Sage’s Comments

• Nov 14th, 2011 @ 6:00pm

  Re: Re: It's not "media piracy", it's "content" piracy.

  on Why All Filmmakers Should Speak Out Against SOPA
  Thank you. Nuff said.
• Nov 11th, 2011 @ 2:44pm

  Re: Why they should fail

  on Believing Legacy Gatekeepers Will Fail To Adapt Is Not The Same As Wanting Them To Fail
  Amen!
• Nov 11th, 2011 @ 1:51pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  on House Judiciary Committee Refuses To Hear Wider Tech Industry Concerns About SOPA
  In a way, I almost hope it happens. It will push the technology like nothing else! The new encrypted de-centrallized network would be much more resilient to this tampering.
• Nov 11th, 2011 @ 1:45pm

  Re: Re: Don't be fooled by label propaganda

  on And Then There Were Three: Bye, Bye EMI
  Are you an idiot? Yes, that's the way the current, dying system works. It's hard to be a gatekeeper when there are no longer any walls. The middle men are are no longer needed. Tough. This is an exciting time to be a musician though!
• Nov 7th, 2011 @ 12:30pm

  Re:

  on Canadian Actor Claims Mashups Are Morally Wrong And Should Be Illegal
  And your point is?
• Nov 3rd, 2011 @ 7:33am

  Re: Re: It's a lost sale

  on Dear US Chamber Of Commerce: If A Site Advertises That It's Selling Fakes, How Is That Fooling Anyone?
  I suspect you're attempting to be snarky, but companies have actually done this.
• Sep 23rd, 2011 @ 7:28am

  Re: Leaving Spotify cuts them off as grifters.

  on Labels Dropping Out Of Spotify Are Totally Missing The Point
  Just like that newfangeled radio thing.
• Sep 13th, 2011 @ 9:31am

  Re:

  on Reporter Claims TSA Agent Would Speed People Through Security For $10
  And how many "exceptions" does it take to become the "rule"?
• Dec 16th, 2010 @ 9:19am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Change... not for the better.

  on Yet Another Court Explains To The Obama Administration That The 4th Amendment Means You Need To Get A Warrant
  Does Google not work on your intarwebs?
  
  http://www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority- kill-americans-outside-combat-zone
• Dec 3rd, 2010 @ 11:18am

  Re:

  on US Has Lost All Moral High Ground On Internet Censorship
  It is NOT illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater! It is illegal to incite a panic. If the theater was indeed on fire, you damn well BETTER be yelling fire. God, what a stupid argument.
• May 25th, 2010 @ 1:45pm

  (untitled comment)

  on Judge Tells Newspapers They Can't Report On News About College Trip Since It Might Impact College Funding
  Exactly how is this not a clear violation of freedom of the press?
• Apr 15th, 2010 @ 7:55am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is clear about the Constitution

  on Rather Than Considering Information 'Property,' What About Looking At Productive vs. Destructive Uses?
  It's seems pretty clear that I:8:8 is setting up the limited monopoly. Yes, it is an infringement of individuals' natural rights, though its intent is to benefit society. Jefferson's quote seems to explain why the authors of the constitution thought this was a good idea.
  
  "Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody."
  
  We can debate whether it's a good idea or not, but it seems that this limited monopoly was intended.
• Apr 14th, 2010 @ 2:42pm

  Re: Re: Re: What is clear about the Constitution

  on Rather Than Considering Information 'Property,' What About Looking At Productive vs. Destructive Uses?
  Ooh, thanks for the link Karl!
• Apr 14th, 2010 @ 2:11pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is clear about the Constitution

  on Rather Than Considering Information 'Property,' What About Looking At Productive vs. Destructive Uses?
  You clearly haven't Thomas Jefferson's explanation of how ideas cannot be owned, and the purpose of the artificial monopoly of copyright. Karl's post below details it quite succinctly. In your example, you own a piece of paper with the idea on it, not the idea. Once I read the idea, it's in my head as well. You can't undo an idea.
• Apr 14th, 2010 @ 1:49pm

  Re: Re: Re: What is clear about the Constitution

  on Rather Than Considering Information 'Property,' What About Looking At Productive vs. Destructive Uses?
  It's only a "natural right" as long as you keep it in your own head. Express it and it belongs to everyone that can understand it. At least according to Thomas Jefferson.
• Apr 14th, 2010 @ 1:01pm

  Re: What is clear about the Constitution

  on Rather Than Considering Information 'Property,' What About Looking At Productive vs. Destructive Uses?
  Exactly how would you explain Article I, Section 8, Clause 8?
  
  "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
  
  Copyright and patent protections had long existed in the UK at the time of writing the constitution.
• Jan 18th, 2010 @ 7:25am

  RE: No

  on US Blocking Costa Rican Sugar From US Markets Unless It Agrees To Draconian IP Laws Citizens Don't Want
  block⋅ade
  
  2. any obstruction of passage or progress: We had difficulty in getting through the blockade of bodyguards.