" Yes, this is not a site where the First Amendment applies"
You're absolutely correct. The First Amendment doesn't apply here, since the 1A's right of free speech only concerns the government blockage of speech. Private websites do not have a duty to you to allow you to say what you want. Mike could remove all comments tomorrow if he wanted, and he would not be in violation of the 1A.
Re: More Pirate Mike boilerplate including defense of Google.
Who else here thinks it's cute (and insane, outright bloody insane) that a commenter spent the time and effort to create ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY TWO different tag lines? Ah blue. I'm not going to expend the effort. There's no point in me ridiculing you anymore. You've already taken the trouble to make yourself look as insane as possible, so I can't actually use Reductio ad absurdum anymore.
I respond with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne#Current_rules "The Protestant "heir of the body" of Sophia, Electress of Hanover succeeds to the Throne." I grant you though, that the term Protestant doesn't have to automatically = Church of England, just a member of a Christian denomination that isn't Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. However, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England can only ever be the monarch (although again, this doesn't then automatically mean that the monarch must be Anglican, only that the supreme governor must be the monarch).
So yes, I'll have to say we were both right. Upon reading that wiki, it does say a lot about not marrying or being Roman Catholic, but at the same time, it would be practically impossible (due to politics and tradition) for someone who is not Anglican to be the UK's monarch (imagine if a member of the royal family who was a Baptist, Methodist or Pentecostal were to seriously try to succeed to the throne.
You might want to throw in pseudo-theocracy in there as well, since only someone who is a member of the Church of England could ever sit on the throne. It's enshrined in law, that the British Head of State MUST be Anglican.
"You're attacking a strawman. At no point did I say there was anything wrong with being anti-copyright"
You really believe that I was attacking a strawman? If you go back to that article, and look for the 12:36pm comment, you'll find this "As such one can expect that suggesting to such people that yes it is wrong, they are listening to their shoulder devil when they do so," That is you implying very strongly that those of us who are anti-copyright are only doing so because of a selfish reason. Hence that any views held by anyone that trend towards anti-copyright are wrong in and of themselves, because such views can only ever be held by someone who is greedy and selfish.
Re: Re: Open Source encourages copycats and innovation
I'm not a programmer...but I do have to ask just how can closed source stay ahead of open source? What areas do you mean? Being open source means that anyone can tinker with the code, versus the limited number of people who tinker with closed source. How many people work on Linux code, and how many innovations has that spawned, versus the number of people working on Windows code and the number of innovations that has spawned? If I've suddenly gotten lost somewhere in this reasoning, please tell me.
I'd imagine a DSLR would be considered professional. If you're Joe Bloe and just want to snap some photos you'll more than likely just use your smartphone, but hobbyists on up to professionals use DSLRs. There are features such as DOV, aperture, swappable lenses, colour/angle/lighting adjustment. Also, the number of pixels - your average smartphone has an 8 megapixel camera, while a DSLR has 20 and up.
Might I also ask what is wrong with being anti-copyright in the first place? It's simply a position on a law. I live in a country where abortion is illegal for example, but my position is it should be legal. Am I not allowed say it should be, am I not allowed talk about it or campaign to change the law?
Huh, I had completely forgotten about AF Holdings (and Prenda) in general. What's the latest with them? Has that mysterious wandering lawyer (can't remember his name), the one's been ordered to appear at court but who can never be found but we're oh so sure he'll turn up tomorrow, has his body been found yet?
You do realize that I'm not the only user on this site? As far as I remember, only a bare handful of regulars have done the same as me and said they're anti-copyright, in practically all its forms. Most other regular users are pro-copyright, in that they say they believe that it does serve some useful function but that the way it is today is that it's simply too destructive civil liberties wise.
Your quote from the Penn legislature means fuck all because 1) this story happened in Ohio, 2) Copyright is dealt with at the federal level Penn can pass all the laws they want saying copyright infringement = theft, it wouldn't affect what happened to Google Glasses man because he's in a different state.
Morals are subjective. Your morals are not the same as my morals, or the guy who lives two houses down from you. My own set of morals say it's all right to download the movie. You do not want to bring morality into law. That way lies oppression, where one person's morals trump everybody else's.
Re: Lawful circumvention is lawful. Illegal as in piratage still illegal.
"Pirates: next time you wish to "share", just email the artist and see if you can get permission..."
I'm pretty sure then that if this actually happened, and all copyright infringers everywhere emailed the artist for permission, the artist would just love you blue. Because now they have to sit chained to their computer all day every day, answering yes or no to tens of millions of fans. I suggest you look up two words: Logic and Consequences. Try learning what they mean. There's a reason why no-one tries your quote.
If copyright is theft, then treat it the same as actual theft cases. If I'm accused of torrenting a movie, and I'm found guilty in court, then I get charged the price of the DVD. You can't have it both ways. Either it's theft, and as such, the punishment is the same in actual bona fide theft cases, or it's not theft and you're spewing bullshit.
Well, when you look at the details, it was all because he accessed too much data that certain people said he wasn't entitled to. Which is pretty much what copyright is all about. Yes, you're right, he wasn't charged with copyright infringement, but the concepts behind what he did and what the people who charged him (and the people secretly backing them) were doing, does have a lot of ties to copyright maximalism.
I would be more likely to agree with you if they had said that before he paid for the ticket and sat down. The point at which you refuse someone service is when he either bought the ticket from a counter agent (or if he bought the ticket from a kiosk machine that's bolted to a wall, like at my local cinema) or the person who checks the ticket before allowing you to enter the actual screen room (who would then have to issue a refund). You don't take the guy's payment, allow him to sit down, then have him yanked out all because you didn't specify that Google Glass are not permitted. After all, your cinema allows people to walk in carrying their smartphones, so the rule was obviously thought to cover video cameras and video cameras only...not devices that have a myriad of functions, with recording being one of them.