Floyd, we've already blown apart the strawmen in your letter but let's go over it one more time.
"Copyright violations are not protected by the First Amendment." No shit, Sherlock. And no one is saying that illegal activities are protected speech except the stakeholders pushing for expansive copyright. Every time this lie is repeated like it was ever part of the debate is an attempt to obscure the issue.
"...stealing is somehow less offensive when carried out online." No, stealing is always stealing. Moving any crime, even stealing, online does not suddenly make it legal or more glamorous.
"[I]t protects creators of speech... by combating its theft.” Repeat after us: "Infringement is not theft." Rights' holders, unlike victims of grand theft auto, are not deprived of tangible property. They may be deprived of potential revenue but, while that issue is faced by everyone making bad business decisions, that is not a crime.
I envision a not-too-distant future where all web browsers are essentially bit-torrent clients. What could be more decentralized?
Content hosts put up node 0 and every viewer becomes a leech. The more viewers, like for a viral video, the more the bandwidth is distributed. That's where the mainstream adoption will be, these high-bandwidth hosts like YouTube and Netflix. Building it into the browser will be the mainstream adoption because obviously the technology already exists.
Iran was implicated in spoofing the certificates of sites like Facebook several months ago. You really didn't think they were going to let it go.
To make this attack work less obviously, they need to spoof not only the certificate but also the certificate authority (CA). Diverting traffic from the legitimate site into their honeypot makes that easier. That sounds like the kind of border router protocol hacking China is implicated in.
The arms race between freedom and censorship on the internet is only just warming up.
I'm sure the gramophone faced the same issues, what with all those numbskulls listening to prerecorded music in degenerate solitude instead of a culturally invigorating experience like going to the orchestra.
The world wide web isn't yet 20 years old. Think of how many companies from those early days are still around. Alta Vista, Geocities, Angelfire, Lycos; those names mean anything to anyone out there? Oracle just shuttered Sun. Microsoft seems to be the only one still going. AOL and Yahoo are pale shadows of their former selves. Google is only 10 years old; YouTube 5. The lifespan of social networks is even shorter. Friendster, LinkedIn, MySpace, Classmates.com, but how big did any of them get? Maybe they were before their time but now their time has passed.
Such long term penalties are meaningless when things move at the speed of the internet.
Benches and playground equipment are property of your city parks department and not public domain. It is public property since it is owned by a government for the use of its citizens. Taking that property is theft; no "basically" about it but also nothing to do with public domain.
Public domain is an entirely different concept of property. Attempting to misappropriate the works of Shakespeare, ironic as that would be, would not be theft since those works are in the public domain.
So, no, the same does not apply because the analogy is flawed.
Been a while since we've seen a company screw up like this (since the Scrabulous affair that spawned the phrase) but this looks like a return of the Hasbro Effect; when pursuing your legal rights is a bad business decision.
I can see "And then the lawyers stepped in" becoming a catchphrase for all the situations where a legal response just makes things worse.
is it still competition when they put your logo on their trash?
At what point do these vendors cross the line from infringement to fraud?
Take, for example, Sparkfun's experience with a Chinese "reseller" who copied their website (complete with pictures of the founder's hand holding the products) and began selling counterfeit goods, even reproducing Sparkfun's logo on the items. Sparkfun, of course, is miles ahead of out-competing the knockoff.
At what point do you need to take legal action against such blatant fraud?
Re: Re: Re: Everybody needs to calm the fuck down.
Say something about what? That she's happy to toss doctor-patient confidentiality on the pile with her other rights? Our TSA asks you about liquids or gels, like toothpaste, in your carry-on. They don't ask about your medical history or if they'll see implants on the scan.
You know what the end result of this is going to be, right? Implant technology has come a long way; the materials feel and move like the real thing, surgery techniques for minimal scarring came from this side of the industry. Now there will be a huge demand on manufacturers for implants that look real to a scanner. Like Agent Smith said, "Do you hear that, Mr Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability."
This was picked up by Bad Astronomer Phil Plait yesterday, and as people were pointing out over there, how will the UK's lower burden libel laws come into this? Deer is pretty much calling out Wakefield as a fraud (which can't be said often enough). How soon until the law is abused to stifle this report?
Unfortunately, this will have no effect on the antivaxxer epidemic.