you should have picked a better anti stance. Seeing as the other forms of licensing are assigned for singular products, it's not too far fetched that when speaking about a general "ASCAP license" it refers to the public performance shakedown.
And the outrage should come from the fact they felt the need to have an ASCAP license in the first place, its a gd summer camp.
Ah yes, making the angry troll angry, the gentleman commenter's sport. Miming the account in a childish manner and offering decently sourced rebuttals (and disparaging remarks) has certainly been effective.
The "court" being the same Judge Pro that held that Righthaven didn't own the copyright, right?
Since you seem to be a tad slow and cant decide who is at fault to dare list IP as a Righthaven asset. The judge ordered all assets, and if by chance they have any valid IP that is included. And not just IP related to this case, ALL IP. Its safe to reason that Righthaven went and made (or attempted to) some other deals having learned from their mistakes (which would explain them hiding, sitting on the small pile of IP they have acquired that hasnt been invalidated).
If AJ took the time to read more than the last line and glance at the list of countries then he wouldn't get to post first.
thirteen countries already do DNS filtering
Is what the text was about, "governmental blocking of speech" is what you inferred when you read the list, as you should have. And that you make the link in your head immediately and comment on it is more telling than any propaganda Mike may be putting forth.
Comparing the United States and its enforcement of intellectual property rights on the internet to those countries that practice actual censorship, i.e., governmental blocking of speech because of the message being conveyed, is idiotic.
"people like you who gleefully abuse a system for profit disgust me."
"As for the comment, I did not lie. You have said that you are planning a career in copyright litigation and that you support these types of actions that are a clear abuse of the law for profit."
--however the comment does not say "people like you who support the abuse of a system for profit" or "people like who you who are training to abuse a system for profit" - therefore it is technically incorrect - therefore not true.