If you actually gave a shit, you wouldn't run away with your tail between your legs everytime Mike, or anyone on this site actually pulled on their pants and decided to debate you, because they were either tired of your bullshit, tired of rolling their eyes, or just wanted to see how much backpedaling you would do. Or hell, maybe they enjoy debating, but ended up finding out you're not worth the words?
Frankly, I don't blame them, because all you've done is backpedal, backpedal and backpedal, move the goal posts, or otherwise 'debate' in the sense that you want so desperately to win the debate without understanding the merits or even discussing the merits of the other side at all, and resort to blathering about censorship -- something that isn't the case, wherein your posts do come off rather spammy, as they're repeated word-for-word, copypasted or contain a suspiscious link within them, depending - and the community, so used to your antics, do not think your posts are worth merit. Otherwise, your vocal dissent would be welcomed in a legitimate discussion, but you have never once thought to provide such a thing, instead going about it in your own little world, filled with your own little confirmation bias about these things that there is no more RAM available for other opposing arguments.
You want a yes man Mike, not a dissenting Mike. You prefer hanging around Yes Men, instead of discussing anything in a civilizd manner, or at least that's what I've gathered from your behavior. If you improved upon it -- and if you are blue, you did improve on it for a few articles, nearly a week even, though it were temporary -- people would be more willing to discuss with you civily. As it stands, you are the only one to blame -- not Mike, certainly not the people 'reporting' you either.
My advice? Put up or shut up. It's a bit of a cliche' as far as advice goes, but if you really want to discuss these issues or debate them civily, clean up your attitude. That'll go a long way towards having a good discussion or debate.
You mean, pulling a Snowden right? Considering you aren't being blocked, just spammed, it's the community and not the site itself, dumbass.
But I suppose I can't fault you; much like how you lay the blame upon Mike's shoulders, you refuse to think any of the blame for piracy, or IP concerns coming about all lay not upon the consumer, but upon the shoulders of the corporations, a problem they created that they refuse to fix.
But hey, feel free to blame Mike and everyone else for your constant stupidity and naivete'.
Let's see; if we go by your math, one percent of every funded product would have KS go bankrupt within approx. three to four years, even before DoubleFine's KS got put up. 10 percent is how they make money -- and how they keep in business, or rather, it is a KEY part of it.
So no, it shouldn't be 'one percent' otherwise they wouldn't even still be around. But that's what you truly want, isn't it? For innovative, publisher-disruptive businesses to go out of business before they ever make any sort of difference.
But hey, I'm a paid minion apparently. Where's my ten bucks for this horrendous post, Masnick? I mean, I am defending KS, after all, and this guy is saying I'm being paid to write to your specifications and biases! Surely that must mean I earn some form of payment!
Seriously, though, whoever informed you of that is more misinformed than you are of bringing up GIZMODO and Kotaku of all places. They are WELL KNOWN dredges of the internet -- though at least Kotaku sometimes [rarely] helps a little bit, maybe, sometimes.
So, theoretically, I could simply say 'Making music on the internet', and steal the royalties of Jonathan Coulton [not that I would]? It's ludicrous, silly, and I'd rather this not even be possible.
And who says the person who 'freeloads' doesn't then pay for the entertainment down the line? I've often pirated material because I did not, at the time, have the money to pay for it, or it was unavailable, and then later down the line, I purchased it, because I enjoyed the content.
It does not make infringement 'justifiable'. It simply means the way business is being made is changing, and as I will always maintain, you adapt or you die. Our ancestors sure understood this fact -- so why can't old men in suits?
It's a simple reason. They don't want to adapt, and you appear to be on their side -- of refusing to adapt. Strange thing is, you're on the train tracks, and the progression train is coming your way. All you can 'hope' to do is slow it down, but in the long run, you'll be squished under those tracks.
Some companies get it. They 'get' this age old business idea of adapting or dying with the times. You, though, you seem to be stuck in this idea that 'if it doesn't fit my notions and ONLY my notions, therefore it simply cannot be.' You may also be asking yourself 'what does this have to do with me at all?'
Simple. As with our ancestors, we are all freeloaders, in sense. Should copyright have existed back then in the form it is today, would we have all these great works, great literature and books, great buildings and true works of art? In all likelihood, no, we wouldn't. With copyright as it is now, culture is constantly being lost, constantly shoveled under 'royalties' and 'payments' due to the corporations that hold them, not even the families or the creator, the publishers and labels.
Today's society would not be here if copyright existed in the form it does today, back then. There's so much we learned from back then that it's unthinkable how we would've got here with such a ludicrous thing back then. I'm not expert, by all means, but it stands to reason, were it for copyright, many works would be lost to history, lost to culture and time, and society, culture and all these pretty little things we have right now, would be far different.
We are all freeloaders, much as our ancestors were, and we are better off it the more. This is not justifying infringement, but merely understanding why it exists in the form it does, and understanding how to combat it -- most everyone people adore have done something and offered something better than free. In fact, most people who 'pirate' do so out of convenience, or not wanting to be called a 'thief' even if you bought it legit. Do you know why people adore those who understand this, and work to compete directly with the pirates and pirating sites?
Because people like supporting artists they love, authors they love, without going to the ludicrous amounts of bullshit publishers want to put you through, and even having the gall to call you a 'thief' for buying something legit.
My point, really, is that you're full of shit and always have been, and always will be. You, Horse with No Name, AJ and Out of the Blue, though I can never tell you apart.
You all sure sound off the same soundbytes enough.
I don't know if 'propagandists' is the correct term. Perhaphs realists is a better term, since all you seem to do is sprout ignorance and continue allowing yourself to be deflowered by these 'companies' while yet being unpaid.
I can respect a paid shill; they do their job and get paid for it, and get paid for saying the dumbest arguments so long as it's flavored correctly. I have no respect for unpaid shills, like you, OOTB and HWNN. You essentially argue and flail about uselessly against someone like Mike, Timothy, Leigh and others , who actually do know how to debate, to argue, for what amounts to zero pay.
Now, I'm not suggesting you cannot defend something for zero pay -- I do as much quite a bit, but it's mostly limited to video games, books or even TV shows -- but when that company is so blatantly anti-consumer, so blatantly trying desperately to curb people's rights, and trying SOOO desperately to save their dying business model by sacrificing to Baphomet, I have to ask you.
In other words, if you're not with one of the six strikes programs you're more fucked because the ISP has no actual recourse against this type of tactic, due to the sheer volume of lawyers and money it would take to defend against it should they decide to settle it in court?
This reminds me rather handily of the old days in Chicago, when you had to pay mob bosses to keep people off of your back, except instead of being 'illegal' it's 'within the probability of law.'
It is a stupid analogy -- by comparing two unrelated industries with one another, not only do you invalidate any point made, you make yourself look like a tool. Safety regulations in the auto-industry are made to make it SAFER -- not to SAVE their business. IP is currently made ENITRELY to save the dinosaur business model, protecting and keeping safe NO ONE. In fact, as it's been reported here, in Ars Technica and other places, it actually harms those artists because of their labels, and ends in them losing more money to their label than to 'piracy.'
To the point where the artists do not own a lick of their own stuff, the labels do.
As for your own comment about rules, regulations and such that shape the way people can innovate -- there is your straw man. The one that assumes all innovation must take place within the confines of the law as written. Part of it is true -- it obviously cannot be innovation that is illegal [except for how Tesla cars, an innovative design, are being targeted and for the auto-industry, made illegal. TV broadcasters would love for Aereo to be made illegal.].
There is no way to 'shape' the way innovation works. Innovation, by its' nature, disrupts the environment people are so often comfortable with, and shapes the very lives we often live, yet in that 'legal framework' patents stifle innovation, as do companies that fear their old business model is being threatened.
As I recall, when Mike made good points to your own 'points', you ceased to respond to THOSE points and kept notching your sword down more and more and more, trying so very desperately to win the argument that you resorted to moving the goal posts, or in terms you can understand, 'yanking the football away.' trying to force everyone to follow the way of arguing you're comforted with.
Bullshit isn't something a lot of people like to eat, nor deal with, and your whole schtich is being a bullshitter. Your arguments would be welcome here if you actually made ANY points whatsoever that weren't utterly laughable in the way they're presented, and utterly fail to comprehend the basics of anything posted in Techdirt or elsewhere. If you offered your shilling services, you could actually get paid for your mind-blowingly useless arguments.
I, too, have an issue with free speech. It may not be something I agree with, so surely it must be taken down, despite being of no [discernible] harm to anyone at the time or recording, nor presumes a direct correlation with violent acts. It is merely 'speech' -- speech that I do not agree with and otherwise revile, but still speech. To suggest that a singular search engine that one can look and find videos -- videos which can and are hidden, or otherwise decked in the smallest of spaces of a vast network -- is responsible for hosting these videos and making money off of them.
What is being used is a common campaign -- youtube places ads alongside content if the content provider wishes to monetize these videos. Google, the owner of youtube [from what I recall, anyways] gets a share of that profit margin. It is a system that does not 'just' target hate speech or terrorism or anything of that nonsense -- nonsense which still has no credible source beyond the daily mail, a hardly credible source -- and is likely worthy of ridicule. Presuming this is credible at all, it is again, not terrorism, but hate speech -- speech that, while it bemoans things and says 'take down the government' or 'shoot Clinton in the vagina' or what-have-you, it is, at ts' core, speech. It says these things, but there is no action done. If there was action done -- a video of a terrorist killing a civilian, blah-de-blah -- then it would be unjust and wrong.
As it stands, it is not. I do not agree with it, but it does not mean it does not belong. If I were to apply my values to the values of youtube and say 'this doesn't belong here, you shouldn't be monetizing it, but if it's there I shall monetize the hell out of it.' there would be zero videos of Bryan Fischer or anyone from the American Family Association posting their bullshit for the world to see, and an influx of cat videos.
You seem to assume it is Google's responsibility to take down videos you do not like of what is presumed, hate speech and terrorism -- the latter of which has no credible source as to whether it is terrorism or not -- it is not. They also do not monetize the videos in question, though they do often put ads in the sides of the videos. The latter is done automatically, the former, through the content creator, whoever that may be.
They're not targetting specific groups or people or terrorists to make money off of them -- it is an automatic process, if you're speaking of what I assume you are speaking of -- done through a service that they have no direct control over. No direct control does not mean 'have no control' by the way; it means thousands upon thousands of lines of code that they cannot possibly sort through individually to find specific places to NOT place ads, some of which qualify as hate speech, but protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
You are being silly if you think this is the responsibility of a specific corporation, and not just the result of an automatic service that does not discriminate on ad placement by any means.
I've heard worse lyrics, concerning anti-government, anti-people, people confessing to robbing someone, and other lyrics about murder, thievery, or what have you.
Does that mean all those rappers deserve jail time as well? Perhaps even worse? No, it doesn't. Off the top of my head, I can think of several songs about murder, some about thievery, robbery, and a lot about anti-guverment. Should Lupe Fiasco, 50 Cent, Ludicrous, Dr. Dre, Eminem, and the like get jailtime for words they never said, just wrote about? It's a lot like being a writer -- just because you write horrific events into your stories doesn't make you a criminal. It's when that escalates into real violence that it does -- not before.
There is no direct threat, no direct correlation. Siblings had a nasty fight, so what? They hammered it out themselves and got over it. I see no wrong doings here at all, except some facebook post, a prior fight with his sibling that admittedly, was pretty bad, but not really damning, and some lyricism that -- while very questionable, and kind of terrible lyrics, are just words that are not translating into action of any sort.
Would you also jail Stephen King, Neal Stephenson, Neil Gaiman, Orson Scott Card and the like for writing what they write? No, you wouldn't.
Intellectual property is a legitimate concept, but as it exists in its' current form -- last I read, 75+ creator's lifespan, which is ludicrous -- it is pretty bull.
That being said, I suspect you assume people [sorry, "pirates."] think that it isn't, and only choose to copy it [whoops, there I go again. "Steal." is probably the only word you'll recognize].
Besides that, using someone's death to further an agenda of further copyright restrictions is just stupid and nonsensical. This can only mean good things, especially since it's the New Yorker -- one of the few 'old media' as you call them, that people trust [though I've personally never heard of them, so I cannot comment on whether or not I trust them.]
Tor is not 'suspect.' Tor is used to legitimately, along with V.P.N. hide your net address and provides actual internet anonymity, something that is REQUIRED nowadays since the Wikileaks situation, to leak information and documents to get them out to the public.
Regardless if it's used to go into the Deep Web for CP, the black market, etc. it also has legitimate uses. Stop pretending everything you do not like has no legitimate uses in today's world, and that the current networks we have are secure -- they aren't. I don't know why you assume Conde Nast is suspect; I suspect that's more from ignorance than actual awareness or knowledge of it, and just deciding to spout off 'this is terribibible! oh my gooooooood!!!!' rather than actually thinking this through.
I'll say this; 'Frankenstein posing as class action.' is a great quote, and one I feel applies to this case and many other 'patchwork' lawsuits like it.
Adequately describes the MAFIAA Ceos. After all, where is Frankenstein's brain? Certainly not in his skull.
'Let's see, Mr. Kaskalov, yes, here we go; open heart transplant. Fantastic. Let's see if I can set you up real quick. Just need to contact my IP lawyer for a second, see if I have the rights to the machine and tools I'm using to save your life, and we'll be good to go.
Oh, don't worry. It's not like they can just go 'Naw, you didn't pay up.'..right? Nurse, I did pay the appropiate royalties and everything, right?'
'No, Doctor, you didn't.'
'Welp. Either I'm going to break the law to save your life, or get sued out of business.'
What then happens:
Good Herr Doktor: 'You're on your own pal. Good luck with that failing heart of yours, I'm not going to risk it.'
Bad Herr Doktor: 'Okay, well, whatever. They can sue me all they want, I'm going to save your life and I'm not paying them a DIME for this machine!'
In the future, expect copyright locks, wherein you cannot use the machine you're using, listen to music or drive a car without paying copyright royalties out of the ass, if we let them have their way.
Yes, it's great that my car mechanic has to know about copyright, in order to pay the appropiate royalties to the appropiate company, in order to pay for expensive propietary equipment that's unnecessary, unneeded and useless in order to repair my car or truck, and it's great that he has to take much much much longer to do his job -- something that surely, every mechanic wants to waste his or her precious time on -- in order to comply with maximalist copyright policies that are outdated, out-lived, useless and in a world of technology, backwards hillbilly levels of awful.
I have only two words for any copyright moron who thinks this is even CLOSE to logical:
Contests have winners and losers; without 4chan, though, that deaf school would likely have never gotten this concert, the 10K, or anything. It's unfortunate, but it happens; some people would look at it and go 'it's deaf children, they don't get music, they're deaf' even when the opposite is true. This obviously is not the case for everyone, but, yeah. Without their involvement, another school would've won that 10K and concert, and these deaf kids?
They wouldn't. Life has losers and winners, but face the facts; the deaf school was losing by a margin, 'till 4chan came in and helped them along. I don't see it as a bad thing. The way contests work is irrelevant; it's like moaning about people dying all the time, or children starving in africa. Yeah, it's some bad fucking shit. Some other kid's dead, some others are going to starve.
You'd go mad if that's ALL you ever thought about. That's why you celebrate the victories when they come, not bemoan about the state of the world, or bemoan about the other schools that didn't get it. More than likely, some will come along and donate to the schools that didn't win anyways, out of the goodness of their hearts.
My point is, being a debby downer gets you nowhere in life, so be an Optimistic Owen, and look at the best parts of life that happen when you least expect them to. Just saiyan.
I dunno how this is getting old; a kid's school is now getting 10K and a concert, something that would likely not have been possible without 4chan. Same for that Alaskan Walmart and Pit-Bull. Shit's funny, it works, and it helps people all at once.
What world of reality do you live on, might I ask? Isn't the fact that millions of DMCA notices get issued for false shit a big red flag? Isn't it an issue that false DMCA takedowns can result in legit content being taken down? It should be a wake up call to you and all of your kind that copyright enforcement does nothing but HARM your image, your business, and overall, harm your consumers -- the one's who actually PURCHASE the products you often make.
Show me five cases where DMCA takedowns were legitimately good takedowns that resulted in increased revenue and profits without taking down legitimate content from creators themselves and made it all the better for the 'artist', and I can show you up to ten, twenty, thirty cases where the opposite is true. Prove how that's justifiable in any society. Prove it to all of the consumers who lose legitimate content because of a bogus takedown. Prove it to the consumers and the artists, those who are often burned by the copyright maximalists. Prove it to me right here and now why ip enforcement is good, why any of it is viable, and not worthless nonsense.
So, can you? Can you prove any of it at all? Or would you rather repeat the arguments corporatists repeat ad infineum?
Regardless of whether or not it's in the public domain, the point stands that it is, technically, fanfiction; it takes two minor characters from the book and follows their lives, presumably in the same setting as 'Hamlet.'
Public domain does not mean it isn't fanfiction, though it can create derivative works of fiction inspired by, or perhaps taken by, the author in question.
Also, you seem to be lumping in everything as taking characters, settings, and universe for every section of fan fiction out there, when while it is often true, does not hold true for ALL cases.
For the most part, I'd say it is indeed fanfiction, yet still classic literature by its' own merits.
Re: Re:
Frankly, I don't blame them, because all you've done is backpedal, backpedal and backpedal, move the goal posts, or otherwise 'debate' in the sense that you want so desperately to win the debate without understanding the merits or even discussing the merits of the other side at all, and resort to blathering about censorship -- something that isn't the case, wherein your posts do come off rather spammy, as they're repeated word-for-word, copypasted or contain a suspiscious link within them, depending - and the community, so used to your antics, do not think your posts are worth merit. Otherwise, your vocal dissent would be welcomed in a legitimate discussion, but you have never once thought to provide such a thing, instead going about it in your own little world, filled with your own little confirmation bias about these things that there is no more RAM available for other opposing arguments.
You want a yes man Mike, not a dissenting Mike. You prefer hanging around Yes Men, instead of discussing anything in a civilizd manner, or at least that's what I've gathered from your behavior. If you improved upon it -- and if you are blue, you did improve on it for a few articles, nearly a week even, though it were temporary -- people would be more willing to discuss with you civily. As it stands, you are the only one to blame -- not Mike, certainly not the people 'reporting' you either.
My advice? Put up or shut up. It's a bit of a cliche' as far as advice goes, but if you really want to discuss these issues or debate them civily, clean up your attitude. That'll go a long way towards having a good discussion or debate.
Re:
But I suppose I can't fault you; much like how you lay the blame upon Mike's shoulders, you refuse to think any of the blame for piracy, or IP concerns coming about all lay not upon the consumer, but upon the shoulders of the corporations, a problem they created that they refuse to fix.
But hey, feel free to blame Mike and everyone else for your constant stupidity and naivete'.
Re: Gizmodo is "Done With Kickstarter"
So no, it shouldn't be 'one percent' otherwise they wouldn't even still be around. But that's what you truly want, isn't it? For innovative, publisher-disruptive businesses to go out of business before they ever make any sort of difference.
But hey, I'm a paid minion apparently. Where's my ten bucks for this horrendous post, Masnick? I mean, I am defending KS, after all, and this guy is saying I'm being paid to write to your specifications and biases! Surely that must mean I earn some form of payment!
Seriously, though, whoever informed you of that is more misinformed than you are of bringing up GIZMODO and Kotaku of all places. They are WELL KNOWN dredges of the internet -- though at least Kotaku sometimes [rarely] helps a little bit, maybe, sometimes.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
It's just too bad he isn't wearing a red hat and trenchcoat.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It does not make infringement 'justifiable'. It simply means the way business is being made is changing, and as I will always maintain, you adapt or you die. Our ancestors sure understood this fact -- so why can't old men in suits?
It's a simple reason. They don't want to adapt, and you appear to be on their side -- of refusing to adapt. Strange thing is, you're on the train tracks, and the progression train is coming your way. All you can 'hope' to do is slow it down, but in the long run, you'll be squished under those tracks.
Some companies get it. They 'get' this age old business idea of adapting or dying with the times. You, though, you seem to be stuck in this idea that 'if it doesn't fit my notions and ONLY my notions, therefore it simply cannot be.' You may also be asking yourself 'what does this have to do with me at all?'
Simple. As with our ancestors, we are all freeloaders, in sense. Should copyright have existed back then in the form it is today, would we have all these great works, great literature and books, great buildings and true works of art? In all likelihood, no, we wouldn't. With copyright as it is now, culture is constantly being lost, constantly shoveled under 'royalties' and 'payments' due to the corporations that hold them, not even the families or the creator, the publishers and labels.
Today's society would not be here if copyright existed in the form it does today, back then. There's so much we learned from back then that it's unthinkable how we would've got here with such a ludicrous thing back then. I'm not expert, by all means, but it stands to reason, were it for copyright, many works would be lost to history, lost to culture and time, and society, culture and all these pretty little things we have right now, would be far different.
We are all freeloaders, much as our ancestors were, and we are better off it the more. This is not justifying infringement, but merely understanding why it exists in the form it does, and understanding how to combat it -- most everyone people adore have done something and offered something better than free. In fact, most people who 'pirate' do so out of convenience, or not wanting to be called a 'thief' even if you bought it legit. Do you know why people adore those who understand this, and work to compete directly with the pirates and pirating sites?
Because people like supporting artists they love, authors they love, without going to the ludicrous amounts of bullshit publishers want to put you through, and even having the gall to call you a 'thief' for buying something legit.
My point, really, is that you're full of shit and always have been, and always will be. You, Horse with No Name, AJ and Out of the Blue, though I can never tell you apart.
You all sure sound off the same soundbytes enough.
Re: Re: Re:
I can respect a paid shill; they do their job and get paid for it, and get paid for saying the dumbest arguments so long as it's flavored correctly. I have no respect for unpaid shills, like you, OOTB and HWNN. You essentially argue and flail about uselessly against someone like Mike, Timothy, Leigh and others , who actually do know how to debate, to argue, for what amounts to zero pay.
Now, I'm not suggesting you cannot defend something for zero pay -- I do as much quite a bit, but it's mostly limited to video games, books or even TV shows -- but when that company is so blatantly anti-consumer, so blatantly trying desperately to curb people's rights, and trying SOOO desperately to save their dying business model by sacrificing to Baphomet, I have to ask you.
Why do you settle for less?
Re: Re: White Extinction
(untitled comment)
This reminds me rather handily of the old days in Chicago, when you had to pay mob bosses to keep people off of your back, except instead of being 'illegal' it's 'within the probability of law.'
Disgusting.
Re:
To the point where the artists do not own a lick of their own stuff, the labels do.
As for your own comment about rules, regulations and such that shape the way people can innovate -- there is your straw man. The one that assumes all innovation must take place within the confines of the law as written. Part of it is true -- it obviously cannot be innovation that is illegal [except for how Tesla cars, an innovative design, are being targeted and for the auto-industry, made illegal. TV broadcasters would love for Aereo to be made illegal.].
There is no way to 'shape' the way innovation works. Innovation, by its' nature, disrupts the environment people are so often comfortable with, and shapes the very lives we often live, yet in that 'legal framework' patents stifle innovation, as do companies that fear their old business model is being threatened.
As I recall, when Mike made good points to your own 'points', you ceased to respond to THOSE points and kept notching your sword down more and more and more, trying so very desperately to win the argument that you resorted to moving the goal posts, or in terms you can understand, 'yanking the football away.' trying to force everyone to follow the way of arguing you're comforted with.
Bullshit isn't something a lot of people like to eat, nor deal with, and your whole schtich is being a bullshitter. Your arguments would be welcome here if you actually made ANY points whatsoever that weren't utterly laughable in the way they're presented, and utterly fail to comprehend the basics of anything posted in Techdirt or elsewhere. If you offered your shilling services, you could actually get paid for your mind-blowingly useless arguments.
The only one running away is you.
Re: Re: Re:
What is being used is a common campaign -- youtube places ads alongside content if the content provider wishes to monetize these videos. Google, the owner of youtube [from what I recall, anyways] gets a share of that profit margin. It is a system that does not 'just' target hate speech or terrorism or anything of that nonsense -- nonsense which still has no credible source beyond the daily mail, a hardly credible source -- and is likely worthy of ridicule. Presuming this is credible at all, it is again, not terrorism, but hate speech -- speech that, while it bemoans things and says 'take down the government' or 'shoot Clinton in the vagina' or what-have-you, it is, at ts' core, speech. It says these things, but there is no action done. If there was action done -- a video of a terrorist killing a civilian, blah-de-blah -- then it would be unjust and wrong.
As it stands, it is not. I do not agree with it, but it does not mean it does not belong. If I were to apply my values to the values of youtube and say 'this doesn't belong here, you shouldn't be monetizing it, but if it's there I shall monetize the hell out of it.' there would be zero videos of Bryan Fischer or anyone from the American Family Association posting their bullshit for the world to see, and an influx of cat videos.
You seem to assume it is Google's responsibility to take down videos you do not like of what is presumed, hate speech and terrorism -- the latter of which has no credible source as to whether it is terrorism or not -- it is not. They also do not monetize the videos in question, though they do often put ads in the sides of the videos. The latter is done automatically, the former, through the content creator, whoever that may be.
They're not targetting specific groups or people or terrorists to make money off of them -- it is an automatic process, if you're speaking of what I assume you are speaking of -- done through a service that they have no direct control over. No direct control does not mean 'have no control' by the way; it means thousands upon thousands of lines of code that they cannot possibly sort through individually to find specific places to NOT place ads, some of which qualify as hate speech, but protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
You are being silly if you think this is the responsibility of a specific corporation, and not just the result of an automatic service that does not discriminate on ad placement by any means.
Re: No specific threats ??
Does that mean all those rappers deserve jail time as well? Perhaps even worse? No, it doesn't. Off the top of my head, I can think of several songs about murder, some about thievery, robbery, and a lot about anti-guverment. Should Lupe Fiasco, 50 Cent, Ludicrous, Dr. Dre, Eminem, and the like get jailtime for words they never said, just wrote about? It's a lot like being a writer -- just because you write horrific events into your stories doesn't make you a criminal. It's when that escalates into real violence that it does -- not before.
There is no direct threat, no direct correlation. Siblings had a nasty fight, so what? They hammered it out themselves and got over it. I see no wrong doings here at all, except some facebook post, a prior fight with his sibling that admittedly, was pretty bad, but not really damning, and some lyricism that -- while very questionable, and kind of terrible lyrics, are just words that are not translating into action of any sort.
Would you also jail Stephen King, Neal Stephenson, Neil Gaiman, Orson Scott Card and the like for writing what they write? No, you wouldn't.
Re: Kids, this REQUIRES trustable "man-in-the-middle"!
That being said, I suspect you assume people [sorry, "pirates."] think that it isn't, and only choose to copy it [whoops, there I go again. "Steal." is probably the only word you'll recognize].
Besides that, using someone's death to further an agenda of further copyright restrictions is just stupid and nonsensical. This can only mean good things, especially since it's the New Yorker -- one of the few 'old media' as you call them, that people trust [though I've personally never heard of them, so I cannot comment on whether or not I trust them.]
Tor is not 'suspect.' Tor is used to legitimately, along with V.P.N. hide your net address and provides actual internet anonymity, something that is REQUIRED nowadays since the Wikileaks situation, to leak information and documents to get them out to the public.
Regardless if it's used to go into the Deep Web for CP, the black market, etc. it also has legitimate uses. Stop pretending everything you do not like has no legitimate uses in today's world, and that the current networks we have are secure -- they aren't. I don't know why you assume Conde Nast is suspect; I suspect that's more from ignorance than actual awareness or knowledge of it, and just deciding to spout off 'this is terribibible! oh my gooooooood!!!!' rather than actually thinking this through.
(untitled comment)
Adequately describes the MAFIAA Ceos. After all, where is Frankenstein's brain? Certainly not in his skull.
Re: Re: Re:
'Let's see, Mr. Kaskalov, yes, here we go; open heart transplant. Fantastic. Let's see if I can set you up real quick. Just need to contact my IP lawyer for a second, see if I have the rights to the machine and tools I'm using to save your life, and we'll be good to go.
Oh, don't worry. It's not like they can just go 'Naw, you didn't pay up.'..right? Nurse, I did pay the appropiate royalties and everything, right?'
'No, Doctor, you didn't.'
'Welp. Either I'm going to break the law to save your life, or get sued out of business.'
What then happens:
Good Herr Doktor: 'You're on your own pal. Good luck with that failing heart of yours, I'm not going to risk it.'
Bad Herr Doktor: 'Okay, well, whatever. They can sue me all they want, I'm going to save your life and I'm not paying them a DIME for this machine!'
In the future, expect copyright locks, wherein you cannot use the machine you're using, listen to music or drive a car without paying copyright royalties out of the ass, if we let them have their way.
(untitled comment)
I have only two words for any copyright moron who thinks this is even CLOSE to logical:
Fuck off.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They wouldn't. Life has losers and winners, but face the facts; the deaf school was losing by a margin, 'till 4chan came in and helped them along. I don't see it as a bad thing. The way contests work is irrelevant; it's like moaning about people dying all the time, or children starving in africa. Yeah, it's some bad fucking shit. Some other kid's dead, some others are going to starve.
You'd go mad if that's ALL you ever thought about. That's why you celebrate the victories when they come, not bemoan about the state of the world, or bemoan about the other schools that didn't get it. More than likely, some will come along and donate to the schools that didn't win anyways, out of the goodness of their hearts.
My point is, being a debby downer gets you nowhere in life, so be an Optimistic Owen, and look at the best parts of life that happen when you least expect them to. Just saiyan.
Re:
I don't see this ever gettin' old.
Re: Re: Re:
Show me five cases where DMCA takedowns were legitimately good takedowns that resulted in increased revenue and profits without taking down legitimate content from creators themselves and made it all the better for the 'artist', and I can show you up to ten, twenty, thirty cases where the opposite is true. Prove how that's justifiable in any society. Prove it to all of the consumers who lose legitimate content because of a bogus takedown. Prove it to the consumers and the artists, those who are often burned by the copyright maximalists. Prove it to me right here and now why ip enforcement is good, why any of it is viable, and not worthless nonsense.
So, can you? Can you prove any of it at all? Or would you rather repeat the arguments corporatists repeat ad infineum?
Re: Re: Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead
Public domain does not mean it isn't fanfiction, though it can create derivative works of fiction inspired by, or perhaps taken by, the author in question.
Also, you seem to be lumping in everything as taking characters, settings, and universe for every section of fan fiction out there, when while it is often true, does not hold true for ALL cases.
For the most part, I'd say it is indeed fanfiction, yet still classic literature by its' own merits.
More comments from Coyote >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Coyote.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt