I'm curious, what makes it not funny to you? To me, it's written in such an over the top manner('the removal of earrings is a tell-tale sign that a fight is about to ensue') that it's pretty hard to take it in any way serious.
Apparently we disagree with how we read the articles then, from how I see it, TD pushes the idea that it is, and should be, solely the responsibility of rights holders to find, identify, and file claims on infringing works, as they're the only ones who can reasonably be expected to know what is, and is not, actually infringing.
To a third party, they have no way of knowing if a given file is infringing or not, as who put it up and under what circumstances can totally change the legal status of it.
Hey rights holders. It is your work that is being infringed, and if you want to protect it thai is entirely your problem to solve.
Though I suspect that was meant as sarcasm, yes actually, it is their problem, other people/services/companies are not beholden to help them beyond what the law requires, no matter how much some of them might wish it otherwise.
As for the 'numerous instances of obvious infringement', file a DMCA claim on it, and if it really is that obvious, then odds are good it will be pulled, but again, they are not beholden to rights owners to proactively police that stuff, and in fact shouldn't be expected to, as what is infringing, and what is not, is not nearly as black and white as you seem to think it is.
Well obviously telling them they can't grab everything they can get their hands on, in case it might be useful in the future, is going to completely destroy their ability to do their jobs.
Not to mention having actual, effective oversight and limits on their actions, instead of just doing whatever they want and lying about it when asked? How in the world are they supposed to get anything done if they have to worry about those pesky 'rules' and 'laws' and 'rights of the people' getting in the way?
And terrorists man, terrorists! They may be less likely to kill you than hundreds, if not thousands of other risks that people face on a daily basis, like ladders, cars, and small children, but they're called terrorists for crying out loud, so obviously you've got to be terrified of them and treat them like the worst threat imaginable!
And when they actually try and 'strike a fair and equitable balance', you might have a point, but so far all they care about is 'Everything for me, nothing for you', and offloading any responsibilities or cost they might otherwise have onto everyone else.
Ooh, touched a nerve there did they? Had you actually read what the AC wrote, you'd have noticed they didn't mention piracy anywhere in there, just that they refuse to monetarily support the hypocritical parasites, preferring to give their money directly to the creators, not the worthless middle-men of the labels.
'You just can't quite bring yourself to accept the possibility that Snowden really is that brave and noble and self-sacrificing, can you? That even in this entirely cynical age (and I'm one of the most incredibly cynical people living in it) that maybe, just maybe, he is willing to tell the truth even at the cost of his own future?
Everyone is looking for motives and spin, ignoring the answer that's right in front of them: this guy has -- so far -- told the truth every single time. That's all. Just the truth. And people are so damn uncomfortable with that truth, that rather than to digest it, they'd rather try to micro-analyze Snowden himself.'
First of all, if his actions, that of exposing government actions which are illegal or quasi-legal in order to shed light on and hopefully change them doesn't count as whistleblowing, I'm not quite sure what is.
It would likely help if you would list just what you consider a 'whistleblower' to be.
Also, it's not just me who believes he's a whistleblower...
Well considering thanks to the NSA US tech companies are now seen as highly suspect and not to be trusted, you can bet that's going to lead to some pretty hefty loses there. Perhaps not immediately(ducking out of huge contracts tends to have some hefty penalties), but when it comes time to renew those contracts...
The RSA might have gotten a nice 10 million to sell out their security and reputation, but in exchange no one serious about computer security is likely to trust them ever again, so I imagine that 10 mil is going to seem rather small in the coming years.
Who's speech has been silenced?
If you don't think that having someone looking over your shoulder, even if it's just a suspicion, won't change your actions, maybe make you leery of posting something lest it be 'taken the wrong way' by someone with an axe to grind, then you haven't thought the matter through enough.
If you've got some evidence that the information those reporting on the NSA are presenting is false, by all means, present it, but just trying to shrug them off as 'known propagandists' isn't likely to get you taken seriously.
'If you abandon your principles during a crisis, you were never principled in the first place.' -Unknown
And, I hope you realize, but you pretty much just proved my point there. The idea that it might not be perfectly safe to uphold the rights in the Constitution, that it's acceptable to sacrifice liberties and rights in exchange for a false sense of 'perfect safety' is exactly the kind of thinking the Franklin quote is aimed at.
If you're willing to sacrifice rights and liberties just to feel 'safe', you deserve neither the rights you hold so in contempt, nor the illusionary 'safety' you so desperately want.
Ah, but here's a rather important question: how many of those polled know just what a farce of a 'trial' he would face, should he return to the US?
How many of them think he would be able to defend his actions as a whistleblower, explaining why he did what he did, rather than just 'Did he do X, yes or no?'
Take away the context, the reason for the actions, and the trial would be a joke, a parody of justice, as why is central to his actions(and the actions of any whistleblower), and yet it would be something he would be forbidden to argue or bring up in court.
Thing is though, you walk out of a crooked poker game, that's it, it can't affect you past that. Walking away from a court case that can very much affect you in the future though? That's not 'good advice', that's sheer stupidity and/or hubris.
So basically, your stance is that violating the Constitution is necessary to protect the Constitution. That kind of shit scares me more than terrorists.
As it should, given that stance is doing their work for them. After all, what need does a terrorist have to attack a country, to destroy their rights, freedoms, and inflict harm on the country and destroy the trust the people have in it if the government itself is willing to do so all on their own, whether from panic or a hunger for power?
Moreover, that is the stance of a coward, someone willing to give away any right, weaken and destroy the rights of the people just to get a temporary feeling of 'security', before even more rights are sacrificed so they can continue to feel 'safe'.
Destroying rights for some phantom feeling of 'security', hmm, I wonder if any historical figure has ever weighed in on that one...
'They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' -Benjamin Franklin
Would make for an interesting scheme, but given it relies on the SC acting sane with regards to copyright, and ruling widely enough to affect more than this one case, it would also be a dicey plan to say the least.
And that's assuming the SC didn't just punt it back down for the lower courts to fight over, these days they don't really seem to care much for doing their jobs, much like the rest of the government.