"It's really only Techdirt that I've found pro-Google..."
Perhaps you should listen to Google users, most of whom seem pretty happy with the extensive range of services they're offered for free.
"How do the rising fortunes -- kept offshore -- of a globalist mega-corporation actually make a positive in your life?"
I use Google Search multiple times a day for free. I use Android software phone multiple times a day for free. I use Youtube multiple times a day for free. I use Google Maps daily for free. I use Google Play Store often for free. I use Gmail occasionally for free. I use Google Translate occasionally for free.
These are all pretty positive experiences for me and millions of others. No matter what Google's problems are, and there are plenty, the positives still significantly outweigh the negatives.
"Where Mike's "no evidence of real harm" means he wants to let secretive mega-corporations continue to grow."
No, it means those claiming real harm have offered no concrete evidence of such harm, and until that evidence is presented it's a completely valid statement by Mike and many others.
"You mean like TechDirt's recent advocacy of using trademark law to silence/change the name of a team it doesn't like?"
You mean Techdirt advocating for trademark law to be correctly and appropriately applied to prevent use of a demonstrably racist term that a large number of people find offensive. Kinda odd you'd see any equivalence between that story and this one.
"Sounds like more laws to prop up legacy industries. that no longer innovate. Instead they litigate against young, innovative companies. Forcing these young companies out of business through expensive, frivolous court battles."
Actually to me it sounds like more laws to prop up a declining country that no longer innovates. Instead they 'litigate' against smaller and/or developing countries through so-called trade deals that are supposed to benefit all parties equally but in practice always seem to massively favour the US.
"I don't see why their contributions should be considered irrelevant when it comes to copyright."
Nobody at all has claimed this.
"I mean, we should encourage the people who are behaving legally, right? That means the people breaking the law have to be put in their place, or the whole system breaks down."
If you were talking about a set of laws that were respected by most people and understood to provide a worthwhile benefit to society, you'd have a point. But we're talking about copyright, and that is no longer the case for modern copyright laws. The system is broken.
Don't let the copyright maximilists get you confused about the difference between natural rights (like free speech) and constructed legal rights. One of their favourite tactics is to conflate the two as if they're of equal importance. They're not even close.
"Asking consumers to buy the battery up front is like asking a gasoline car buyer to pay up front for all of the fuel the car will ever use."
It's worse than that. Tesla have stated the Model S's battery should be good for ten years. How would you sell a 10yo electric car with a soon-to-be-useless battery? Who would buy such a car knowing the huge upcoming expense. The result has to be massive depreciation. Meanwhile a 10yo petrol-powered car is probably still in great working condition.
Battery tech is still the key to making electric cars truly viable for the masses, and it seems we're still a very long way off.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Parasite to English translation:
"It may seem unfair to the artist. The question is does the general public view it as unfair? "
Well the artist in this particular case had up to 56 years to monetize their work, which is also plenty of time to create other works and monetise those too. So as a member of the general public I think it was perfectly fair back then and would be today too. What we have today is grossly unfair to the general public, but big publishers/labels/studios have managed to warp the whole system into a monster that's grossly unfair to artists too. Yay for us all...
I'm pretty sure the authors of the First Amendment didn't intend it to cover gross invasions of privacy. If somebody surreptitiously photographed you having sex and them published the photos in a newspaper, I doubt you'd be saying "Oh well, free speech and all."
I don't have a problem with the original privacy ruling and fine, but there is no way the photos of Mosley are ever going to be buried. Any court-sanctioned attempt to do so can only make things worse for everybody.
"Want to really prevent an attack? STOP INTERFERING WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES POLITICS AND BUSINESSES!"
This cannot be repeated loudly enough or often enough. As despicable and unjustifiable as acts of terrorism are, they're generally not done just for fun. They're almost always carried out in retaliation for perceived grievances, and the US foreign policy history is basically one grievance after another.
"Google couldn't give two fucks about artists being exploited via their tech..."
And the record labels and movie studios couldn't give two fucks about artists being exploited via their one-sided contracts and fraudulent accounting practices. Seems those poor artists can't catch a break from anyone!
"You complain about Apple's "luxury item" pricing, but they are sitting on a $150 billion cash pile because of it."
No, they're sitting on a $150 billion cash pile because they consistently offered their customers something that they valued enough to pay the asking price for. If you don't offer your customer something they value, they won't give you their money.
"This site is obviously right because the writer says so."
Actually the writer has stated an opinion. Are you not capable of weighing the presented facts and coming to your own conclusion? Because that's exactly what the author and (most) readers have done. If you manage to come up with one of your own, feel free to share it.
I think you might have missed the rhetorical nature of Greenwald's suggestion. Everybody knows those affected countries won't offer Snowden asylum; the point was to highlight the hypocrisy of being publicly outraged about the revelations while at the same time refusing to help the person who revealed them.