Which rights are being denied to you by allowing homosexuals to marry, or any other area where they're asking to be treated equally? Perhaps if you people can come up with a sane answer to this, your arguments might get somewhere.
"the homosexual agenda"
What do you think this "agenda" consists of, apart from equal treatment? Where are you getting your information about this from?
Come on, stop being a paranoid tool and start an actual conversation, one of you scared bigots must have something factual to based your words upon. So far, all you tend to present are rambling fantasies and "it should be illegal because it makes me feel icky when I think about it", neither of which is good enough.
That line of thinking does make some sense, until you remember that such small minded bigots tend to run in packs and entire towns, counties or even states could become unliveable for people considered "undesirable". It's another example of how, while some libertarian ideas are good, they really don't work when applied to reality. Those who think otherwise tend to be those who have enjoyed the luxury of belonging to a majority throughout their lives and so stand to benefit from the imbalance.
"He should have the right to say whatever he wants, and to make his business look bad for some people"
Nobody's saying otherwise. However, freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences of that speech. If that means others exercising their freedom to tell other what the owner of this business thinks, that's also their right.
"I cringe every time someone uses the word "bigot""
Why do you cringe when a word's accurately applied? Amusingly, you're actually more offended than the subject of the article:
After the amount of time you've been here lying and whining, you would have thought you'd at least have come up with a different strawman to attack. that particular collection of lies is looking particularly tired.
Others would. Which is why fair use is a subjective defence available in court, not something that an algorithm or blanket statement can quantify.
"Also, I think the courts have upheld Disney's stance that a single Mickey Mouse stuck on the side of a building runs afoul of both copyright and trademark."
A decoration on permanent physical structure is something of a different concept, no?
"Now if he had commented on the frames"
There's a good argument that the entire experiment WAS the commentary.
Of course, since the account was merely shut down, we'll never get to see the actual verdict of a court or an official reason for the experiment. There's no realistic way this would harm Paramount or their movie, a good argument that it might actually help them, and nobody involved in the experiment stood to profit either way. Just another example of free speech shut down because someone dared to invoke a piece of culture owned by a corporation.
I understand what's you're saying, but it's a different issue in a few ways.
The lack of native MP3 support in earlier versions of Windows was largely down to 2 things - licensing and fear of piracy liability. For the former, look no further than Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#patent. Microsoft didn't want to pay the license for every copy of Windows, just as they didn't want to pay the licence for the DVD capability to be built in either.
Then, there's of course the issue of being targeted for pirated music. The versions you're talking about were a highly sensitive time, especially once MS decided to get into licensing and selling digital music through its own stores (read: they wanted to make the money off DRM, up until they failed miserably of course). Letting people play back MP3s could enable people to play back pirated music and therefore cut into someone's profits. The idiocy they introduced into Media Player's ripping capabilities was only one further bow down to the record labels' backward thinking at the time before they were forced to admit that DRM was unworkable on purchased music (for now at least, I have no doubt they're try again if someone foolish enough got in charge).
Now, it's a different argument. Not only is the patent battle mostly won and fully legal mainstream MP3 store commonplace, but I believe the patent battle won as well. On top of that, it was a capability that was in the previous XBox by default, which has now apparently been removed. This isn't MS not wishing to place themselves in trouble to allow people to play their music, this is them deliberately removing that capability. A different argument altogether.
"Why the frick would I want to purchase songs I already own?!"
Short answer? Because you didn't buy it from *them*, so according to one interpretation of the rules they agreed with the record labels you must surely be a pirate. The fact that you still have the issues you describe is a very good indication as to why MS - and all DRM on music - failed miserably in their attempts to force that crap onto legal customers.
Not to mention - that has absolutely nothing to do with PD status, only with whether people have put in the money to remaster the original prints. There's shoddy prints of older non-PD movies too, and even those that aren't shoddy also show up in discount bins.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good arguments, but...
"I'm arguing that the website owner should get the choice - once put on notice - of either defending the content or complying with a takedown request (with appropriate safeguards and blowback for bogus complaints)"
...and that's exactly the point I'm trying to get at. If the content is found by the appropriate authority to require a takedown for whatever reason, it's perfectly acceptable for the site owner to be charged with failing to comply with that legal request. Safeguards to prevent the abuse we've often seen with takedown requests are also a great idea. But, nowhere do I think that the owner should be liable for the content of the message they refuse to take down, only the act of refusing the court order to do so.
Either we're agreeing and you're arguing semantics, or you're not understanding my basic point.
Did you miss the part where I said that the owner would be liable if they refused to remove the graffiti if ordered to by a relevant authority? Apparently so. If the graffiti is offensive enough for a court order, and that's ignored then they're liable for that action (or lack thereof). Up until that point, it's down to discretion of the property owner since such things are extremely subjective and ripe for abuse, especially once we stop talking about physical walls and start looking at unfounded demands from corporations using flawed automated searches.
If believing that a person who did not write a comment should never be held liable for its content makes me a Sith, then call me Darth Paul. A person should never be held directly liable for the actions of others. However, this does not mean that I excuse the owner from their own actions (e.g. refusing to allow access to remove the graffiti, refusal to comply with a valid court order, etc.).
This is a very simple concept, not an irrational one. A 3rd party should never be held liable for actions committed by others, only for actions they themselves committed. I'm yet to hear a sane argument as to why they should that doesn't fall into the realm of "but it's too hard to go after the people actually responsible", and that's not an acceptable excuse in my book.
In before the inevitable troll claiming that South Korea hasn't yet created any culture worth watching just because they're so ignorant that subtitles scare them.
Sadly, that's so much more reliable a response to this argument that someone actually giving a reasonable, measured reason for such a copyright length that's backed by any real evidence. What, exactly, stands to be achieved from the extra 20 years other than easy profit for corporations?
Not responsibility for the content of the graffiti, no. The owner of a wall is as much the victim of the actions of the third party as the person supposedly affected by the content.
If the owner of the wall is ordered by a court to remove it, and they fail to comply with that order, then it might be acceptable for them to be charged with violating the court order. But they should NEVER be held responsible for the graffiti itself. The writer of the graffiti should always be the only one responsible, not the easiest to target innocent 3rd party.
No you don't. Spotify is not a download service. If you don't know the difference between a stream and a download, you're too ignorant of the business for any criticism you get to be taken seriously.
Why is every self-proclaimed "musician" who responds to these points not only ignorant of what the services they attack actually do, but have the emotional maturity of a toddler and are afraid to identify themselves?
Seriously, just once, can we have an adult with some reasonable argument to address?
Unless I'm mistaken, that's a US brand not usually available in the UK. The nearest similar products are probably Ritz or Mini Cheddars. Silly bit of trivia, I know, but it really stood out on an article about a town in the same county where I grew up!
As for the article, it seems to be suggesting that it's an opt-in, so if it does get any results then I don't see the problem. Plenty of people who are trying to lose weight already pay for apps and things to keep them motivated, so why shouldn't the council supply such things in return for a saving on medical costs later on?
"It's easy to do. Take the server down, replace it with a simple info page, and take a day off!"
Which part's "easy"? The day of fielding complaints from users unable to use the services - a large portion of whom cannot take part in the protest since they're not in the US (far from a day off!)? The lost business to competitors? The huge loss of revenue in many cases, including the costs of taking the site down (it's not free for a large site, no matter how much you kid yourself otherwise)?
"Why didn't these huge sites take our side this time?"
Other than the above, the real reason is that this particular issue is complex, without a specific time limit for action and has no direct business implications.
SOPA would have endangered many of these businesses and the protest was timed close to the date that the decision on SOPA was being made for maximum effect. This protest was timed as a memorial against an ongoing issue with many factors involved.
To be honest, the companies that didn't participate are better off lobbying or fighting against the surveillance requests they are receiving than they are endangering their own existence by shutting down over every issue, even if they agree about the vast importance of the issue itself.
"Sign a petition. Put a banner. WTF? Not worthy of the word 'fight'."
You missed the part about contacting representatives in the US government:
"80k calls and over 500k emails"
Not exactly doing nothing.
"The day we fight back should mean everyone setting up encryption for all the mailboxes of your friends, teaching people about Tor and VPN."
But, without support from people in the government, the reaction would be to outlaw the use of such technology and/or force ISPs to throttle traffic so that they become unusable. It's good to encourage people to use encryption, but it's an idea that won't work on its own.
"One of my songs has had over 1,250,000 plays on Pandora and my payment is $35.00."
How much would you get from terrestrial radio for the same number of listeners (e.g. 2-3 plays on a large radio station)? None of you supposed professional musicians ever bother to answer that question. Nor do you ever bother to identify yourself so people can see who you and and which work you're referring to. I suspect it's because you'll have to admit that the revenue would be the same, or perhaps lower, but since you people never bother to let the rest of us look at the figures I'll have to guess.
Then, how many of those listens converted into other revenue - for example , how many sales happened as a direct result of Pandora recommending the music to people? Despite the lies that often accompany these discussions, it's almost certainly not zero.
Then, how much more money could you get if the labels weren't so devoted to screwing over services like Pandora - and even Pandora specifically (e.g. they're specifically blocked from playing music outside the US while other services such as Spotify are able to do so).
Then, of course, why are you solely depending on royalties for prior work to eat? I have to work today to go to McDonalds tomorrow, why are you depending on work you did years ago for that? Why not work for hire and take an upfront payment for the work you do? Let me guess, the industry promised you riches and now you're complaining that they didn't appear? Tiny violins come to mind.
But, hey, keep whining and taking business decisions personally rather than admitting that it's the entire industry you decided to work in that's screwed up. Helps you sleep at night with someone to blame I suppose.
I'm happy to debate you if you're a real musician, and I'm sorry if you're not making out as well as you'd hoped. But, whining that the owner of a company that's making millions in LOSSES every year managed to make some money on stocks isn't a great argument.
"Techdirt intentionally holds comments for moderation when they come from people they don't like."
No, they hold comments that come from spamming or trolling idiots whose previous comments have regularly been reported as such by other users. If you're one of the people who suffers from moderation on a regular basis, you might want to read your comments and work out why. Unless they just contain lots of links, of course, in which case they're usually moderated and most of us (including myself) have had that happen. They DO get approved if they're acceptable, however.
In short, stop lying and you'll stop getting filtered - although I find it amusing that *this* is the level of censorship you find unacceptable. You don't get out much, do you?