Over Song That It Didn't License, Just Because One Of Its Artists Rapped To It On A Leaked Track
Re: Re:
On the post: Bar Fight! Sony Sues Karaoke Distributor For Infringement; Gets Sued Right Back For 'Copyright Misuse'
lolwhut?
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Shut the fuck up puta. Old trick bitches. Your cousin looks good though, and she don't charge shit but what it's worth, and she's goood for what it's worth.
On the post: As USTR Insists ACTA Doesn't Need Congressional Approval, Wyden Asks State Dept. For A Second Opinion
Re: The Last Free Bastion of Earth
"Whatchoo ready to do? You ready to die for this?" -Soul Assassins
On the post: As USTR Insists ACTA Doesn't Need Congressional Approval, Wyden Asks State Dept. For A Second Opinion
Re: Re: Wow
Hell, I study the stars whenever I can see them and fuck if I know how they got there.
I'm glad there are people with theories and bibles to help me out with that. I feel like I'm almost ready to start making my own though.
How're you doin?
On the post: As USTR Insists ACTA Doesn't Need Congressional Approval, Wyden Asks State Dept. For A Second Opinion
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Listen here you chubby sack of crap
You wouldn't happen to be one of those who use a term like "Big Hardware" too would you?
Are you one of those believers that neither would exist were it not for "Big Media's" "content"?
Yeah? Shielded behind the veil of anonymity you call a guy chubby and make oh so cowardly attempts at personal insults because why again? Because you're a stupid, cowardly, sniveling waste of a brain perhaps? Because you have an awkward fixation on big things?
Would you please provide evidence or reference for this statement of yours: "The president has the authority to enter this agreement. Period."?
As a member of this society I demand to know, exactly, how this could be true. Because if it is true then I need to gauge the precise amount of force that would potentially be required to set this rather large entity of a country, world, onto a corrected path. A path that leads in a wholly opposite direction than that of subservience.
On the post: As USTR Insists ACTA Doesn't Need Congressional Approval, Wyden Asks State Dept. For A Second Opinion
Re:
On the post: As USTR Insists ACTA Doesn't Need Congressional Approval, Wyden Asks State Dept. For A Second Opinion
Re:
That "show", good bad or otherwise, is the only fucking "show" you've got that is responsible for what is now and what will be as it pertains to the boundaries of your existence in this country.
Either you're quite stupid or quite ignorant so I'd suggest that you shut up and listen.
On the post: As USTR Insists ACTA Doesn't Need Congressional Approval, Wyden Asks State Dept. For A Second Opinion
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
After reading this short thread there is still a distinct lack of clarity as to how this particular power over this particular topic can be usurped by our president.
In short, it is the duty of at least one representative from our Senate to push for and attempt to validate the reasoning supporting this executive agreement and thus validate both its existence and its legality.
This is, after all, our country and our government and much trouble shall ensue should our President lead our society astray for the interests of a small portion thereof.
Undue and unjust constraints on culture, the world's culture, will no longer be tolerated. To say nothing of the potential for constraints upon the existence and the progress of free speech nor of the tolerance for assault on privacy for any individual.
I would like a clear statement indicating how the president can execute executive agreements regarding copyright.
Next >>