" Standard Shipping Rates to Australia
Delivery within 18 to 32 business days"
Something tells me I might not have read the book in time for the discussion...
Before you say anything, I know I could get the kindle version faster then that but I am only prepared to pay more then $5 for an ebook if i know I would go back and read it again and again because unlike the physical version i can not lend it to friends and family and then sell it second hand. Oh well, sorry Rebecca. You nearly had a sale out of me thanks to techdirt but it's not going to happen today.
" Standard Shipping Rates to Australia
Delivery within 18 to 32 business days"
Something tells me I might not have read the book in time for the discussion...
Before you say anything, I know I could get the kindle version faster then that but I am only prepared to pay more then $5 for an ebook if i know I would go back and read it again and again because unlike the physical version i can not lend it to friends and family and then sell it second hand. Oh well, sorry Rebecca. You nearly had a sale out of me thanks to techdirt but it's not going to happen today.
Dear God, what have you done?!?
My google reader says there are 81 comments on this article so I click through to laugh at the trolls but I'm greeted with your comment only. I've been robbed of 80 comments!! (Unless of course techdirt believes your comment is worth 81 standard comments....)
From the linked article:
"The fake site has been taken down and the number has been blocked by the authorities, but will no doubt reappear on another compromised server with a new number in due course."
It takes time before someone that gets caught in these type of things reports it to the authorities, it then takes a bit more time for the authorities to confirm it and shut it down. Who knows how many people will get sucked in before then, and then it is just a matter of rinse and repeat with a new batch of victims.
I have the fact the she gave her confession after being told by a bunch of lawyers that if she says what they tell her to say then things will go easier for her, which is pretty much what you said. None of this is proof that it happened that way, just that her legal advice told her "do this or things will get a lot worse for you."
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'm also not saying Mike is wrong. All I want is the actual data, not what someone said to get a reduced sentence.
Yet I notice that neither you nor any other troll or shill here has bothered to present any other side, you just keep repeating that Mike is something which he is obviously not in the vain hope that maybe, just maybe, someone might believe you.
Do you have any evidence indicating that these confessions are less than truthful? If so, I'd love to hear it. Impeaching the credibility of each confession is one thing, but I don't see you or anyone else putting forth any evidence indicating that the accused are lying to the court.
Do you have any evidence indicating that these confessions are truthful? If so, I'd love to hear it. Basing your arguments on what someone has said in order to get a reduced penalty is one thing, but I don't see you or anyone else putting forth any evidence indicating that the accused are telling the truth to the court.
"Mike believed it was true too, or else he wouldn't have allowed it to be posted. It's obviously a joke, and the fact that Mike and his flunky jumped on it shows their bias and lack of critical thinking skills."
Or maybe, just maybe, it appears to be history repeating itself.....
"It's a meaningless term conjured up by the entertainment industry to pejoratively label anything they don't like to convince people that there's something nefarious afoot with sites which are otherwise perfectly legal."
Reminds me of what happened when they started with the 'pirate' label. Kinda makes me want to start my own website, something along the lines of TheRogueSite.org or maybe TheRogueTavern.net
Strange, you seemed so sure of yourself when talking about child porn, I just assumed you would continue to be sure of yourself when talking about PIPA.....
I was halfway through a reply continuing with the site A/site B, child porn/infringement comparisons but decided that playing by your rules isn't going to benefit anyone. You see your analogy falls apart when you have a look at the differences between child porn and copyright infringement.
Firstly, child porn is classed as a criminal matter where as copyright infringement, in most cases, is a civil matter.
Secondly, child porn is child porn regardless of how you look at it. Digital media may or may not be infringing on someones copyright and it is very difficult for someone who is not the rights holder to know which it is. I notice that you skipped over my reference to youtube/viacom.
The problem for copyright maximalist and other apologists is that the specious copyright arguments fall apart when applied to examples like real life. (You can ignore this sentence, it's just me having a dig at you and feeding the trolls [ie. you.]) :)
I would just like to add to the end of my above post that rights holders should actually be thanking the linking sites for showing them where the infringing media is actually being hosted.
"Under Protect IP in order to be actionable the linking site would have to be both dedicated to infringing activities AND have no other significant commercial purpose."
So does this mean that The Pirate Bay would be fine under PIPA? It is a website that is dedicated to the free sharing of digital files, regardless of the copyright status of those files. It has been used by thousands of artists to promote themselves and to connect with their fans. It is also a treasure trove of public domain and creative commons works.
So the Pirate Bay is not "dedicated to infringing activities" (it just does not care...) and it has "other significant commercial purpose." So it's fine, right?
Legally created digital media is, well, legal. Child porn is not. Finding free digital media online and linking to it to show others where to find it is legal. Finding child porn online and linking to it is sick (and also [probably though IANAL] illegal.)
Do you see the difference yet?
No? I didn't think you would (troll handbook rule 1: never understand the other sides arguments.)
How about this then. It has been shown time and time again how difficult it is to know what is infringing on someones copyright, what is not infringing, and what the rights holder have, themselves, put online for free (youtube - viacom anyone?). It is easy to tell that an image of naked little children getting it on is sick, disturbing, and illegal.
Regardless of if the site hosting the links knows the copyright status of the media it is linking to, the removal of the linking site does absolutely nothing to remove the infringing material from the Internet. Where as if the rights holders went directly to the source of the infringing material and had it taken down then the (perceived) problem of the linking site will be solved at the same time.
Come to Australia, we will welcome you with open arms. If you come by boat we will even put you up in a lovely resort on Christmas Island all expenses paid for anywhere from a month to a few years (not your choice in how long.....) :)
(untitled comment)
" Standard Shipping Rates to Australia
Delivery within 18 to 32 business days"
Something tells me I might not have read the book in time for the discussion...
Before you say anything, I know I could get the kindle version faster then that but I am only prepared to pay more then $5 for an ebook if i know I would go back and read it again and again because unlike the physical version i can not lend it to friends and family and then sell it second hand. Oh well, sorry Rebecca. You nearly had a sale out of me thanks to techdirt but it's not going to happen today.
(untitled comment)
" Standard Shipping Rates to Australia
Delivery within 18 to 32 business days"
Something tells me I might not have read the book in time for the discussion...
Before you say anything, I know I could get the kindle version faster then that but I am only prepared to pay more then $5 for an ebook if i know I would go back and read it again and again because unlike the physical version i can not lend it to friends and family and then sell it second hand. Oh well, sorry Rebecca. You nearly had a sale out of me thanks to techdirt but it's not going to happen today.
Re:
Dear God, what have you done?!?
My google reader says there are 81 comments on this article so I click through to laugh at the trolls but I'm greeted with your comment only. I've been robbed of 80 comments!! (Unless of course techdirt believes your comment is worth 81 standard comments....)
Re: Why do numers surive for longer than a tiny bit of time?
From the linked article:
"The fake site has been taken down and the number has been blocked by the authorities, but will no doubt reappear on another compromised server with a new number in due course."
It takes time before someone that gets caught in these type of things reports it to the authorities, it then takes a bit more time for the authorities to confirm it and shut it down. Who knows how many people will get sucked in before then, and then it is just a matter of rinse and repeat with a new batch of victims.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
I have the fact the she gave her confession after being told by a bunch of lawyers that if she says what they tell her to say then things will go easier for her, which is pretty much what you said. None of this is proof that it happened that way, just that her legal advice told her "do this or things will get a lot worse for you."
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'm also not saying Mike is wrong. All I want is the actual data, not what someone said to get a reduced sentence.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One sided doesn't even start to cover it.
Yet I notice that neither you nor any other troll or shill here has bothered to present any other side, you just keep repeating that Mike is something which he is obviously not in the vain hope that maybe, just maybe, someone might believe you.
Re: Re: Re:
Until then, realize that your views are in the minority,
Heh hehe haha muahahaha Bwahahahahaha!!!!!
Oh wait, you actually believe that?!?
Re: Re: Re: Amounts admitted in court under oath and you still refuse to believe?
Do you have any evidence indicating that these confessions are less than truthful? If so, I'd love to hear it. Impeaching the credibility of each confession is one thing, but I don't see you or anyone else putting forth any evidence indicating that the accused are lying to the court.
Do you have any evidence indicating that these confessions are truthful? If so, I'd love to hear it. Basing your arguments on what someone has said in order to get a reduced penalty is one thing, but I don't see you or anyone else putting forth any evidence indicating that the accused are telling the truth to the court.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here Doofus. I guess you didn't read anything released by anyone other then NPD:
http://boingboing.net/2011/03/25/did-limewire-shutdow.html
http://copyfight.corante.com/arc hives/2011/03/24/cnet_and_others_get_it_wrong_miss_the_actual_story.php
http://torrentfreak.com/us- music-piracy-plunges-after-limewire-shutdown-110324/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Updated
"Mike believed it was true too, or else he wouldn't have allowed it to be posted. It's obviously a joke, and the fact that Mike and his flunky jumped on it shows their bias and lack of critical thinking skills."
Or maybe, just maybe, it appears to be history repeating itself.....
http://www.pcworld.com/article/109808/does_file_trading_fund_terrorism.html
http://w ww.dailytech.com/US+Attorney+General+Piracy+Funds+Terror/article11303.htm
http://www.theregister.co .uk/2004/11/17/graun_piracy_lessons/
A quick google search showed those and many more, but then that's too much like hard work for you isn't it....
Re:
Too funny!! You get my "funny" vote today! :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is already being done
Yby, vg gbbx zr n srj zvahgrf gb haqrefgnaq jung jnf tbvat ba ohg abj gung V unir n pyhr guvf guernq vf njrfbzr!
Re: Re: Re: Rogue
"It's a meaningless term conjured up by the entertainment industry to pejoratively label anything they don't like to convince people that there's something nefarious afoot with sites which are otherwise perfectly legal."
Reminds me of what happened when they started with the 'pirate' label. Kinda makes me want to start my own website, something along the lines of TheRogueSite.org or maybe TheRogueTavern.net
Re: Re: Re:
Strange, you seemed so sure of yourself when talking about child porn, I just assumed you would continue to be sure of yourself when talking about PIPA.....
Re: Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
I was halfway through a reply continuing with the site A/site B, child porn/infringement comparisons but decided that playing by your rules isn't going to benefit anyone. You see your analogy falls apart when you have a look at the differences between child porn and copyright infringement.
Firstly, child porn is classed as a criminal matter where as copyright infringement, in most cases, is a civil matter.
Secondly, child porn is child porn regardless of how you look at it. Digital media may or may not be infringing on someones copyright and it is very difficult for someone who is not the rights holder to know which it is. I notice that you skipped over my reference to youtube/viacom.
The problem for copyright maximalist and other apologists is that the specious copyright arguments fall apart when applied to examples like real life. (You can ignore this sentence, it's just me having a dig at you and feeding the trolls [ie. you.]) :)
Re: I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
I would just like to add to the end of my above post that rights holders should actually be thanking the linking sites for showing them where the infringing media is actually being hosted.
Re:
"Under Protect IP in order to be actionable the linking site would have to be both dedicated to infringing activities AND have no other significant commercial purpose."
So does this mean that The Pirate Bay would be fine under PIPA? It is a website that is dedicated to the free sharing of digital files, regardless of the copyright status of those files. It has been used by thousands of artists to promote themselves and to connect with their fans. It is also a treasure trove of public domain and creative commons works.
So the Pirate Bay is not "dedicated to infringing activities" (it just does not care...) and it has "other significant commercial purpose." So it's fine, right?
I'm bored so I'm feeding the trolls....
Legally created digital media is, well, legal. Child porn is not. Finding free digital media online and linking to it to show others where to find it is legal. Finding child porn online and linking to it is sick (and also [probably though IANAL] illegal.)
Do you see the difference yet?
No? I didn't think you would (troll handbook rule 1: never understand the other sides arguments.)
How about this then. It has been shown time and time again how difficult it is to know what is infringing on someones copyright, what is not infringing, and what the rights holder have, themselves, put online for free (youtube - viacom anyone?). It is easy to tell that an image of naked little children getting it on is sick, disturbing, and illegal.
Regardless of if the site hosting the links knows the copyright status of the media it is linking to, the removal of the linking site does absolutely nothing to remove the infringing material from the Internet. Where as if the rights holders went directly to the source of the infringing material and had it taken down then the (perceived) problem of the linking site will be solved at the same time.
Re: Re: Re:
If my memory serves me right, Mike bet that IF they go to court they will win. I don't believe he bet that they WOULD go to court.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Come to Australia, we will welcome you with open arms. If you come by boat we will even put you up in a lovely resort on Christmas Island all expenses paid for anywhere from a month to a few years (not your choice in how long.....) :)