Okay, I'm a perfect example of that data set. What would happen if I was tried for copyright infringement and among the most likely punishments I either lose internet access, I get imprisoned, or I get handed a fine so large that it cripples me for life?
The out come would be I would STOP buying content altogether. Indeed, I would mostly be unable to do so, not having Internet access, thus losing Steam. I wouldn't have the money to buy anymore, because of the statutory damages. I would be paying it off for the rest of my life, even if I was found guilty of sharing 1 song with just 1 person.
Imagine if you will, Walmart finding out that it's suffering thefts (and no, not for one second do I agree that infringement = theft) but notices that those who steal also tend to spend more than non-thieves. At that point, a smart executive would immediately begin planning how to get those thieves to spend more. Not kick them out of the store and lose their revenue entirely. Sure, you're preventing theft, but it doesn't bring in more revenue and profits.
You are a massively hateful person. I'm going to say why.
At first, you constantly complained of gay people constantly shoving their sexuality in your face. Okay...I can somewhat understand that, but beneath it all, was an undercurrent of hatred towards homosexuals themselves. You said that there was some sort of festival where men openly sodomized each other. Can you link to that? Where the men arrested for indecent exposure, which doesn't take into account sexuality?
You've now conflated homosexuality with pedophilia, as if one who supports homosexual rights must also automatically support pedophilia/bestiality/whatever. THAT IS WRONG, especially when you brought up NAMBLA. There is a huge difference between them. Homosexuality involves willing, consensual sex between two ADULTS of the same gender. Pedophilia involves the willing/unwilling act of sex with a MINOR, i.e. a child, someone whom EVERYONE agrees should not be having sex. Such an act harms them, whereas adult homosexuality doesn't.
Yes homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder. That's because it was proven not to be. It wasn't propaganda. Can you point to any evidence that it is? Sexuality in humans is more than just reproduction, otherwise you would have to be against sex between barren hetero couples. And yes, you did imply that homosexuals cannot love, when you said "It's homoSEXUALITY, nothing more", as if to a homosexual, there can be no feeling of love when engaged in the act.
Yes, if wider society deems a group of people as "not normal", it's called bullying. Even if there is no violence. The smaller group feels unwelcome, has rights stripped away, all for engaging in an act that harms no-one.
You hate gays. As simple as that. You want no mention of them at all in schools, as if their existence is a shame. You are far too obsessed with other men putting their penises in other men: I don't care, why do you? It's not your penis. If the parades in San Fran bother you, DON'T GO!
"Before the Megaupload take down, not many people would have known who he was;"
Only too true. I had been using Megaupload for a couple of years before the fiasco of his arrest, with paid accounts. However, I hadn't heard of Kim Dotcom. I didn't know or care who ran the company. Now I do.
Wow. Actually, not wow. What I saw there is pretty tame for the copyright trolls. Comparing links to a robber advertising empty homes (a robber who steals physical items while committing trespass, mind you) is par for the course for trolls. I love the amount of comments, all three of them. Somewhat surprising that one of them is a dissenter, rightly calling out the bullshit.
I also love the second comment there, saying "I'm not convinced there *isn't* a crime he's committed in the UK". Wrong. If memory serves, O'Dwyer was either found not guilty at trial or the UK police investigated but didn't take him to trial (I can't remember which). Meaning, that he has not been declared a criminal! But when has that stopped the copyright cartels, they're all about sidestepping the courts and going for Punishment Upon Accusation.
"I think the point is that they were about to create a nationwide (global?) map of access points. This is different from seeing the unencrypted wireless traffic of my neighbors. And would we allow a government to collect and use that data?"
Can you give me some reasons please as to why that would be bad? I don't see it as any different as them creating Google Streetview, the only difference is there they used cameras to capture images, here they were recording where the access points were.
"There will be so exciting apps that turn the glasses into a direct video stream into some cloud with automatic face recognition attached."
Scared of face recognition? Then don't have any photos online that are tagged as such. I don't. I've been pretty careful to do just that. I have a Facebook account, but no photos that I am in, so it's not like Google could ask FB to share their recognition data.
When the Techdirt community reports a comment, it is hidden from view but still accessible to anyone. Techdirt staff and management do not get into legal trouble if someone views these comments.
These sites though in the UK...the ISPs have to go to some effort to block them, or face sanctions. While pointless (since you only need a proxy or VPN to view them anyway), if the judge sees that Blocked Site A can be viewed on ISP B, he'll go ballistic that they're violating his order.
What the judge is doing in the UK is censorship. The sites may still be there with all of their content, but the onus is placed on third parties to try and ensure no-one accesses them. Techdirt doesn't censor.
At which point, after explaing, (and linking back to comments) how you were being absurd (to say the least) you will dismiss all claims, only to return later, demand an answer to a question and spew forth the exact same bullshit.
Re: Well, Rapidshare, Depostfiles, and Mega are ORGANIZED,
Blue, answer this for me?
What does it take to convince you? You've been corrected here thousands of times, by many different people, and yet you still puke the same bullshit, like common law. At what point will you read someone's comment, go "Hmm...ya know what, you're actually right, you've presented convincing evidence, I guess I was wrong"?
"Wait, that's not the case. The sites aren't being censored. The sites still exist with all of their content."
Wait...so when you and your ilk scream at Techdirt for "censoring" your comments when they're reported...they're not in fact censored now? After all, the comments are still there, with all their content. They're not being deleted. Which is it?
Okay, so the legal writing says MP3. Quick solution...convert all audio tracks to OGG or some other format. If you want to have songs longer than 5 minutes, simply rerecord them at a faster speed, and then in your playback program, slow them down.
So you're complaining of how the Piratebay founders worked their way up the chain, going from court to court...just like any other person would have the right to? What is it about alleged copyright infringing sites and persons that means they don't get due process and should never see the inside of a court room?
I don't give a shit what the Bible says. It's contradictory to say the least, and yes, I have read it, cover to cover. I'm a real man, I'm able to make my own decisions, I don't blindly hate a group of people simply because a book near 2,000 years old says I'm supposed to.
Even if your book were right, read the fucking quote. "God gave them over to a reprobate mind" as in, it's God making gay men gay. If that's true, (and it must be according to you, it's in the BIBLE) then why should they be punished for merely doing God's will? Isn't that what we're supposed to do?
No, you are a hateful person, one who has no real basis for his hatred, and merely points to a book because its convenient.
No, that would be if the topic of the applicant's homosexuality was discussed during the hiring interview. (Which quite frankly shouldn't be discussed at all).
It would be discrimination if you (unknowingly) had a homosexual employee, their partner were to hug them/kiss them chastely or otherwise make it known to you that said employee was gay, only for you to then fire the guy/girl. (Note, I'm not talking about making out, or having full blown sex in front of customers, I'm talking about a loving embrace that no-one would blink an eye at if it were a hetero couple).
"When I was very young, around 4-5, if I remember correctly."
So, at age 4/5, you were fully conscious of sexuality, of the act of sexual intercourse, and at that age, you decided, you said to yourself "I am going to have intercourse with women, and women only!".
You really knew at that age that your "peepee" was meant to go into the woman's "vajajay" and that was how you made babies?
"Last I checked, I'm not obligated to agree with, much less protect, homosexuality."
Actually, you kinda are. What if you're in a management position and one of your employees is homosexual? It would be illegal for you to discriminate against them, or refuse an applicant for the same reason.