I can't understand how a presumably sane person would think some words on some website could possibly be legally binding on anyone without their express agreement.What a strange life they must lead, complying with all the commands on all the websites.
As I understand his argument, if I have an opinion, that's protected speech, but if I type it into a computer and the computer "decides" to display my comment, that isn't protected speech at all!
You talk about logic as if you were being logical, and you aren't.
When you stop equating physical things with digital things, then you can make a claim to "logic". Those things are not equal and never will be. Your reliance on this absurd comparison invalidates your arguments.
You're making a sarcastic joke, right? The article is about copyright and fair use and you immediately conflate that with stolen statues and mummies to "make your point".
You do know this means you have no point, don't you? If you can't discuss the actual topic using related facts, then you invalidate your whole point.
Nah, you must be making a parody comment, you really can't think that way.
It's on public display. It was commissioned to be on public display. That means we're allowed to look at it, photograph it, paint it and remember it. If the artist doesn't like it (and, apparently, has the power to object) then, well, remove it! Move it to a secure, inaccessible building where the artist can sit and stare at it alone.
If the artist owns the copyright and doesn't like it being photographed, the government is just going to have to remove it, cover it up or bury it.
Sounds like a good idea. Commission a new monument from someone less greedy.
Re: Re: Troll tip # 20348: Don't read the author's name
No, you can use your ad hominem attacks any time your little heart desires. Remember, to be effective, don't bother addressing any of the points brought up and don't bother with facts, just ad hominem, that's all you need to "win" any debate. Go!
Do your really think you invented the "Strawman argument"? This is a old technique for attempting to win an argument with bad logic and bad data. It still doesn't work.
You also seem to be "inventing" the "False dilemma" argument. This also still doesn't work.
I'd ask you to use logic and facts for your arguments but that just might be beyond your abilities. Thanks for playing.
I don't expect anything deeper from you though, diaper boy.
And, with one sentence, you invalidate everything you said. Insults are the resort of those who cannot argue effectively. With that one sentence, you admit you have no case.
The problems with your proposal are:
1. The current laws have not affected cracking at all. What makes you think more laws will be different.
2. Such laws, while not stopping criminal behavior, end up criminalizing legal behavior.
3. These laws, then, push law-abiding citizens TO "criminal" behavior in order to accomplish what used to be, and should be, legal activities.
To summarize: Your solution does nothing to solve the problems but, instead, makes things a lot worse. Other than that, nice try!
Any intelligent person will always come down on the side of freedom, no matter what it costs. To refer to those who advocate freedom as "freetards" shows that your bias is toward less freedom and more control. It also shows that you are not as intelligent as you think you are.
You said "I don't see him as a particularly impartial viewer of anonymous."
So, you only accept information from people who don't care about the subject? That's insane.
Of course, I know that's not really what you do. In truth, you only accept information from people who agree with you. That is also insane but is all too common.
You said "You can't debate something until you put it on a level playing field. This is certainly far from a level playing field right now.
Interesting "rules" you go by. Intelligent people debate things all the time starting from uneven starting positions. That's what debate is all about! What you are really saying is, because the debate is already favoring a position you don't like, we must ignore and discount all the factors that support that viewpoint.
"Hey Mike, if you really are in favor of copyright as you like to claim, then..."
As usual, the troll uses false logic to "make his point". This particular one is the false assumption "if you are in favor of copyright AS IT EXISTS TODAY, then ...".
Ah, to live in such a simple-minded world, eh? You don't have to read or think, just spew out the words.
So unproven assertions of guilt are a reason to shut down a site. Unproven assertions of the MAGNITUDE of the problem are a reason to over-react and "accidentally" stomp on free speech. Your own presumptions are SO good you feel that insulting me is an appropriate response.
I think your response is a good example why your position is dangerous for all who support innocent until PROVEN guilty and for all who defend free speech.
On the post: Olympic Level Ridiculousness: You Can't Link To The Olympics Website If You Say Something Mean About Them
Exactly!
On the post: NYPD Put Couple On 'Wanted' Poster For Videotaping Police
Hypocracy
On the post: Speech-Via-Algorithm Is Still Speech, And Censoring It Is Still Censorship
As I understand his argument...
Sure, that makes perfect sense.
On the post: Hollywood Super Agent Ari Emanuel Mystified That Google Doesn't Just Invent A Magic Stop Piracy Button
Logic?
When you stop equating physical things with digital things, then you can make a claim to "logic". Those things are not equal and never will be. Your reliance on this absurd comparison invalidates your arguments.
No, it is your "logic" that fails utterly.
On the post: UK Publisher's Association Accuses British Library Of 'Tawdry Theft' For Supporting More Reasonable Copyright
Re: Stealing someone's work is not a right...
You're making a sarcastic joke, right? The article is about copyright and fair use and you immediately conflate that with stolen statues and mummies to "make your point".
You do know this means you have no point, don't you? If you can't discuss the actual topic using related facts, then you invalidate your whole point.
Nah, you must be making a parody comment, you really can't think that way.
On the post: Postal Service Could Be On The Hook For Millions For Daring To Memorialize The Korean War Memorial
Makes no sense
If the artist owns the copyright and doesn't like it being photographed, the government is just going to have to remove it, cover it up or bury it.
Sounds like a good idea. Commission a new monument from someone less greedy.
On the post: Oracle/Google Case Shows Just How Totally Pointless It Is To Have Patents On Software
Re: Anonymous Coward
Thanks, that certainly clears things up. Say what?!
On the post: Fight Is On Between Oracle And Google Over Java API Copyrights
Literal copying?
On the post: Is The Supreme Court Just Completely Out Of Touch On Digital Copyright Issues?
Re: Re: Troll tip # 20348: Don't read the author's name
On the post: Is The Supreme Court Just Completely Out Of Touch On Digital Copyright Issues?
Re: Re: Re: Market realities?
On the post: Is The Supreme Court Just Completely Out Of Touch On Digital Copyright Issues?
Re: Market realities?
You also seem to be "inventing" the "False dilemma" argument. This also still doesn't work.
I'd ask you to use logic and facts for your arguments but that just might be beyond your abilities. Thanks for playing.
On the post: Why Do Copyright Industry Profits Get To Be The Yardstick For Civil Liberties?
Re: Re: Re:
And, with one sentence, you invalidate everything you said. Insults are the resort of those who cannot argue effectively. With that one sentence, you admit you have no case.
On the post: Overreacting To Anonymous Is A Greater Threat To Freedom, Innovation & Creativity Than Any Of Their Attacks
More laws! More!
1. The current laws have not affected cracking at all. What makes you think more laws will be different.
2. Such laws, while not stopping criminal behavior, end up criminalizing legal behavior.
3. These laws, then, push law-abiding citizens TO "criminal" behavior in order to accomplish what used to be, and should be, legal activities.
To summarize: Your solution does nothing to solve the problems but, instead, makes things a lot worse. Other than that, nice try!
On the post: Overreacting To Anonymous Is A Greater Threat To Freedom, Innovation & Creativity Than Any Of Their Attacks
Re: "Freetards"
On the post: Overreacting To Anonymous Is A Greater Threat To Freedom, Innovation & Creativity Than Any Of Their Attacks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, you only accept information from people who don't care about the subject? That's insane.
Of course, I know that's not really what you do. In truth, you only accept information from people who agree with you. That is also insane but is all too common.
You said "You can't debate something until you put it on a level playing field. This is certainly far from a level playing field right now.
Interesting "rules" you go by. Intelligent people debate things all the time starting from uneven starting positions. That's what debate is all about! What you are really saying is, because the debate is already favoring a position you don't like, we must ignore and discount all the factors that support that viewpoint.
Um... no.
On the post: Why Do Publishers Treat Customers As Crooks With Scolding Copyright Notices?
Ironic
Those who actually download "pirated" ebooks will not get any such a message.
Now exactly who do the publishers think they are talking to?
On the post: The Biggest 'Pirates' And 'Freeloaders' Of Them All? College Professors And Librarians
In favor of copyright
As usual, the troll uses false logic to "make his point". This particular one is the false assumption "if you are in favor of copyright AS IT EXISTS TODAY, then ...".
Ah, to live in such a simple-minded world, eh? You don't have to read or think, just spew out the words.
On the post: Hollywood Continues To Kill Innovation, Simply By Hinting At Criminal Prosecution Of Cyberlockers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hollywood Continues To Kill Innovation, Simply By Hinting At Criminal Prosecution Of Cyberlockers
Re: Re: Re:
So unproven assertions of guilt are a reason to shut down a site. Unproven assertions of the MAGNITUDE of the problem are a reason to over-react and "accidentally" stomp on free speech. Your own presumptions are SO good you feel that insulting me is an appropriate response.
I think your response is a good example why your position is dangerous for all who support innocent until PROVEN guilty and for all who defend free speech.
On the post: Hollywood Continues To Kill Innovation, Simply By Hinting At Criminal Prosecution Of Cyberlockers
Re:
And you have actual, verifiable, solid evidence that ALL of the content was infringing and ALL the page views were ONLY about infringing content.
Or did you just accept the unproven assertions of those who have an agenda? Yeah, don't bother answering that, we already know.