"Just because "war" on vices can never be fully won doesn't mean that civilized people can just ignore them."
And when your chosen methods for fighting a "war" on vices has the exact opposite effect to what you intended, and the unintended consequences are worse than what you were trying to prevent in the first place, it's time to completely re-evaluate your approach. Should've been done years ago in the War on Drugs and should've been done years ago in the fight against piracy.
"Copyright makes possible the creation of entertainments, which is desirable."
This comment clearly illustrates your complete ignorance of what actually makes people create content. People would continue creating without copyright, as they did for thousands of years before copyright was introduced.
"What's really futile is expecting Techdirt fanboys to stay on topic, STATE a position, and NOT drag in utterly irrelevant VAST controversies, believing in their foolish way that they've made a point."
Like bringing up Google in every topic that has nothing to do with them?
"Since the NSA programs have been shown to have been operational for several years, but now apparently the threat of terrorist attacks is higher than ever...wouldn't that point to the NSA programs being completely ineffective? "
I didn't think of this first time around, but another compelling possibility is that if the threat of terrorist attacks is indeed higher than ever it's because the US has pissed off more people than ever before. Nothing condones terrorism, but lots of things encourage it...
"...to grift on income streams that should go to content creators..."
You know as well any anyone here that most, sometimes all of the money doesn't go to content creators, only the copyright holders.
"Mega-grifter Kim Dotcom got millions by hosting infringed content. That's not even capitalism, that's THEFT."
Still repeating this hogwash like a Hollywood remake? So many people liked MegaUplaod they gave Dotcom's company millions of dollars in return for providing a service they wanted. That's the textbook definition of capitalism, whereas calling it theft requires brain-anurism levels of stupid.
You did read the bit where the police missed the unarmed man and hit two innocent bystanders right? You're really going to defend that level of incompetence? Do you know anything about basic gun safety?
Selected filmography: Casino Royale (1967) Hammerhead (1968) The Horror of Frankenstein (1970) Up the Chastity Belt (1971) Carry On Henry (1971) A Clockwork Orange (1971) Vampire Circus (1972) Black Snake (1973) Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell (1974) Callan (1974) Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (1977) Jabberwocky (1977) The People That Time Forgot (1977) Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980) Star Wars Episode VI: The Return of the Jedi (1983) Saving Star Wars (2004) Ravedactyl: Project Evolution (2005); short film Perfect Woman (2006) The Kindness of Strangers (2010)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Prowse#Darth_Vader Prowse claims his contract for Return of the Jedi included a share of profits on the film, and although it grossed $475 million on a $32 million budget, Prowse explained in an interview in 2009 that he has never received residuals for his performance. Due to "Hollywood accounting", the actual profits are sent as "distribution fees" to the studio, leaving nothing to distribute to others.
"Don't suppose you have a single citation to back any of these recent nutty allegations, do you?"
Seriously? I don't think even industry insiders would be so bold as to deny any of those claims. There's nothing particularly controversial or surprising there. Just par-for-the-course movie and music biz antics that make their protestations about "immoral" piracy such a joke.
And what about his share of the profits as per his contract? Are you honestly going to claim this movie did not make a profit? Are you going to claim you're on some moral high ground about piracy while trying to justify deeply immoral accounting practices at the same time?
"Content owners distribute their product in a manner they see fit. Just because it isn't in the manner you want, doesn't mean they should. It is THEIR content, they get to decide."
Yeah, keep telling yourself that with your head buried deep in the sand, ignoring what's actually happening in the real world. Artist who don't freak out about not being able to lock down their works and instead make an effort to give fans what they want will go from strength to strength, while those with attitudes like yours will wither and fade.
"This is generally a complaint of non-Americans whose countries have no meaningful creative output of its own. My response to this is that you are not entitled to US content. Maybe you should try some innovation of your own instead of your mindless obsession with American culture."
Really, you're going to throw American exceptionalism into the mix now? Are you deliberately trying to come across as an asshole?