Exactly what "existing law" are you talking about when the topic is SOPA and PROTECT IP, neither of which are law yet?
And what problems with "rules of civil procedure" have the opponents of SOPA and PROTECT IP demonstrated as they attempt to use the proscribed process dictated by our form of government (petitioning their representatives) to oppose these proposed bills?
You seriously just don't make any sense, and not just because of your grammatical typo.
"SOPA will not devaste the lawful online music business. It will however completely fuck up the day of pirate sites and those who make their livings predicated on violating copyright."
Pretty funny. You do know that the most famous video claiming you wouldn't steal a car, so you shouldn't download and steal a song... That was set to music, a song stolen from the artist?
Obviously the lesson here is that nobody should make "their livings predicated on violating copyright" unless you are a big media company.
Their argument is also weak in the face of existing caselaw, which says that some protected speech may be harmed when unprotected speech is shut down. Their basic concept is trying to claim that no enough of the stuff was in violation to merit a shutdown, but that in itself admits that much of what was on the site was intended to violate copyright law - and the site owners knew it.
Why would they believe that their content violated laws when they had already won a number of lawsuits? How is this weak when they are just saying they never had a hearing on the matter? (This is the main point of their argument, as I read it)
Myth busting is really the opposite of Theory busting. In the first, you just need some way to demonstrate it can happen. Theory busting only requires one to show there exists at least one way to break it.
They have a very hard time disproving myths because (as you point out) reconstructing a myth is hard. There might always be some other factor that made it work.
On the other hand, when they prove myths, they are pretty much proven. I especially enjoyed the one where they tried to figure out just how much force was required to "knock your socks off". Especially since in the end, they were able to do it, sort of.
And in fact, Science is the same way. We have a darn hard time truly proving anything. But all it takes is one test that doesn't fit to prove an idea wrong.
This is entertainment of the best sort, and if you are going to do reality shows, this is at least reality within the bounds of what a handful of hacks can make of it.
Don't get frustrated. Enjoy it for what it is, a few hacks trying to do tests that are often beyond what a few hacks can really do.
Also, thanks to those who spoke out. Via the American Censorship Day effort, we've seen reports of over 23,000 emails per hour being sent to Congress, and other reports claiming nearly four phone calls per second going into Congress.
Wow! Do you have a reference I can pass along for this?
Piracy doesn't hurt independent artists and workers most, best I can tell. Do you have a source, or is just saying it enough?
Copyright is now 70 years after the death of the artist. Since most don't live that much beyond 70, and do most of the work of their careers past their 20's, it is pretty safe to say most of the time covered belongs to someone else, not the artist. Since corporations have traditionally owned the copyrights to works as part of their contracts, I just can't seem to make an argument that this is about independent artists and workers as the ones hurt by piracy.
On the other hand, perfectly legal sites have been taken down and targeted without hearings or review by ICE, why would we believe they wouldn't under SOPA?
So the harm I think is the other way around, SOPA will hurt independent artists, workers, and small businesses most. These groups are hardly harmed at all by piracy today, by all sorts of studies on the topic.
Don't know how the character graphics will look in your browser, but I t____ the old s_____ blanking out of key w____ applied to g_____ would get the m______ across b_________. Not only is it censorship, it also fails to prevent people from getting the information that the law would try to suppress.
Oh, because you think Big Pharma is selling pills in Nigeria at a loss?
Let's examine that question, shall we? Here is the executive pay (from 2008) for the top 10 Pharma firms:
1. Miles White - Abbott - $33.4M
2. Fred Hassan - Schering-Plough - $30.1M
3. Bill Weldon - Johnson & Johnson - $25.1M
4. Bob Essner - Wyeth - $24.1M
5. Robert Parkinson - Baxter - $17.6M
6. Daniel Vasella - Novartis - $15.5M
7. Richard Clark - Merck - $14.5M
8. Frank Baldino - Cephalon - $13.5M
9. Sidney Taurel - Eli Lilly - $13M
10. Jeff Kindler - Pfizer - $12.6M
You get the idea? Your 20 bucks is going to pay off these big Corporations and to pad their profits. It isn't going into research, and it isn't paying for drug production. That stuff is cheap (one because the government funds most drug R&D anyway, and two, once you know how to produce a drug it is usually pretty easy to bang it out).
Let the market work. This isn't about someone in another country getting a free ride. This is about limiting competition so that we in the U.S. can get raked over the coals for corporate profit and executive pay.
People in poor third world countries need to consider the quality of life their potential children will be born into before they procreate. It is not the responsibility of a pharmacuetical company in the industrialized world to provide pro bono Rx therapy to poor third world children.
And guess what. It isn't my responsibility to protect their market through force. If they want to produce a product and sell that product at a price and quality that competes in the market place, then they don't need government help.
If they want to take government funded research, patent it, then gouge people for many times their piddly investment, and have that market protected by Government Force, I say screw 'em.
I am SO totally for commerce and competition. I am so against government regulated markets which (BTW) prevent people from forming a company to compete against established companies by letting Big Companies blast the little guys out of the water with Government Enforced Patent suits.
Are you trying to tell me that government regulated and government enforced markets are the way to go? Really?
No, this is a joint D&R maneuver. I agree completely that this has gone on for 30 years or more, and has intensified in recent years.
Forgive me if I sounded like I blame anyone in the D&R more than anyone else. When I wrote this, I was thinking how the D&r (of the D&R) are showing signs of trying to pretend they care about the issues of the OWS
No, there are limits to what we will pay for drugs in the U.S:
Effective October 1, 2010, the Social Security Act was revised to require that the Secretary calculate FULs as no less than 175 percent of the weighted average (determined on the basis of manufacturer utilization) of the most recently reported monthly average manufacturer prices (AMP).
So in other words, Federal Programs cannot be charged more than 175 percent of the average price of a drug....
Wait...
Did I read that right? Ah yes, this was the reform we got when we passed the "Affordable Care Act". Prior to that, the government could limit reimbursement to the lower market rates for drugs, as offered by at least three sources. (my rough interpretation of the regs...)
Gosh, you gotta love a congress that can label a bill the "Affordable Care Act" when they really mean "Roll all the Cash Possible into Big Pharma's Coffers Act" !!!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: That is because Capitalists like Bush only want control of your money
But Obama came after Bush. No telling what Bush would have done given the precedents set by Obama.
This is the real story. That both parties are diminishing our freedom and rights with each administration.
The Petition needed 150 Signatures to be searchable...
~36 signatures prior to the Techdirt article
A few hours pass
300 signatures!
Wow.
And a Happy New Year
Really appreciate your efforts Mike! Have a happy new year and the best to you and yours.
Re:
News Flash: Rupert Murdoch shocks everyone by supporting SOPA in solidarity with the 99 percent!
Re:
And "you real problem" is grammar.
Exactly what "existing law" are you talking about when the topic is SOPA and PROTECT IP, neither of which are law yet?
And what problems with "rules of civil procedure" have the opponents of SOPA and PROTECT IP demonstrated as they attempt to use the proscribed process dictated by our form of government (petitioning their representatives) to oppose these proposed bills?
You seriously just don't make any sense, and not just because of your grammatical typo.
Re: Re:
"SOPA will not devaste the lawful online music business. It will however completely fuck up the day of pirate sites and those who make their livings predicated on violating copyright."
Pretty funny. You do know that the most famous video claiming you wouldn't steal a car, so you shouldn't download and steal a song... That was set to music, a song stolen from the artist?
Obviously the lesson here is that nobody should make "their livings predicated on violating copyright" unless you are a big media company.
Re:
I.am.not.Will ing to say
Re:
I am not sure you are right.
Their argument is also weak in the face of existing caselaw, which says that some protected speech may be harmed when unprotected speech is shut down. Their basic concept is trying to claim that no enough of the stuff was in violation to merit a shutdown, but that in itself admits that much of what was on the site was intended to violate copyright law - and the site owners knew it.
Why would they believe that their content violated laws when they had already won a number of lawsuits? How is this weak when they are just saying they never had a hearing on the matter? (This is the main point of their argument, as I read it)
Re: Re: Re: Mythbusters ballistics
Yeah, I blew it there.
I wish I could edit ...
Myth busting is really the opposite of Theory busting. In the first, you just need some way to demonstrate it can happen. Theory busting only requires one to show there exists at least one way to break it.
Good catch.
Re: Mythbusters ballistics
They have a very hard time disproving myths because (as you point out) reconstructing a myth is hard. There might always be some other factor that made it work.
On the other hand, when they prove myths, they are pretty much proven. I especially enjoyed the one where they tried to figure out just how much force was required to "knock your socks off". Especially since in the end, they were able to do it, sort of.
And in fact, Science is the same way. We have a darn hard time truly proving anything. But all it takes is one test that doesn't fit to prove an idea wrong.
This is entertainment of the best sort, and if you are going to do reality shows, this is at least reality within the bounds of what a handful of hacks can make of it.
Don't get frustrated. Enjoy it for what it is, a few hacks trying to do tests that are often beyond what a few hacks can really do.
Isn't it rather strangely quiet from the pro-SOPA side of the house?
Seriously, I expected to find some pro-SOPA spin in the comments.
Where are our friends?
Where is the reference
Also, thanks to those who spoke out. Via the American Censorship Day effort, we've seen reports of over 23,000 emails per hour being sent to Congress, and other reports claiming nearly four phone calls per second going into Congress.
Wow! Do you have a reference I can pass along for this?
Re: Re: Re:
Piracy doesn't hurt independent artists and workers most, best I can tell. Do you have a source, or is just saying it enough?
Copyright is now 70 years after the death of the artist. Since most don't live that much beyond 70, and do most of the work of their careers past their 20's, it is pretty safe to say most of the time covered belongs to someone else, not the artist. Since corporations have traditionally owned the copyrights to works as part of their contracts, I just can't seem to make an argument that this is about independent artists and workers as the ones hurt by piracy.
On the other hand, perfectly legal sites have been taken down and targeted without hearings or review by ICE, why would we believe they wouldn't under SOPA?
So the harm I think is the other way around, SOPA will hurt independent artists, workers, and small businesses most. These groups are hardly harmed at all by piracy today, by all sorts of studies on the topic.
Re: Flop...
Where can I read Mr Berman's letter?
Re:
Of COURSE he is paid in stock. He holds the stock for a year and then pays 15 percent capital gains rather than 35 percent income tax.
Just to be honest
Re:
I have an idea for Google for November 16th:
G_____
..............................
|............................|
Don't know how the character graphics will look in your browser, but I t____ the old s_____ blanking out of key w____ applied to g_____ would get the m______ across b_________. Not only is it censorship, it also fails to prevent people from getting the information that the law would try to suppress.
Re:
Oh, because you think Big Pharma is selling pills in Nigeria at a loss?
Let's examine that question, shall we? Here is the executive pay (from 2008) for the top 10 Pharma firms:
1. Miles White - Abbott - $33.4M
2. Fred Hassan - Schering-Plough - $30.1M
3. Bill Weldon - Johnson & Johnson - $25.1M
4. Bob Essner - Wyeth - $24.1M
5. Robert Parkinson - Baxter - $17.6M
6. Daniel Vasella - Novartis - $15.5M
7. Richard Clark - Merck - $14.5M
8. Frank Baldino - Cephalon - $13.5M
9. Sidney Taurel - Eli Lilly - $13M
10. Jeff Kindler - Pfizer - $12.6M
You get the idea? Your 20 bucks is going to pay off these big Corporations and to pad their profits. It isn't going into research, and it isn't paying for drug production. That stuff is cheap (one because the government funds most drug R&D anyway, and two, once you know how to produce a drug it is usually pretty easy to bang it out).
Let the market work. This isn't about someone in another country getting a free ride. This is about limiting competition so that we in the U.S. can get raked over the coals for corporate profit and executive pay.
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 24th, 2011 @ 11:12am
People in poor third world countries need to consider the quality of life their potential children will be born into before they procreate. It is not the responsibility of a pharmacuetical company in the industrialized world to provide pro bono Rx therapy to poor third world children.
And guess what. It isn't my responsibility to protect their market through force. If they want to produce a product and sell that product at a price and quality that competes in the market place, then they don't need government help.
If they want to take government funded research, patent it, then gouge people for many times their piddly investment, and have that market protected by Government Force, I say screw 'em.
I am SO totally for commerce and competition. I am so against government regulated markets which (BTW) prevent people from forming a company to compete against established companies by letting Big Companies blast the little guys out of the water with Government Enforced Patent suits.
Are you trying to tell me that government regulated and government enforced markets are the way to go? Really?
Re: Re: Obama and the OWS
No, this is a joint D&R maneuver. I agree completely that this has gone on for 30 years or more, and has intensified in recent years.
Forgive me if I sounded like I blame anyone in the D&R more than anyone else. When I wrote this, I was thinking how the D&r (of the D&R) are showing signs of trying to pretend they care about the issues of the OWS
Un, not so.
No, there are limits to what we will pay for drugs in the U.S:
https://www.cms.gov/reimbursement/05_federalupperlimits.asp
So in other words, Federal Programs cannot be charged more than 175 percent of the average price of a drug....
Wait...
Did I read that right? Ah yes, this was the reform we got when we passed the "Affordable Care Act". Prior to that, the government could limit reimbursement to the lower market rates for drugs, as offered by at least three sources. (my rough interpretation of the regs...)
Gosh, you gotta love a congress that can label a bill the "Affordable Care Act" when they really mean "Roll all the Cash Possible into Big Pharma's Coffers Act" !!!!