It would be really, really good if, whatever "solution" our government comes up with, that it doesn't criminalize the innocent or criminalize innocent behaviors. Yeah, not likely.
I don't equate Libertarians with civil liberties. I equate them with right-leaning anarchists.
It used to be, when you wanted to slip some dodgy bit of legislation through, you'd always say "It's for the children!".
Now it's "Terrorists!"
Same ol' dodgy legislation, new the-sky-is-falling excuse.
Let's give them the ultimate excuse to ram through bad legislation, "It's for the children of terrorists!!"
Arty
I hear terrorists use politicians to further their activities! Let's get rid of all politicians!
Wait, that actually works!
I hereby declare that all comments on this article are "porn". Erase them all!
Not too bright, are you?
The "Internet" is concerned with Assange being extradited to the US and facing a possible death sentence for publishing (not stealing) information.
The alleged rape is not the point. Would it be proven in court? Probably not, Assange would likely be extradited to the US immediately and never go to court in Sweden.
For you to claim that the only reason people defend Assange is because he is accused of rape shows that you are incredibly stupid, a troll or your purpose is to shift the discussion away from the real, very important factors of all this.
That statement contains unproven or immaterial information.
It has not been proven that user XXXXXX was the one who uploaded anything and, obviously, it isn't proven that they did anything wrong, so posting their name is just a bad idea.
Also, unless they were the author of the takedown request, the copyright holder hasn't done anything. Why include their name at all?
I don't see anything wrong with exactly what YouTube is doing, stating specifically what happened -- and not including anything unproven.
How do you know it was "uploaded without permission or license"? Huh? Was it proven in court? Was any proof provided? No, it was just a takedown request, period.
But you think accusing people of illegal activities without any proof at all is a good thing???
The statement that the video was removed because of a request by XXXXX is fully factual. Why do you think that's a bad thing? Why would XXXXX be ashamed of "protecting his or her precious IP???
I think you have the whole concept here backwards.
"Youtube has phrased it in a manner that ..."
You can read whatever intention you want into a few words on a screen. That doesn't mean that was the actual intention behind those words.
You can believe in your amazing "mind reading" abilities but those words don't "mean" what you pretend they mean.
The message, "Sorry, the content you asked for isn't available because..." is not some secret, coded message to pirates.
What they want is for Google to just stop. No more searches (for illegal material!), no more hosting of (illegal!) content. Just shut down. And apologize for existing. Give the Internet back to those who know how to use it. Is that so hard?
As a parent, I discovered that the teachers no longer understand basic mathematics. Because they were not properly taught mathematics. What they are taught was "New Math".
What is "New Math"? While I was helping my daughter with her math homework I was horrified to find out that "New Math" meant they'd removed multiplication and division from the basics. Multiplication was "just adding together that many times" and division had become "just guess and see how close you can get"!
How can anyone handle Algebra when they don't understand basic mathematics?
So, instead of actually teaching mathematics let's do away with Algebra?
This is sick!
Not necessarily. If consumption is less but savings are more there is still, basically, the same benefit to the economy.
I, for one, think this society could do with a lot less consumption. You don't need a new car every year or the latest and greatest gadget every month.
Huh? I don't get your logic. The officers of the corporation are individuals who, if you will, get the liability protection and who pay taxes. The corporation itself is still liable - not protected.
Your "logic" is that the corporation (which is NOT getting the benefit you mentioned) should pay taxes because of the benefit -- that it doesn't get.
I think YOU are confused.
1. Corporate income tax does serious harm to small businesses.
2. Large corporations, as a rule, do not pay any income tax anyway.
So corporate income tax is only harmful.
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.
How about extreme hypocracy: This "Anonymous Coward" accusing people (who are not anonymous) of being "cowards".
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!
Sure, that makes perfect sense.
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.
No, it is your "logic" that fails utterly.
Bob,
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.
Re: Vote for the good ones
The names that show up on the ballot are the evil ones.