Re: They're just selling a new scarcity of "justice", Mike.
The government created these monopolies in the first place. "Anti-trust" laws and lawsuits were only created for use on companies not approved by the the ruling economic czar.
As libertarian that opposes the creation of these monopolies by the government in the first place, I don't really see what I have to apologize for. The public is getting exactly what they lobbied for; less free market, more central control.
Last year, I got a notice from the water company that they were going to be vigorously enforcing water restrictions that limit what days and times people were allowed to water their lawns. If they caught you violating the restrictions, they said, they would hit you with a $100 fine. You could appeal this fine, of course, but first you had to pay a non-refundable filing fee to do it. How much was said filing fee?
$100.
If they don't get you coming, they'll get you going. Both, if they think they can get away with it.
Chris, the question is the right for someone to have a funeral ceremony in peace.
That's not a right. (Good thing too. Otherwise, the first amendment would be useless.)
"Look, you have the right to free speech, but not on the public sidewalk in front of my mall. People have the right to shop in peace."
"Look, you have the right to free speech, but not in front of the capitol building. Politicians have the right to legislate in peace."
I am not sure that the graveyard is public property.
I don't think it was either, which is why, IIRC, Westboro was on the nearest public property (the road).
And here we see the dreaded "Mike is a pirate" ad hom, which is never supported by any citation, but which is continuously repeated by the brain dead trolls around here like some kind of magic chant.
Keep chanting. If you say it enough, someday you might even convince yourself.
The NC tag always struck me as rather hypocritical. Either you believe in freedom or you don't. Either you believe that ideas can be owned or you don't.
That's also the reason that I, as a software engineer, dislike the GPL. Telling people they have to release the source code is not supporting their freedoms. The idea that the supposed "free software" movement can and will run to the government if you violate the terms of their "license" makes them no better than the people they criticize. Why are lawsuits by the FSF against people who don't release GPL-derived source code more morally correct than lawsuits by the RIAA against non-commercial filesharers? Both groups assert their right to control the voluntary sharing of bits into and out of my computer. Their philosophy is based on the same premise.
Personally, I prefer something like the WTFPL "license", although even that has a couple minor restrictions. Maybe the CC0 license is best.
The bill is aimed at those who intentionally and knowingly break the law for commercial gain.
And child pornography laws were "aimed" at protecting children from dangerous predators and not threatening kids who take naked pictures of the themselves with felony convictions and sex offender status.
As always, was a law was "aiming for" and what it will be used for are two very different things.
Hours? Takes me approximately one minute to find anything I'm looking for.
Heck, part of the reason piracy is so popular is because of how darned fast and convenient it is compared to most traditional channels. That's also why Steam is so popular for games; With two clicks you can buy a game and have instant access to it from any computer, anywhere you go, and it sets everything up for your platform and updates automatically.
Re: So let's have the Masnick solutions to a couple problems.
Just how do you propose to reduce that?
Like any other business that doesn't allow a customer to shout, throw food, and disrupt the experience for everyone else? How about booting out and blacklisting the assholes who talk on their phone the whole movie? I'd certainly go back to a theater after seeing some self-important jackass get chucked out the front doors. (The last movie I watched in a theater, someone's alarm on their phone went off . . . for twenty minutes.)
You really have to stretch to come up with complaints, don't you?
much better match to my values than any Republican
If your "values" include doubling down on every horrendous policy that came out of the Bush administration, then by all means continue to be part of the problem.
A truly open, distributed solution wouldn't even be able to cut off anyone
Reminds me of a talk by the guy behind the Freedom Box, where he described the future of social networking as being away from systems that have you give your personal data to central authorities like Facebook and Google+, but where each individual runs software on their own machine (such as the Freedom Box) that only distributes their data as they see fit.
This "loophole" argument reminds me of the Assault Weapons Ban that expired during GW's term, wherein the legislature defined "assault weapons" as ones having certain superficial features. When the gun manufacturers responded by simply removing those superficial features, the bill supporters decried that gun manufacturers were using a "loophole" in the law to allow them to avoid the ban while selling essentially the same gun.
"Anything with a bayonet mount is now banned!"
"Okay, we won't sell our rifles with bayonet mounts anymore."
"OMG, THEY R ABUSING TEH LOOPHOLEZ!"
The church case is an example where the collective nose is certainly feeling the pressure.
No. The "collective" is miffed because someone is saying something they don't want to hear, which is exactly what the first amendment was created to protect. The collective "nose" is not the same as "prevailing public opinion"; specifically, the quote refers to the rights of others, not merely their wants and desires. You do NOT have the right to be protected from all speech that you find offensive. Westboro was an open and shut case, really, precisely because there was no "nose" being punched.
If they were on public property that other demonstrators were also free to use for their own advocacy (whatever that may be), then no rights were being infringed upon and no nose was "feeling pressure".
And in fact, the people of the US paid for it. IF he had permission to take it, then he had a co-conspirator is all.
I assume you'll be sending in a SWAT team to take back every Medal of Honor ever awarded? I mean, those were paid for by the government too. Clearly, the presidents who gave them out were nothing more than "co-conspirators".
(In the future, reflect on what the voices in your head are saying before you transcribe it to the internet for all to see. Please!)
On the post: Get Accused Of Copyright Infringement Under New Five Strikes Plan? It'll Cost You To Challenge
Re: They're just selling a new scarcity of "justice", Mike.
As libertarian that opposes the creation of these monopolies by the government in the first place, I don't really see what I have to apologize for. The public is getting exactly what they lobbied for; less free market, more central control.
On the post: Couple Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Via Dubious Claims
Re:
On the post: Couple Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Via Dubious Claims
My Wish
In a just universe, someone would flog them publicly for being obnoxious assholes. But in this universe? The USPTO will probably grant it.
On the post: Get Accused Of Copyright Infringement Under New Five Strikes Plan? It'll Cost You To Challenge
Reminds Me of Something
$100.
If they don't get you coming, they'll get you going. Both, if they think they can get away with it.
On the post: Should Americans Have To Ask What They're 'Allowed' To Express?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not a right. (Good thing too. Otherwise, the first amendment would be useless.)
"Look, you have the right to free speech, but not on the public sidewalk in front of my mall. People have the right to shop in peace."
"Look, you have the right to free speech, but not in front of the capitol building. Politicians have the right to legislate in peace."
I am not sure that the graveyard is public property.
I don't think it was either, which is why, IIRC, Westboro was on the nearest public property (the road).
On the post: RIAA Accounting: How To Sell 1 Million Albums And Still Owe $500,000
Re: Re:
Keep chanting. If you say it enough, someday you might even convince yourself.
On the post: RIAA Accounting: How To Sell 1 Million Albums And Still Owe $500,000
Mike, You Just Dont Understand
On the post: Major US ISPs Agree To Five Strikes Plan, Rather Than Three
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention all those Jews during the holocaust! Why do they get a free pass from so many people? The logic is ironclad!
On the post: Shouldn't Free Mean The Same Thing Whether Followed By 'Culture' Or 'Software'?
Good Post
That's also the reason that I, as a software engineer, dislike the GPL. Telling people they have to release the source code is not supporting their freedoms. The idea that the supposed "free software" movement can and will run to the government if you violate the terms of their "license" makes them no better than the people they criticize. Why are lawsuits by the FSF against people who don't release GPL-derived source code more morally correct than lawsuits by the RIAA against non-commercial filesharers? Both groups assert their right to control the voluntary sharing of bits into and out of my computer. Their philosophy is based on the same premise.
Personally, I prefer something like the WTFPL "license", although even that has a couple minor restrictions. Maybe the CC0 license is best.
On the post: Tons Of YouTube Users Putting Up Videos In Protest To S.978
Re: Re: Re:
And child pornography laws were "aimed" at protecting children from dangerous predators and not threatening kids who take naked pictures of the themselves with felony convictions and sex offender status.
As always, was a law was "aiming for" and what it will be used for are two very different things.
On the post: US Airways Employee Handles Complaining Passenger The 'TSA Way'
Re: Inquiring minds...
The TSA will offer them a job!
On the post: Theater Owners Still Oblivious To The Fact That They Can Compete With Home Viewing
Re: Re:
Hours? Takes me approximately one minute to find anything I'm looking for.
Heck, part of the reason piracy is so popular is because of how darned fast and convenient it is compared to most traditional channels. That's also why Steam is so popular for games; With two clicks you can buy a game and have instant access to it from any computer, anywhere you go, and it sets everything up for your platform and updates automatically.
On the post: Theater Owners Still Oblivious To The Fact That They Can Compete With Home Viewing
Re: So let's have the Masnick solutions to a couple problems.
Like any other business that doesn't allow a customer to shout, throw food, and disrupt the experience for everyone else? How about booting out and blacklisting the assholes who talk on their phone the whole movie? I'd certainly go back to a theater after seeing some self-important jackass get chucked out the front doors. (The last movie I watched in a theater, someone's alarm on their phone went off . . . for twenty minutes.)
You really have to stretch to come up with complaints, don't you?
On the post: The Latest Attempt By The Obama Administration To Punish Whistleblowers
Re: Re: Support for....
If your "values" include doubling down on every horrendous policy that came out of the Bush administration, then by all means continue to be part of the problem.
On the post: The Latest Attempt By The Obama Administration To Punish Whistleblowers
Re: Re: Re: Already turning into sheer anti-Obama, as I tried to forestall...
On the post: Social Networking Wars 2011: Everyone Cutting Off Everyone Else
Key Point
Reminds me of a talk by the guy behind the Freedom Box, where he described the future of social networking as being away from systems that have you give your personal data to central authorities like Facebook and Google+, but where each individual runs software on their own machine (such as the Freedom Box) that only distributes their data as they see fit.
On the post: Smear Campaign Ramps Up Against Those Who Believe Free Speech Is More Important Than Hollywood's Obsolete Business Model
Re: Re: Re: Re: Give DuPuis some credit....
"Anything with a bayonet mount is now banned!"
"Okay, we won't sell our rifles with bayonet mounts anymore."
"OMG, THEY R ABUSING TEH LOOPHOLEZ!"
On the post: Should Americans Have To Ask What They're 'Allowed' To Express?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. The "collective" is miffed because someone is saying something they don't want to hear, which is exactly what the first amendment was created to protect. The collective "nose" is not the same as "prevailing public opinion"; specifically, the quote refers to the rights of others, not merely their wants and desires. You do NOT have the right to be protected from all speech that you find offensive. Westboro was an open and shut case, really, precisely because there was no "nose" being punched.
If they were on public property that other demonstrators were also free to use for their own advocacy (whatever that may be), then no rights were being infringed upon and no nose was "feeling pressure".
On the post: Developer Takes Game Down Due To Piracy, But With A Twist
Re:
Because not requiring a login is even simpler than requiring one. =P
On the post: NASA Sues Astronaut, Claiming He Stole Space Camera... 40 Years Ago
Re: $80,000 is not petty.
I assume you'll be sending in a SWAT team to take back every Medal of Honor ever awarded? I mean, those were paid for by the government too. Clearly, the presidents who gave them out were nothing more than "co-conspirators".
(In the future, reflect on what the voices in your head are saying before you transcribe it to the internet for all to see. Please!)
Next >>