Ninja, don't talk to him like that! What is your problem? You said:
"why are you so bitter ootb? did someone molest you when you were a kid?"
Say whatever else you want. Call him a an a-hole, or an idiot, or Communist, or unpatriotic, or stupid. DON'T SAY THAT THOUGH. It is cruel, excessive, unnecessary. It made me cry. And no, I'm not him, I'm Ellie Kesselman. I wasn't "molested when I was a kid", and I wasn't fortunate enough to be able to have children.
Ad hominem attacks are facile, but, call me a bad and illogical person, I sometimes find them amusing. Trolls can be amusing too. They usually behave, or leave you unscathed, if you recognize and appreciate the genuine aspects of humor, or sorrow/ bitterness in what they say.
This isn't about being "politically correct", or LBGTQ friendly, or feminist or not being racist, or any of that. It transcends all of it. How dare you toss out remarks about being molested as a child as ridicule in a comment thread. Don't tell me to "lighten up" either. With so many other creative, cruel, clever insults available, you say THAT? You've reached the nadir of worthless.
This is becoming impossible for me to ignore, that
"gun control, anti-abortion restrictions, immigration, gay marriage / civil union rights, medical marijuana, birth control, or any of the other hot topics [are] meant to distract the public from what's REALLY going on".
Seems that way to me too. Sadly, it also seems that regulations, which should help, are being used to serve other, quite separate agendas.
Firedoglake sourced it from The Hill, which says that the more stringent disclosure and reporting requirements will still apply to the president, vice president, members of Congress, candidates for Congress, and some nominees. This is the ridiculous part (via Obama signs STOCK stepback):
[The law] would have required roughly 28,000 senior government officials to post their financial information online, and had come under harsh criticism from federal government employee unions.
There are 28,000 senior government officials EXCLUDING all the members of Congress?! Or considered senior enough such that disclosure of financial information on a publicly available online database was:
...found to be problematic and even dangerous for high-ranking government workers... it could needlessly threaten the safety of government employees abroad, as well as make it difficult to attract and retain talent in the public sector.
Obama shouldn't have signed it into law if it were going to endanger government employees posted overseas! But he did, to get a big flashy spotlight of attention back when he wanted to be popular. Then he gets most of it repealed quickly, over a weekend, with complicity of both parties. We aren't idiots! That makes me feel MORE distrustful of government, rather than less.
I've been aware of Teri Buhl's drama for years. I never was privy to her "elite" protected Twitter feed. Annoying that she was a journalist who reported on news that wasn't accessible to the public (me)! She's vacillated between protected-on, protected-off for her Twitter feed for awhile. Teri Buhl news stories are always high-drama!
TechDirt showed remarkable restraint and courtesy. Buhl comes off as very arrogant and presumptuous. This is especially so, as she has a pending court case against her for harassment of a minor.
Weird spelling, "jurno". That's not a "SoCal Trojan" nor a New Canaan expression. This made me laugh:
It is surprising that she's never seen journalists ignore requests to keep her tweets private, though perhaps it's because there's never been any reason to quote her prior to this.
Given my low-level curiosity about her seeming (self-)importance for years, I enjoyed this post, and the one prior, immensely. Thank you.
The Verge is a fine one to talk! They shamelessly scraped many paragraphs of content yesterday about an important tech legal type news story, from Reuters UK. I could barely find the link, it was tiny with only one word of anchor text, for attribution. They really shouldn't be complaining so loudly about HuffPo!
If you wire transfer the proceeds that you receive for your novel, regardless of the subject matter, to terrorists, you will likely have problems. As a British citizen, if you reside in the U.K., I don't think the U.S. government will be arresting you though. It would be U.K. law enforcement, as they do not encourage the funding of terrorist organizations.
It isn't the publisher that's they're saying is the problem. The government seized the money received as an advance payment for the graphic novel. The government seized it because they believe that the authors of the novel have transferred that money to a terrorist organization.
Although... maybe I understand your point now... there aren't enough details in the TechDirt post to tell. If the publisher is directly transferring the advance payment for the graphic novel to the terrorists, rather than to the authors, that would be a problem. In that case, both the authors (who would have had to request their advance payment be made to someone else), and the publishers who had completed the money transfer would be at fault.
You're right: The funds seizure needs to be based on specific evidence, which shouldn't be a problem to obtain, if it exists.
Of course, you're correct. It is not new, nor does it only happen to books, or obscure works. Movies too, such as "The Manchurian Candidate" were banned. In that situation, the movie was pulled from theatres after release, with a requirement that re-release be allowed after the passage of 25 years. It is a good movie, starring Frank Sinatra and Angela Murder-She-Wrote. I saw it a few years ago. (How did the government decide that 25 years was the right length of time to wait, I wonder?)
Zbigniew, thank you for the URL to that SSRN article! It looks good, based on the abstract. Especially nice: It distinguishes between software patents and patents in other fields where patent law remains functional (as it was for most patents in the past e.g. chemical engineering).
In return, you and others might like browsing through the Patent Reform Group items that I just found on scholarly article bookmarking site, CiteULike.
Thank you, Mike Masnick! I found out about this here, via TechDirt, before anywhere else. You were FIRST.
Here's something for you, as a token of my gratitude https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/data/ It is the download page for all copyright-related data used in preparing the Google Transparency Report. It even includes a data dictionary (and the format is zipped CSV files, not PDF ;o) I think it is a new feature, as the page is time stamped 12 Dec 2012.
Yes! That is my impression too, regarding literary writers, as well as authors of scientific works, of the past. I guess this was 50 or more years ago. I was surprised how complex (congenial, or even colleagial) the relationships were, between the agent-editor and the writer. It was nuanced, i.e. an agent was not necessarily an employee of any publishing firm. Now, I see writers who go with giant publishing firms, with minimal benefit. Even well-known authors, experts in their field, may receive little or no editorial guidance. The same is true with production support, for charts or graphs.
EVERYONE needs editorial guidance. If one self-publishes, then turn to a friend or establish a contract arrangement, if necessary. It is preferable to have an experienced editor, with a firm hand though. I don't understand big publishers at all! They don't even provide this to big-name authors, let alone those who are not. Yet editorial input is so important for a publication's success! It is also one of the few ways of demonstrating a traditional publisher's competitive advantage over self-publishing e.g. through Amazon.
Do publishing firms still employ editors? An editor and an agent might or might not be the same person. The editorial function is for the book content, and the agent is for marketing and negotiating payment, is that how it works? Might you know, um, Lord Binky?
Search engines are not the villains. The Irish newspapers are flailing in frustration with the approaching demise of print media and independent third-party news reporting and journalism. Well, that's my (presumptuous) guess. The copyright concern is something of a red herring (false flag?)... but it is short-sighted to dismiss newspapers as irrelevant, because they haven't evolved and adapted to a profitable business model in a digital, internet era. Remember the idea of public good.
Newspapers and media, biased as some may be, DO have standards of journalistic integrity. Reporters have a code of ethics they must uphold, else they will be fired. I read this article a few days ago, in a tech publication. It expressed regret that independent third-party news and information sources would soon be a thing of the past. The author said that while preferable, they were not viable businesses. As a replacement, CISCO has already hired over 1,000 news writers and Nissan (Toyota) has done the same. They won't be neutral, by their own admission. Corporate news media, as in "CISCO News" or "Nissan News" (not as part of a holding company, but rather, tightly integrated within the corporation) isn't a scenario I look forward to.
Google doesn't need to save the newspaper industry, isn't morally or ethically bound to do so. Yet someone, somewhere, should consider it carefully. I don't know who, I have no ideas about that, nor what can be done.
Authors, musicians, artist, scientists. These people are simply not all that special anymore. For every one that succeeds, mostly by chance, there are a good half a dozen that could rise to fill the hole should most of these people disappear.
They ARE special, now just as in the past. In the past, the exceptional, productive ones weren't necessarily compensated or recognized for their work. Unfortunately, I don't think copyright law is particularly effective for that purpose either, not any longer. Rather, it seems like peripheral interests siphon off a lot, away from the original content creators.
"...copyright was limited to keep a good balance. Now... it has been pushed so far in the direction of entitlement that a growing number of people consider it irrelevant all together."
25 years ago, I considered going to school to be a patent attorney rather than study math and engineering. I was told that patent law was the least lucrative, most difficult type of law, with few job opportunities and poor career prospects. Clearly, something has changed, and not for the better. There was plenty of technological innovation from 1900 through 1990, so it isn't as though there was no need for patent law and copyright then!
Yakko, That isn't a realistic assessment of Facebook versus alternatives. Facebook: Long history of repeatedly violating users' trust and privacy by selling their information, ceasing to do so when caught, then doing it again, AND
Arbitrary censorship e.g. recently removing the anti-Obama caricature as described here... yet banning a woman for posting images of herself breastfeeding her child, but protecting the rights of Facebook users to post (lots and lots of) tragic, graphic historical photographs of naked, living, starving, tortured victims of the Axis countries in World War 2. THAT is so inconsistent, absurd. The WW 2 photos weren't posted for any clear purpose, not that I recall.
versus Twitter: Selective censorship under duress, content accessible regardless of whether or not one is a registered user (I can view very little on FB, as I am not a user). Blogs/ websites: Far fewer incidents of permanent content removal and loss than on FB, even considering ICS and government action as you allude to. Yes, you might lose access temporarily to your website due to the collateral damage effect, or Wordpress blog (if Wordpress is DDoS'd or otherwise taken offline). In most instances, you'll get things back when the over-anxious host calms down, or Wordpress service is restored. FB is like a black hole: Weird dot php URLs, everything transitory. Email and cell phones: For most of us, quite decent. Yes, ISP's operate under FCC oversight, but I believe that the FCC and government(s) in general are less arbitrary than Facebook! Applicable outside of the U.S.A. too. Newspapers: Same as email and cell phones. Major media is less arbitrary than FB.
ALL of the above, be they Twitter, Wordpress, hosting providers, email services, cell phone/ telecom companies, news media or government, are arguably run by more responsible and experienced people than Mark Zuckerberg, who is the uber-controller of FB, both as founder, and as legal owner. Thus ALL of the alternatives that I mentioned (probably lots that I omitted), seem less vulnerable to external influence and irrational censorship than Facebook.