It was better than that on Comedy Central Tuesday night during Tosh.0: there were THREE banners (1 from Viacom, 2 from DirecTV), all bitching and calling each other liars and telling the viewer to call 800-blahblah to complain. If it wasn't taking up so much screen real-estate it would have been hilarious; as it was though, it was just incredibly annoying.
Everything on the net, from now on, will be free. They want the internet to be some kind of 60s utopia where everything and everyone is free. But we still live in capitalism, and if you make culture free, you make it a ghetto. The internet is not free. It is about as free as the free market.
Mike, you missed a key point: This guy doesn't know the meaning of the word 'free'. He is interchanging 'free as in beer' for 'free as in freedom' all throughout his rant. If you substitute libre for gratis:
Everything on the net, from now on, will be libre.
Excellent! Basically, only dictatorships and heavy-handed constitutional republics would have a problem with this.
They want the internet to be some kind of 60s utopia where everything and everyone is libre. But we still live in capitalism, and if you make culture libre, you make it a ghetto.
Well, using the correct words makes this statement even more insane than it already was, if that's possible.
The internet is not libre. It is about as libre as the free market.
He's right about this, unfortunately, but we're trying to get it back there, inch by inch.
I hate to say it, but he could very well be right, inasmuch as verbiage forbidding 'sharing'. However, no ISP would try to directly enforce this: I think they put that in there so that they can refuse to do tech support if you admit you have a router somewhere on the line.
Regardless, an ISP's contractual issues with a customer would not give a third party (like Liberty) any standing to sue. That's just Carreon-thinking right there.
Given that this is still a highly fluid situation, if you're represented by any of the members of the House Judiciary Committee, you might want to give them a call and let them know that you opposed SOPA and you're shocked that the HJC might push through a piece of SOPA in a process that was even more secretive than the one for SOPA itself.
Shocked! Shocked I am that the House Judiciary Committee, of which 20% are representatives from California, which of course is where Hollywood lives, would try to secretly pass more Imaginary Property legislation! Ahh, wait, the shock is quickly passing... Yep, it's gone.
That's a good point. We all know that this is extortion, but obviously it's couched in a 'civilized' way, as a lawsuit. But if a company could somehow prove that the patent troll knew about the supposed 'infringement' long before they filed a lawsuit (say, once the company has become profitable), it seems to me there could be real grounds to press charges for extortion and racketeering.
Yeah, gonna agree with Danny on this one, the money laundering charge will never stick. It's actually kind of embarassing that they even tried it. Kind of like charging a dog with indecent exposure for not wearing pants.
Why do you keep thinking the case is being tried in NZ?
Nobody is saying this, except you. What we *are* saying, and you are continually missing, is that the extradition itself looks fishy, and the NZ judge realizes this.
US: Kim Dotcom committed a crime, give him to us!
NZ: We'd like to take a look at the evidence to determine if extradition is really the right thing to do.
US: OMGWTF? We JUST told you he committed a crime! Why do you need to see the evidence? Don't you understand that we TOLD YOU he committed a crime? Now give him to us!