I don't know if 'propagandists' is the correct term. Perhaphs realists is a better term, since all you seem to do is sprout ignorance and continue allowing yourself to be deflowered by these 'companies' while yet being unpaid.
I can respect a paid shill; they do their job and get paid for it, and get paid for saying the dumbest arguments so long as it's flavored correctly. I have no respect for unpaid shills, like you, OOTB and HWNN. You essentially argue and flail about uselessly against someone like Mike, Timothy, Leigh and others , who actually do know how to debate, to argue, for what amounts to zero pay.
Now, I'm not suggesting you cannot defend something for zero pay -- I do as much quite a bit, but it's mostly limited to video games, books or even TV shows -- but when that company is so blatantly anti-consumer, so blatantly trying desperately to curb people's rights, and trying SOOO desperately to save their dying business model by sacrificing to Baphomet, I have to ask you.
In other words, if you're not with one of the six strikes programs you're more fucked because the ISP has no actual recourse against this type of tactic, due to the sheer volume of lawyers and money it would take to defend against it should they decide to settle it in court?
This reminds me rather handily of the old days in Chicago, when you had to pay mob bosses to keep people off of your back, except instead of being 'illegal' it's 'within the probability of law.'
It is a stupid analogy -- by comparing two unrelated industries with one another, not only do you invalidate any point made, you make yourself look like a tool. Safety regulations in the auto-industry are made to make it SAFER -- not to SAVE their business. IP is currently made ENITRELY to save the dinosaur business model, protecting and keeping safe NO ONE. In fact, as it's been reported here, in Ars Technica and other places, it actually harms those artists because of their labels, and ends in them losing more money to their label than to 'piracy.'
To the point where the artists do not own a lick of their own stuff, the labels do.
As for your own comment about rules, regulations and such that shape the way people can innovate -- there is your straw man. The one that assumes all innovation must take place within the confines of the law as written. Part of it is true -- it obviously cannot be innovation that is illegal [except for how Tesla cars, an innovative design, are being targeted and for the auto-industry, made illegal. TV broadcasters would love for Aereo to be made illegal.].
There is no way to 'shape' the way innovation works. Innovation, by its' nature, disrupts the environment people are so often comfortable with, and shapes the very lives we often live, yet in that 'legal framework' patents stifle innovation, as do companies that fear their old business model is being threatened.
As I recall, when Mike made good points to your own 'points', you ceased to respond to THOSE points and kept notching your sword down more and more and more, trying so very desperately to win the argument that you resorted to moving the goal posts, or in terms you can understand, 'yanking the football away.' trying to force everyone to follow the way of arguing you're comforted with.
Bullshit isn't something a lot of people like to eat, nor deal with, and your whole schtich is being a bullshitter. Your arguments would be welcome here if you actually made ANY points whatsoever that weren't utterly laughable in the way they're presented, and utterly fail to comprehend the basics of anything posted in Techdirt or elsewhere. If you offered your shilling services, you could actually get paid for your mind-blowingly useless arguments.
I, too, have an issue with free speech. It may not be something I agree with, so surely it must be taken down, despite being of no [discernible] harm to anyone at the time or recording, nor presumes a direct correlation with violent acts. It is merely 'speech' -- speech that I do not agree with and otherwise revile, but still speech. To suggest that a singular search engine that one can look and find videos -- videos which can and are hidden, or otherwise decked in the smallest of spaces of a vast network -- is responsible for hosting these videos and making money off of them.
What is being used is a common campaign -- youtube places ads alongside content if the content provider wishes to monetize these videos. Google, the owner of youtube [from what I recall, anyways] gets a share of that profit margin. It is a system that does not 'just' target hate speech or terrorism or anything of that nonsense -- nonsense which still has no credible source beyond the daily mail, a hardly credible source -- and is likely worthy of ridicule. Presuming this is credible at all, it is again, not terrorism, but hate speech -- speech that, while it bemoans things and says 'take down the government' or 'shoot Clinton in the vagina' or what-have-you, it is, at ts' core, speech. It says these things, but there is no action done. If there was action done -- a video of a terrorist killing a civilian, blah-de-blah -- then it would be unjust and wrong.
As it stands, it is not. I do not agree with it, but it does not mean it does not belong. If I were to apply my values to the values of youtube and say 'this doesn't belong here, you shouldn't be monetizing it, but if it's there I shall monetize the hell out of it.' there would be zero videos of Bryan Fischer or anyone from the American Family Association posting their bullshit for the world to see, and an influx of cat videos.
You seem to assume it is Google's responsibility to take down videos you do not like of what is presumed, hate speech and terrorism -- the latter of which has no credible source as to whether it is terrorism or not -- it is not. They also do not monetize the videos in question, though they do often put ads in the sides of the videos. The latter is done automatically, the former, through the content creator, whoever that may be.
They're not targetting specific groups or people or terrorists to make money off of them -- it is an automatic process, if you're speaking of what I assume you are speaking of -- done through a service that they have no direct control over. No direct control does not mean 'have no control' by the way; it means thousands upon thousands of lines of code that they cannot possibly sort through individually to find specific places to NOT place ads, some of which qualify as hate speech, but protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
You are being silly if you think this is the responsibility of a specific corporation, and not just the result of an automatic service that does not discriminate on ad placement by any means.
I've heard worse lyrics, concerning anti-government, anti-people, people confessing to robbing someone, and other lyrics about murder, thievery, or what have you.
Does that mean all those rappers deserve jail time as well? Perhaps even worse? No, it doesn't. Off the top of my head, I can think of several songs about murder, some about thievery, robbery, and a lot about anti-guverment. Should Lupe Fiasco, 50 Cent, Ludicrous, Dr. Dre, Eminem, and the like get jailtime for words they never said, just wrote about? It's a lot like being a writer -- just because you write horrific events into your stories doesn't make you a criminal. It's when that escalates into real violence that it does -- not before.
There is no direct threat, no direct correlation. Siblings had a nasty fight, so what? They hammered it out themselves and got over it. I see no wrong doings here at all, except some facebook post, a prior fight with his sibling that admittedly, was pretty bad, but not really damning, and some lyricism that -- while very questionable, and kind of terrible lyrics, are just words that are not translating into action of any sort.
Would you also jail Stephen King, Neal Stephenson, Neil Gaiman, Orson Scott Card and the like for writing what they write? No, you wouldn't.
Intellectual property is a legitimate concept, but as it exists in its' current form -- last I read, 75+ creator's lifespan, which is ludicrous -- it is pretty bull.
That being said, I suspect you assume people [sorry, "pirates."] think that it isn't, and only choose to copy it [whoops, there I go again. "Steal." is probably the only word you'll recognize].
Besides that, using someone's death to further an agenda of further copyright restrictions is just stupid and nonsensical. This can only mean good things, especially since it's the New Yorker -- one of the few 'old media' as you call them, that people trust [though I've personally never heard of them, so I cannot comment on whether or not I trust them.]
Tor is not 'suspect.' Tor is used to legitimately, along with V.P.N. hide your net address and provides actual internet anonymity, something that is REQUIRED nowadays since the Wikileaks situation, to leak information and documents to get them out to the public.
Regardless if it's used to go into the Deep Web for CP, the black market, etc. it also has legitimate uses. Stop pretending everything you do not like has no legitimate uses in today's world, and that the current networks we have are secure -- they aren't. I don't know why you assume Conde Nast is suspect; I suspect that's more from ignorance than actual awareness or knowledge of it, and just deciding to spout off 'this is terribibible! oh my gooooooood!!!!' rather than actually thinking this through.
'Let's see, Mr. Kaskalov, yes, here we go; open heart transplant. Fantastic. Let's see if I can set you up real quick. Just need to contact my IP lawyer for a second, see if I have the rights to the machine and tools I'm using to save your life, and we'll be good to go.
Oh, don't worry. It's not like they can just go 'Naw, you didn't pay up.'..right? Nurse, I did pay the appropiate royalties and everything, right?'
'No, Doctor, you didn't.'
'Welp. Either I'm going to break the law to save your life, or get sued out of business.'
What then happens:
Good Herr Doktor: 'You're on your own pal. Good luck with that failing heart of yours, I'm not going to risk it.'
Bad Herr Doktor: 'Okay, well, whatever. They can sue me all they want, I'm going to save your life and I'm not paying them a DIME for this machine!'
In the future, expect copyright locks, wherein you cannot use the machine you're using, listen to music or drive a car without paying copyright royalties out of the ass, if we let them have their way.
Yes, it's great that my car mechanic has to know about copyright, in order to pay the appropiate royalties to the appropiate company, in order to pay for expensive propietary equipment that's unnecessary, unneeded and useless in order to repair my car or truck, and it's great that he has to take much much much longer to do his job -- something that surely, every mechanic wants to waste his or her precious time on -- in order to comply with maximalist copyright policies that are outdated, out-lived, useless and in a world of technology, backwards hillbilly levels of awful.
I have only two words for any copyright moron who thinks this is even CLOSE to logical:
Contests have winners and losers; without 4chan, though, that deaf school would likely have never gotten this concert, the 10K, or anything. It's unfortunate, but it happens; some people would look at it and go 'it's deaf children, they don't get music, they're deaf' even when the opposite is true. This obviously is not the case for everyone, but, yeah. Without their involvement, another school would've won that 10K and concert, and these deaf kids?
They wouldn't. Life has losers and winners, but face the facts; the deaf school was losing by a margin, 'till 4chan came in and helped them along. I don't see it as a bad thing. The way contests work is irrelevant; it's like moaning about people dying all the time, or children starving in africa. Yeah, it's some bad fucking shit. Some other kid's dead, some others are going to starve.
You'd go mad if that's ALL you ever thought about. That's why you celebrate the victories when they come, not bemoan about the state of the world, or bemoan about the other schools that didn't get it. More than likely, some will come along and donate to the schools that didn't win anyways, out of the goodness of their hearts.
My point is, being a debby downer gets you nowhere in life, so be an Optimistic Owen, and look at the best parts of life that happen when you least expect them to. Just saiyan.
I dunno how this is getting old; a kid's school is now getting 10K and a concert, something that would likely not have been possible without 4chan. Same for that Alaskan Walmart and Pit-Bull. Shit's funny, it works, and it helps people all at once.
What world of reality do you live on, might I ask? Isn't the fact that millions of DMCA notices get issued for false shit a big red flag? Isn't it an issue that false DMCA takedowns can result in legit content being taken down? It should be a wake up call to you and all of your kind that copyright enforcement does nothing but HARM your image, your business, and overall, harm your consumers -- the one's who actually PURCHASE the products you often make.
Show me five cases where DMCA takedowns were legitimately good takedowns that resulted in increased revenue and profits without taking down legitimate content from creators themselves and made it all the better for the 'artist', and I can show you up to ten, twenty, thirty cases where the opposite is true. Prove how that's justifiable in any society. Prove it to all of the consumers who lose legitimate content because of a bogus takedown. Prove it to the consumers and the artists, those who are often burned by the copyright maximalists. Prove it to me right here and now why ip enforcement is good, why any of it is viable, and not worthless nonsense.
So, can you? Can you prove any of it at all? Or would you rather repeat the arguments corporatists repeat ad infineum?
Regardless of whether or not it's in the public domain, the point stands that it is, technically, fanfiction; it takes two minor characters from the book and follows their lives, presumably in the same setting as 'Hamlet.'
Public domain does not mean it isn't fanfiction, though it can create derivative works of fiction inspired by, or perhaps taken by, the author in question.
Also, you seem to be lumping in everything as taking characters, settings, and universe for every section of fan fiction out there, when while it is often true, does not hold true for ALL cases.
For the most part, I'd say it is indeed fanfiction, yet still classic literature by its' own merits.
It's almost sickeningly ironic you utilize the phrase 'fucking evil bunch of greedy dorks.' in defense of people who:
use made up figures to support their arguments.
hate democracy [which they have actually said.]
hate the public and their interest, while thinking you should be grateful for their products, even if they are half-assed nonsense.
treat everyone as if they are a thief, even their paying customers
treat the fans like shit
treat the musicians like shit
refuse to pay musicians what they are owed [see: universal, EMI, etc.]
throttle consumers at every possible standpoint
are incapable of seeing reality, even when it slaps them in their face
are incapable of empathy on any level
are about as stupid as your average backwater Redneck [not all rednecks, as I do know some who are intelligent.]
gleefully abuse their powers to shut down negative reviews of products
abuse the current laws as much as possible to make more profit for themselves
refuse to innovate
refuse to believe piracy is not a lost sale
refuse to compete in a marketplace in which competing with superior products should be the go-to thing, but instead blame it on piracy.
make false claims; for instance, claiming the music industry is collapsing or the film industry is collapsing, when everything says 'no, you're wrong, stop being retarded.'
make up inflated numbers to give their 'research' merit, despite being debunked by top economists many times the world over.
make legislation that hurts consumers, the public, and everyone else but legacy gatekeepers.
and untold more.
And yet you call Google the evil one? Sure, Google has done some weird things these past few weeks. But nothing akin to what the thieves and liars of the RIAA and MPAA do on a daily goddamn basis.
I could write a poem about you, but that would be giving you more credit and attention than you'll ever deserve. I hate people like you, who apologize for Hollywood's actions, who apologize for the thievery, the deception, the hatred and vitriol and uselessness of the RIAA and MPAA. I legitimately hate people like you, who support corporate crones and their dolled up bitches and whores.
I like bitches and whores, men and women both. They know who they are; they don't pretend, and they're not bashful about it.
People like you enjoy pretending. The real world doesn't work on pretend. It works on function, rationality, logicality, suffering and pain and death and most of all, PROGRESS.
You support stopping progress.
And that is why I hate you. By stopping progress, you are forcing us to come to a stand-still, forcing us to stay in one age, an age of anti-innovation, anti-progress, anti-consumer, and anti-quality. You'd like it if Hollywood could continue making half-assed movies that are remakes of a rehashed film series based on a true story without the consequences of making a half-assed film.
Progress, by its' nature, cannot be truly stopped; it's an idea, and ideas cannot be killed. Innovation cannot be killed. Progress continues, even if we have to kill for it.
I don't care if you don't read this. I don't care if you shut the fuck up or continue with your nonsensical bullshit. I just wanted you to know how much I hate you, and people like you.
So kindly fuck off. I hear there's a nice place for you and your kind. It's called the cemetery, where all your lies, thievery, and corporate shilling belong. In a shallow grave.
Yet Sweden refuses to question him, though they are given every chance to, on these charges, but always refuse. Do you not wonder why that is?
Sweden just want him in their country, so they can extradite him to the U.S, so he can face prosecution for whistleblowing and Espionage, which carries with it potential death.
Unless you can provide evidence as to why this is not a logical progression of actions that point to some hefty amount of curious happenings that make no goddamn sense legally and logically, why do you try to defend Sweden and the US on this issue?
I think we all would hate what they would do, but unfortunately, they aren't the worst candidates here, by any stretch of the imagination. I fear Romney/Ryan would do far worse to the country in one term than Obama could in another four years.