You know how the "big boys" subverted the system? By getting the government (usually local government) to stifle competition in their operational areas.
And now you expect that same bought-and-paid for government to craft rules to keep them in check? If they could do that, we wouldn't need net neutrality rules in the first place.
Companies don't speak, they're not persons, they're groups of people.
So if you and I want to pool our money and produce a political video during an election season, the government should have the right to tell us no because we're a group and not individuals? What you're saying is that only rich people should have the right to speak, because they're the only ones who can afford to do it by themselves. Yikes. And don't forget: media companies are corporations too. Should the government control what the media can say?
double free speech rights
Completely nonsensical. What does that even mean? Either you can say what you want or you can't.
Re: there's no evidence that that feds are using the data to curb drug abuse.
Or we could just legalize painkillers and skip the enormous costs, authoritarian nonsense, and support of criminal cartels that drug prohibition produces.
"It's funny how everyone understands that our government works for our corporations, and yet they still argue that the only way to solve it is to give the government more power. That's like saying the only way to prevent yourself from being beaten up by a thug hired by the mafia is to replace the thug's club with a gun. Sure, the gun would be more deadly to a mafia boss than a club would, but you're forgetting who works for who in all of it."
Now if he had had Homer Simpson blowing the horn on the cover, or Laura Croft, it would have been an obvious parody and protected speech.
Not true, that I can see. Homer Simpson and Laura Croft are copyrighted characters as well. Parody would only come into play if he was parodying either Homer or Laura, which he wasn't.
IANAL, but I think he'd still get sued by some shithead.
I'm pretty positive on the Citizens United ruling, and consider it one of the best decisions to come out of the supreme court in recent years, next to Heller, but in this case it's hard for me to decide who to root for.
1. Forcing pharmacies to collect this information is wrong. (Strike one against the government).
2. Preventing someone in possession of this information from giving it out (absent contract) is wrong. (Strike two against the government, and one against the pharmacies).
3. Profiting off the force displayed in #1 is wrong (Strike one against the pharmaceutical companies).
On the post: Prince: Digital Music Has A Different Impact On Your Brain
Re:
On the post: As Predicted, Attempt At Dutch ISP Filtering Results In Net Neutrality Law
Re: Re: Repost
And now you expect that same bought-and-paid for government to craft rules to keep them in check? If they could do that, we wouldn't need net neutrality rules in the first place.
On the post: As Predicted, Attempt At Dutch ISP Filtering Results In Net Neutrality Law
Re: Re: Repost
Who do you think is going to write the net "neutrality" laws? Is AT&T going to make sure to "level the playing field" for you?
Again, you're forgetting who works for who.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Pharma Companies Can Have Access To Drug Prescription Info To Pressure Doctors Into Prescribing More Expensive Drugs
Re: funny
So if you and I want to pool our money and produce a political video during an election season, the government should have the right to tell us no because we're a group and not individuals? What you're saying is that only rich people should have the right to speak, because they're the only ones who can afford to do it by themselves. Yikes. And don't forget: media companies are corporations too. Should the government control what the media can say?
double free speech rights
Completely nonsensical. What does that even mean? Either you can say what you want or you can't.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Pharma Companies Can Have Access To Drug Prescription Info To Pressure Doctors Into Prescribing More Expensive Drugs
Re: there's no evidence that that feds are using the data to curb drug abuse.
On the post: As Predicted, Attempt At Dutch ISP Filtering Results In Net Neutrality Law
Repost
"It's funny how everyone understands that our government works for our corporations, and yet they still argue that the only way to solve it is to give the government more power. That's like saying the only way to prevent yourself from being beaten up by a thug hired by the mafia is to replace the thug's club with a gun. Sure, the gun would be more deadly to a mafia boss than a club would, but you're forgetting who works for who in all of it."
On the post: Caught With A DUI In New Jersey? You Can Now Blame The Bar That Served You
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Kind Of Blue: Using Copyright To Make Hobby Artist Pay Up
Re: Licensed the music, stole the art
On the post: Kind Of Blue: Using Copyright To Make Hobby Artist Pay Up
Re: Licensed the music, stole the art
Not true, that I can see. Homer Simpson and Laura Croft are copyrighted characters as well. Parody would only come into play if he was parodying either Homer or Laura, which he wasn't.
IANAL, but I think he'd still get sued by some shithead.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Pharma Companies Can Have Access To Drug Prescription Info To Pressure Doctors Into Prescribing More Expensive Drugs
Another Government Solution
I'm pretty positive on the Citizens United ruling, and consider it one of the best decisions to come out of the supreme court in recent years, next to Heller, but in this case it's hard for me to decide who to root for.
1. Forcing pharmacies to collect this information is wrong. (Strike one against the government).
2. Preventing someone in possession of this information from giving it out (absent contract) is wrong. (Strike two against the government, and one against the pharmacies).
3. Profiting off the force displayed in #1 is wrong (Strike one against the pharmaceutical companies).
There are no good guys here.
On the post: 'Go The F**k To Sleep' Accused Of Copying Imagery
Re: Deja Vu
Here's hoping you get some new customers rolling in because of all the hoopla.
On the post: 'Go The F**k To Sleep' Accused Of Copying Imagery
Re: Saying the book art is original because of the addition of the boy is like...
Did anyone actually say that? Strawman much?
On the post: 'Go The F**k To Sleep' Accused Of Copying Imagery
Re: Re: Re: How can it be made more clear?
Of course, in the sense that they both depict trees around a lake at night.
That has nothing to do with whether or not one is a "copy" of the other. They clearly aren't.
On the post: Kind Of Blue: Using Copyright To Make Hobby Artist Pay Up
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow
He's an even bigger shithead than I imagined!
On the post: Kind Of Blue: Using Copyright To Make Hobby Artist Pay Up
Re: Re:
[Citation From Anonymous Shithead Needed]
On the post: Kind Of Blue: Using Copyright To Make Hobby Artist Pay Up
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Kind Of Blue: Using Copyright To Make Hobby Artist Pay Up
Re:
"It's hard to get an anonymous shill to read the facts when his greedy, grasping authoritarian worldview depends on his not having any."
On the post: Kind Of Blue: Using Copyright To Make Hobby Artist Pay Up
Re: Re: Re:
Jay Maisel, is that you?
On the post: Kind Of Blue: Using Copyright To Make Hobby Artist Pay Up
Re: Re: Wow
I would be more than amused if someone were to carve "JAY MAISEL IS A SHITHEAD" on his car with their keys.
On the post: Kind Of Blue: Using Copyright To Make Hobby Artist Pay Up
Re: Re: Re:
No one could possibly be this dumb in real life and still be breathing, so I reiterate: Don't feed the troll, kids.
Next >>